Westminster Hall

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 3 November 2026

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the findings of the Milburn Review into young people and work: interim report, published on 28 May 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to bring this debate forward.

Each generation is judged on the question of whether we leave the next one better off. Will they have greater opportunity, more security and the same hope that we had? Around 1 million young people across the United Kingdom are NEETs: not in education, employment or training. That is one in eight. Of those, six in 10 have never had a job—and the interim Milburn review warns that, without action, that number will be one in six within five years. If we do not act with the magnitude, imagination and substance that this moment demands, we risk failing on that generational question.

How did we get here—or, to put it better, how did we allow our young people to end up in this position? The systems set up in the shadow of the second world war to support and enable a good life for everyone in this country regardless of postcode or wealth are at the very core of meeting the challenge, but we must ask whether they are working as they should. Why does our welfare system spend £25 on benefits for young people for every £1 it spends on helping them into work? Why are young people who could work with the right support being signed off and left there with no route back? Why do 67% of NEET young people tell us that the curriculum does not prepare them for work or life?

The stark reality is that the institutional infrastructure that accompanies the system has been hollowed out, without anything to take its place. That is the youth clubs and community spaces where young people learn to work together, build relationships and find their place in the world; or the Saturday jobs, where they develop vital soft skills, learn the value of responsibility and discover what it means to be part of a team.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Supported internships are an incredibly useful way of supporting young people who have an education, health and care plan along the pathway to work. They cost more and require significant investment, but are very cheap in comparison to seeing that young person living a life on benefits. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be doing all we can to provide more supported internships, because that investment will make a long-term difference to getting people out of unemployment and into work?

[Andrew Ranger]

Yes, I totally agree; I will come on to that point later in my speech.

Too often, politics runs on short-term decisions, whatever the party or the Government. On this issue, short-termism will not do. The young people affected will not accept it, and nor should we. Picture a young person in my constituency of Wrexham—let us call him James. He is talented, but school never worked for him. He moves on to further education, but it is the wrong fit and does not work out. Before long, he is signed off and written off.

This all comes back to a moral mission that touches every postcode. The problem cannot be solved by the state alone; it needs businesses, third sector organisations and community groups—every one of us. It takes a village to raise a child. This is going to take a nation.

Six years ago, we asked young people to carry an extraordinary burden to protect older and vulnerable people from a pandemic. They did it without question. They sacrificed experiences, milestones and opportunities that the rest of us took for granted. That sacrifice is not without its aftershocks, many of which we have seen come to prominence in the last few years, particularly in health and educational outcomes.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. I visited my local employability service, Working Denbighshire, last week. It runs an amazing programme called Barod, which means “ready” in Welsh. It does pre-employability work—working on confidence, social and communication skills and the things that really start young people on that pathway. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be providing that sort of service to all our young people across the UK?

[Andrew Ranger]

I totally agree; that is another thing that I will come on to in my speech.

It is now our turn to repay the debt that we owe young people. Many players will help us to solve this crisis, and one of them is business, both local and national. I want to recognise the businesses already meeting the challenge. Examples from my own constituency include Moneypenny. At national level, Sainsbury’s and Greene King, among others, are giving 100,000 much-needed opportunities to young people. Those are vital, but I ask all businesses to give young people opportunities. They may not necessarily have the skills on paper—on their CVs—but they are undoubtedly talented and will repay the chance that they are given. Spend the extra time doing an in-person interview with an applicant, who will gain much more than they would have in talking to an AI chatbot. Look past the gaps in their CV and see the potential behind it.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He will be aware that Milburn’s interim review found that 23% of young carers are not in employment, education or training and that 40% of those have spent more than 18 months out of employment, education or training, yet they have amazing resilience and experience to bring to a job. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the review’s final report, we must outline a package of support for young carers and encourage businesses to take a chance on young carers and give them an opportunity?

[Andrew Ranger]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is a really good ask of the final review. We must look past the gaps in CVs and see the potential behind them; that faith will be repaid many times over.

Let me turn to the education sector. Milburn reported that two in three NEETs say that the curriculum did not prepare them for work. Careers education often arrives too late, at a time when decisions about the future are already being made. Research by Education and Employers shows that children’s ideas about what they can achieve are being formed by the age of seven and are already being narrowed by gender, background and whom they see around them. Careers education must start earlier than it does currently. By seven, every child should be meeting people from the world of work and seeing where their learning could take them—not to choose a career at that stage, but to open those doors before they are closed.

In the Netherlands, fewer than one in 20 young people is NEET. Work-based learning is built into vocational education. Employers and colleges plan placements together, through a national body that brings them to the same table. Work experience is not an add-on; it is part of the course.

To the third sector organisations doing remarkable work across the country, representatives of some of which join us in the Public Gallery today, I say thank you for all the work that you are doing. Keep going and be loud about it. You are our partners in this mission, and we have a great deal to learn from what you are achieving. In Wrexham, WeMindTheGap’s six-month programme is doing exactly this—getting young people back into work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) said, helping them to build soft skills: confidence and resilience.

I say to the Government that we must share the risk with employers. Support must not stop the day a young person starts work, because a job landed is not a job done. The mentoring and coaching that got them through the door must carry on through the first months, when too many placements fall apart. Let us work with those third sector organisations; let us support them, too, to deliver this. We need to strip away the paperwork. Too many employers who want to help are put off before they even begin. Every form that stands between a willing business and a young person is an opportunity lost.

Also, we need to open up the data. Information exists, but it is not joined up and no one is accountable for the whole of it. That is resulting in a hidden cohort of about 314,000 young people who are NEET, claiming no benefits and invisible to the very systems meant to help them. If we cannot see them, we cannot help them.

However, the answer cannot be designed entirely in Whitehall. Every place knows its own picture best. It knows which employers are hiring, which schools are struggling and which young people have dropped off the radar and why. In my constituency and many others, it will be the local authorities, the schools, the further education providers, the employers and organisations like WeMindTheGap that know the young people behind the numbers.

We need a whole-society approach to tackling this crisis. It takes more than all the individual elements acting alone. It requires families, communities, businesses, educators and public services working together, united by a shared responsibility to give every young person the opportunity to thrive—a system to mind the gaps. If we achieve the above, back in Wrexham James will be getting the support he deserves, on a work placement with a local business, backed by a mentor and a coach every step of the way, slowly but surely getting back on his feet.

Where do we want this generation to be in the next 10 or 20 years? Do we want NEET rates still to be rising because the big decisions, some not easy, were pushed down the track and never delivered, or do we want the phrase NEET to be a historical term—something that was, not something that is? Alan Milburn’s final report will be the moment of truth—not just for us in Parliament, but for businesses, third sector organisations, schools and colleges. It will ask whether we are willing to be partners in the great challenge of our time—one national moral mission; one team.

I thank all the wonderful organisations and individuals who have made this debate possible, and for everything they do to support young people across the country. I also thank Alan Milburn and his team, including Peter Hyman and Shuab Gamote, for their visit to Wrexham to meet our incredible young people as part of the wider work on this report. They have had a massive impact already, and the impact on the future of our country will be substantial. In Wrexham, 10 years from now, where is James? He is in secure, long-term work and is happy, having built a life that he is proud of and fulfilled by. That is all we should want for every young person.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. Due to the number of people who have indicated their wish to speak, there will be a strict time limit of two minutes for speeches, so that we can get through everybody. I call Ann Davies.

09:41

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Let me start by saying that I do not like the phrase “not in education, employment or training”, or NEET; I much prefer LEET, because most young people are looking for employment, education or training. The NEET phrase makes people feel as if they are not trying hard enough, which could not be further from the truth. Young people are hard-working and passionate, and they want to contribute their skills to the workforce, but our system does not set them up for success. Many have not yet found the opportunities or pathways that allow them the space to figure out and find their niche.

Everyone is good at something, but too many young people are not afforded the opportunity to figure out what that may be. The most recent data shows that 14.6% of young people aged 16 to 24 in Wales are not in education, employment or training to the year ending June 2026. That is an unacceptable figure. Nearly one sixth of our talented young people in Wales have not been given the opportunity to thrive and find their place.

One thing that stood out to me from Milburn’s interim report was the impact on place of the levels of young people not in education, employment or training. In rural Wales, barriers to obtaining a driving licence or having access to a car makes that a very visible problem. Young people facing financial constraints are more likely to struggle as a result of those barriers. If we are serious about widening opportunity, tackling child poverty must be a priority. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether the Welsh Cynnal payment will be disregarded for benefit purposes?

I have met so many fabulous young people since becoming the Member of Parliament for Caerfyrddin, and I am really proud to be their MP. Minister, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that every young person, no matter their postcode or financial background, has the same chance to succeed?

09:43

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this important debate.

Alan Milburn’s interim report is stark. Nearly 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are not in employment, education or training. In Gloucester, around 2,500 young people are in that position. When I speak with them, I hear the same thing time and again: they have worked hard, but the opportunities that were meant to be there for them have turned out to be closed doors. They are not lazy: 84% of young people who are out of work or training say that they want a job or to be in education.

The interim report is clear that we need a whole-of-society effort. I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on the issue, but it must be matched by local leadership across the country. That is why I have made it my mission to ensure that no young person in Gloucester is left behind. At the end of this month, I am hosting the Gloucestershire Futures summit at Kingsholm stadium with Gloucestershire county council, bringing schools and colleges, employers, health services, local Government and the voluntary sector into one room. Gloucester’s young people have talent in abundance, supported by fantastic schools, local colleges and training providers. What they need are open doors and clear pathways. I am hopeful that our upcoming summit will help build the consensus needed to deliver them. I am delighted that the Skills Minister will join us for the summit.

One of the big things that I hear from young people is how demoralising it is to apply for hundreds of jobs, only to be ghosted and not receive a reply from employers. However, small businesses in Gloucester tell me that they receive hundreds of applications for a single role. They want to do their bit, give feedback and support young people, but they need help to do it. I am pleased that this Government are acting. The £3,000 youth jobs grant supports any employer that takes on a young person who has been out of work for six months, and the new partnership with hospitality businesses aims to create 100,000 jobs for young people. What more can the Government do to help smaller businesses with practical recruitment support as well as grants to play their part in tackling this crisis?

Gloucestershire’s young people have talent in abundance. I believe that it is our moral mission in Gloucestershire to support them. What they need are open doors. I look forward to Alan Milburn’s final report helping us to open them.

09:45

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

When the Government commission a review, people often just roll their eyes, because we all know there is no better way to kick an issue down the road than with an independent review. Few issues have been kicked down the road as much as doing something about the one in eight young people not in employment, education or training. Given what has been published so far and the conversations that I have had, I am genuinely hopeful that the Milburn review will give us a real shot at change.

I would talk all day about this, but given the time, obviously I cannot. However, I would like to focus on two special areas of the report: rurality and special educational needs and disabilities.

The review has highlighted what is obvious to everyone from south Somerset: transport is a huge barrier to work and further education. Nothing else that a young person or the system does matters. The review highlights that bus journeys in rural England have declined sharply. We have seen this with the No. 11 and No. 54 bus routes in Yeovil. Even if there is a bus, some young people still face three to four-hour delays. We urgently need action to improve rural transport networks and access to affordable driving lessons and tests. The £2 bus fare cap is a good start, but we need a new bus fleet in Somerset and to start looking at more innovative ideas, such as smarter booking for our most isolated communities.

Equally, the Milburn report paints a clear picture of the challenges faced by young people with SEND, who are 80% more likely to be NEET. I have been saying for ages that the lack of early intervention is largely the driver of this problem. That is backed by the report, which highlights that children who fall behind at five years old are, on average, still behind at age 16. I was incredibly happy to hear from academics that the Universal Classroom Project got the increased Government funding that we had been calling for to develop a free profile-building screener for key learning strengths and weaknesses.

I understand that in the final recommendations, Alan Milburn will look to present solutions radical enough to address the scale of the crisis. I can only hope that the Government do something about this.

09:48

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this important debate.

It is clear that we face an urgent national crisis that has devastating consequences. This is a challenge facing every part of our country. I am pleased to say that the number of NEETs in the east of England has fallen since 2024, from 14.2% to 11.7%. However, that figure is still far too high, and behind it our young people are unable to move forward into the next stage of their lives. People should be building skills, gaining confidence and learning how to stand on their own two feet; instead, they are struggling to take those important first steps into adult life. Alan Milburn is right to warn against the emergence of a lost generation.

This is about more than youth unemployment. It is about being disconnected from the education system and the labour market, but also from the opportunity, confidence and independence that good work can provide. There is a cost to young people’s confidence, health and future earnings. The moral crisis is all too clear. We are at risk of abandoning a generation of talented, ambitious people to worklessness, poor health and poverty.

I want to highlight a few things that we are doing in Ipswich and Suffolk to turn the tide. There is the new youth hub funded by the Government in Ipswich, which brings together employers, training providers, careers advice, mental health support and housing support under one roof. That is incredibly welcome. Sizewell C is a transformational project for our energy security, but there is also what it represents to our young people. I was delighted to secure 500 guaranteed jobs for Ipswich from that project. Construction technical excellence colleges also deliver employability support.

We as a Government must ensure no gap in support between the restart scheme, which has been incredibly successful, and the future employment support programme. When there is an apprenticeship to apply for, skills training to access and a career to build for, ambition has somewhere to go. Young people need the ambition, the potential and the opportunity all at the same time. Behind every headline figure is a young person who wants to contribute. Our responsibility is to make sure that chance is there.

09:50

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

Last week, I went back to Hideout, a youth club in Gorton that opens its doors to hundreds of young people every week. I asked some of the kids I met about their future hopes and dreams and they all scrambled to tell me about who they thought they could be; I could genuinely feel the hope in the air. But ask anyone slightly older—a teenager or young adult—and you hear a clear, bleak understanding of the ways that the world is already letting them down. Their hope has faded away.

Almost a million young people are growing up finding themselves not in education, employment or training. Every week I meet young people across the constituency who want to work hard and build a good life for themselves but find that the system is stopping them. A 25-year-old care leaver with no family, no network and no safety net told me that he tries so hard every day to stop himself becoming homeless, Despite being a university graduate, he cannot find secure, well-paid work.

The risk of being not in education, employment or training is not equal: it doubles if someone comes from a disadvantaged background and has low qualification levels, and is far worse in Greater Manchester and the north than in London and the south-east. Opportunity should not be a postcode lottery. Those who need a hand most are being left behind by the Government’s sustained real-terms funding cuts to schools and colleges, despite ever-increasing demand, and because small and medium-sized businesses are unfairly being asked to train up the next generation of workers without the money and support needed to make that a success.

Young people do not need cuts to the universal credit health element, which will just harm those who cannot work. Cutting cash benefits does nothing to improve employment outcomes. What they need is an approach from this Government that acknowledges that investment now will save money in the long run. What they need is change to the very structure of our economy and education system, more flexible and inclusive post-16 pathways and green skills at the forefront.

The Milburn review is clear that urgent action is needed. The question is not whether young people in Gorton and Denton and across the country have ambition, but whether this Government are willing to match it.

09:52

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The Milburn review interim report was clear that in order for the support provided to be fit for young people to enter the workplace today, not only the welfare system but our health and our education systems need to be fundamentally rewired. Education has a critical role to play in preparing young people for the workforce and for life.

What we hear again and again from employers is that young people, even in entry-level roles, have not been able to develop the skills that are essential in any workplace, and indeed for life—skills like communication, problem solving and critical thinking. This is not just about the NEET crisis we are facing today—painful though it is already for so many—or bringing down the welfare bill, although that is vital too; it is about taking the opportunity now to grasp the even greater NEET crisis that may be coming down the track as we face the reality of an economy being fundamentally reshaped by AI.

It is clear that AI is the defining technology of our time. In just a few years we have seen it power breakthroughs in fields as wide-ranging and important as medical diagnostics and research, agriculture and mathematics. That is why it is so fundamental that young people develop the skills they need not only to use AI critically and thoughtfully, but also to exist in a world where things for which we have always relied on humans are increasingly being automated.

I have long argued that an education system rich in the humanities must be at the heart of preparing young people for the age of AI, not just because of the content they would learn, but because of the skills the humanities would encourage them to develop. As part of its research into the future of the labour market, the National Foundation for Educational Research found that it was skills such as collaboration, communication, problem-solving and information literacy that will be most needed by employees in 2035. That is why it is so important that we develop an education system that provides young people with those skills.

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for setting the scene. Alan Milburn’s report held up a mirror to the stark and uncomfortable reality in the United Kingdom that 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are currently classified as not in employment, education or training, but a staggering 84% of them actively want to work, learn or train—the work ethic is clearly there.

The report refers to a system failure across health, education and welfare. There has been a devastating 70% increase in the number of young people struggling with work-limiting health and mental health conditions, and the number with a disability has risen from 21% to 44%. My question to the Minister is: what is being done to help those with mental health issues and depression? That failure costs our economy a massive £125 billion annually.

In Northern Ireland, we see exactly the same structural failure. Cutting funding to local youth work and training programmes has stripped away the last line of defence for vulnerable young people—especially care leavers and those from rural communities.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many young people do not want to go into formalised education? We need to reach out to those communities to try to assist them and deal with this problem once and for all.

[Jim Shannon]

We certainly do. I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

The problem is not specific to the UK mainland; it affects us back home in Northern Ireland to a great degree. We need a complete shift from a passive welfare state to an active working state. Powers and funding must be handed down to local authorities and the devolved Executives, which understand the job markets in their areas. The mental health system must work hand in hand with employment hubs so that getting better and getting into work are part of the same journey—it is important that we marry those two together. Perhaps more importantly, we need to deliver the promised youth guarantee by providing clear pathways into work, education or apprenticeships, and we need a massive expansion of meaningful work experience placements.

I recognise that the Labour Government have a plan for young people, but if we continue to allow 1 million young lives to remain on hold, we are writing off the future of our workforce and fracturing the social fabric of our communities. It is time to treat youth detachment as the national emergency that it is, break down the silos around Departments and give the next generation the genuine opportunities that they deserve.

09:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this incredibly important debate.

Unsurprisingly, Alan Milburn laid out in his interim report that the current system is failing a generation. I had an opportunity to host a meeting with Alan and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to launch Opening Shift, alongside the British Retail Consortium, which has worked with the Department for Work and Pensions and retailers. Opening Shift offers more than 11,000 work placements for young people, with a view to reaching 100,000 jobs by the end of the Parliament, getting young people on to the very first rung of the ladder.

In 2012, the coalition Government scrapped compulsory work experience, despite major objections from employers. A 2015 poll by the British Chambers of Commerce found that 82% of bosses said that pupils under 16 should be offered work placements. For employers to feel confident to take a risk on employing anybody, let alone a young person with limited experience, they need to have the experience of seeing young people grow and develop in the workplace. The role of work placements should never have been downplayed. Critically, they are a first step into the world of work.

In my earlier career, I was lucky enough to work alongside the inspirational Leicestershire Education Business Company, an independent local charity set up to support employers. It still organises and supports young people and employers with work experience locally today.

Data from comparable countries shows that when more 14 to 16-year-olds have employment experience, fewer young people are NEET. In almost every conversation with a NEET young person, the authors of the review found an interest, a passion and a talent, despite the barriers holding them back. I had the same experience on the Work and Pensions Committee. Young people want to work; we just need to give them the inspiration.

09:58

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

The first instalment of the Milburn review has been well received on both sides of the House. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I had the chance to ask Alan Milburn about it a few months ago. One of the things he said, which got a lot of press but has been misunderstood, is that we spend £25 on benefits for every £1 we spend on helping young people into work. Contrary to what some on the right have assumed, that emphatically does not mean that slashing benefits is the way to cure youth unemployment. For years under the Conservatives, jobcentres operated under a sanctions-based culture. That failed. Job hunting is difficult, and totally demoralising job hunters by distrusting their every move is not the way to coach them through their first interviews.

In evidence to the Committee, young people described being made to feel like a “leech”. How does that help anyone? The demand for people to demonstrate that they have submitted large numbers of job applications like notches on a belt has been completely destructive. Local employers have disengaged in my constituency because they have been spammed with poorly targeted applications. We should not be so hasty to write off the current generation as a bunch of snowflakes. Rather, we should remember that the current level of nearly 1 million NEETs is less than the peak back in 2011, when we had 1.25 million. The remarkable fact is that 44% of NEETs are not claiming any kind of benefit at all. Surely, even the most zealous right-winger can see that that challenges the cliché of an out-of-control benefits culture.

Success stems from intervention at an early age. When kids stop attending school, that is a powerful indicator of their likelihood of becoming NEETs later. In that context, the Government’s youth guarantee scheme will not do the trick. It only kicks in after 18 months of unemployment, when the damage is done. It is also not available to kids on benefits. This will not be a quick fix, but actions today will bring huge long-term rewards for the people who matter most: our children.

10:00

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Good morning, Ms McVey; it is a pleasure to have you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing the debate.

The Milburn review gets a lot right. It is right to say that the NEET rate is so high because of decades of structural dysfunction in education, health, welfare and employment support. It is right to say that poverty shapes early childhood and is a contributing factor to how children grow up. It is also right to say that care-experienced young people are particularly at risk of disengagement. Clearly, a reason for that is that support and stability fall away when they are most needed.

The fact that 84% of NEET young people surveyed want to find a job, education or training shows that young people do have a desire for work, contrary to the stereotyping by some politicians and some in the media. Crucially, the report highlights that there are fewer entry-level roles and apprenticeships available—their number is down over 40% in the last decade. The Government must take an early-interventionist approach, provide intensive employment support and work with organisations and charities with comprehensive experience in this area.

However, the Milburn report is weak on the role of incentives in the social security system. It suggests that the system’s design encourages young people to claim and remain on health-related benefits, rather than participate in work and training. That narrow framing is wrong and does not take into account individuals with complex needs having to negotiate a difficult system. Claiming the UC health element of personal independent payment is no easy process. The Government must end the degrading manner of the system and correct the fact that people are often wrongly denied support as a result. For so many, the act of claiming is an undignified and demeaning endurance test. That is a stain on the state. Reform of the system is needed, but it must be achieved with care, compassion and investment.

10:02

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this very popular and important debate.

The Milburn report shows that we have to change how we talk about young people out of work and education. As has just been cited, 84% of those who we call NEETs do not want to be out of work. They do not lack potential or desire; they lack opportunity. That is the problem we have to fix. The report also shows that disconnection begins long before the age of 16, in school. Sadly, I see that in Southampton, where persistent absence has been creeping up year on year.

I very much welcome the push in the curriculum and assessment review to make school more engaging—to broaden the curriculum so that there are more hooks, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, in the humanities. If we allow children to switch off at around 14, they are far more likely to be out of education and training at 18.

Southampton has also shown some great opportunities that work. Safe New Futures is a local charity that works with long-term unemployed young people, combining mental health support and group cognitive behavioural therapy with job-ready skills and vocational training. When I visited, one young person told me that, after an incredibly difficult period, the course had given them the confidence to enter the world of work and pursue their career. Half of the NEET participants in that scheme go on to find work. Saints Works, which is run by Saints Foundation—the charitable wing of our excellent football club—combines skills growth and mentoring, and then in-work follow-up support once someone has got into a job. We also have a young adults employment hub, which brings the council, jobcentre work coaches and youth workers under one roof.

None of those are national schemes; they are all local partnerships that know their young people by name, and that is the lesson I hope the final report draws. My question to the Minister is this: when we respond to the final report, will there be sustained funding for local programmes like these that are getting the work done?

10:05

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing today’s debate.

As a result of “Young people and work”, which is evidence-based and astute in its diagnosis, we understand the long-term sustained challenges. The challenges that young people face today have been sustained through generations. Of course, this is the generation who had Sure Start stripped away and youth services removed, and have been in the straitjacket of the education system—not to mention covid. Young people in society today face multiple challenges—the challenges are high—but we have a great opportunity to change the system.

I have met young people who have been on the Spear programme in York, which gets 78% of young people from long-term unemployment into work. It does not penalise young people but encourages them, giving them confidence and aptitude to engage in work—the skills that are needed to get work, but also to work with employers in the city. That is really important, because employers need to be equally engaged as partners in the programme.

In his diagnosis in chapter 7 of his report, Alan Milburn says that we do not just need programmes; we need a system change, and one focused on outcomes. The one point that I want to draw out for the Minister is that it starts too late. These programmes kick in when young people are 16 and are already on the pathway. We should introduce them into schools, with not only careers support and work placement opportunities, but employability programmes. The Spear scheme is a four-week programme—two half-days a week and then a one session one-to-one where young people get the skills and are driven forward—but then a year of support into work. That is the kind of programme we need.

10:07

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In the north-east, almost one in five young people—over 53,000 young people—are not in education, employment or training. Every week, whether I am in Haltwhistle, Haydon Bridge, Allendale, Bellingham, Prudhoe, Hexham itself, Throckley or any of the other 200 communities that make up my constituency, I meet young people who are being failed in different ways by a system that has for a long time failed to perform for them.

For a long time, constituencies like mine simply have not been part of the national conversation on this issue. Rural youth unemployment has been off the political agenda for quite some time. I think it was in 2012 when the Commission for Rural Communities warned that rural NEET numbers were rising fast and no one in government was taking overall responsibility for it. In my communities, this is a crisis that is rooted in decades of complacency and failure to take on the underlying factors. It is hard enough for young people to find a job at the moment without having to worry about a bus that may never arrive or a train that may not be on time.

I want to touch briefly in the short time I have—I would make a longer speech if I had time—on the requirement for post-16 travel support. We must make sure that any holistic system that comes forward works for the entirety of the communities it serves. In Northumberland, the post-16 support that does exist is targeted largely at the central Alnwick to Morpeth corridor rather than at west Northumberland. The Morpeth Conservatives who run the country council are largely occupied with making sure the system works for that corridor rather than being a holistic solution for the entire county. That is not something that happens by accident; it is due to the ongoing neglect of the west of the county by the county council.

Let me ask the Minister three further things. Will the system be rural-proofed from the start, will the Government look further at councils to bolster the post-16 travel duty, and will they back vocational and SEND provision closer to where young people live, even in rural communities where the headcount is naturally smaller?

10:09

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I want to acknowledge the important role of the Milburn review and its interim report within the broader context of welfare reform. Social security is important in achieving social justice, but it is also a key part of a thriving and resilient economy, providing the necessary safeguards to help people in times of need and a route back to work for those that can.

The Department for Work and Pensions spends roughly £25 on benefits for every £1 spent on employment support. In practice, that means that only around one in five NEETs receive meaningful employment support. That is simply not sustainable. I welcome the emphasis in Milburn’s interim report on strengthening employment support for young people, and I expect the final recommendations of the review to build on that with a clear national strategy.

Such a national strategy is crucial, but what we do locally is equally important, hence the importance of partnering with local providers and career services. In my constituency I have been leading the Aspire project, in which I work with Kirklees college, C+K Careers and local businesses to identify young people who are NEET and pair them with mentors who can offer guidance, support and work experience. The aim is to help them gain confidence in themselves and provide pragmatic advice when it comes to accessing education and employment opportunities. That is a first step, but it is a big step for many of the young people in engaging with colleges and employers. Local and national need to be in lockstep when it comes to the issue of NEETs, so will the Minister please comment on how the Government can help achieve that?

10:11

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey.

The number of young people not in education, employment or training is one of the biggest challenges facing the country. Contrary to stereotype, though, in my experience most young people desperately want the opportunities that previous generations took for granted. The problem is that those opportunities simply are not there for too many of them. That is partly because we have spent so long over the past few years talking about the cost of welfare, but nowhere near enough time talking about the cost of failing to invest in our young people. I am pleased that the Milburn report will reportedly call for much more investment, because we cannot seriously expect to tackle the problem on the cheap.

It is not just about how much we spend; it is about how we spend it. Earlier this year I led a debate in this Chamber on place-based employment support. I made an argument then that I wish to repeat today. The barriers facing a young person in my Southport constituency are not necessarily the same as those facing someone in London or Manchester, so localism matters. We need to give local areas the freedom and resources they need to bring together colleges, employers, jobcentres, health services and community organisations and design support around the people who need it. We need a system that aligns training and education with the types of jobs that might be on offer in the local area. There is no point in training young people for jobs that do not exist locally now, never mind in 10 or 15 years’ time.

What we are debating today has to be part of a wider economic strategy that creates decent jobs in our towns and communities, not just in our big cities. My request of the Minister is simple: let us invest properly, trust local communities to deliver, and judge success not just by how much we cut the benefits bill, but by how many young people we help build decent, fulfilling working lives. Making the country a better place for the next generation should be what we are here in this place to do.

10:13

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Every young person deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Where someone grows up, the circumstances into which they are born and the financial position of their family should never determine the opportunities available to them. We have 1 million NEETs, but we should be clear that this is not simply a question of young people needing to try harder. It is about whether we, as a society, are providing the right opportunities, support and pathways into employment. I particularly want to highlight the challenges facing young people in Derbyshire Dales and our rural communities.

Public transport is often limited, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. A young person living in a village outside Matlock, Ashbourne, Bakewell or Wirksworth might find that a job, apprenticeship or college course is technically available but practically inaccessible. Transport costs can make low-paid, entry-level employment financially unviable. Limited local provision could also mean that young people have to travel considerable distances to access further education, vocational training or specialist support.

Any effective measures must recognise and address those challenges. There are real opportunities in Derbyshire Dales: our tourism and hospitality businesses, agriculture sector, construction industry, care services and growing green economy all need skilled and enthusiastic young people. We should be connecting local people with those opportunities, rather than allowing vacancies and skills shortages to exist alongside young people struggling to find their first job. I welcome the steps that the Government have already taken. The additional £2.5 billion investment in the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy, the ambition to create 500,000 opportunities, expanded youth hubs, apprenticeship support and the local jobs guarantee are important interventions, as is their commitment to removing barriers for disabled young people and those experiencing mental health difficulties. We must recognise that people need different kinds of support and that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work, but there is so much more to do.

In particular, I want to see the expansion of successful local initiatives such as Youth Employment Support Derbyshire, which provides young people with careers advice, training and one-to-one support, and the Unstoppable Derbyshire programme, which helps 18 to 21-year-olds overcome barriers including mental health, financial difficulties and housing problems. Those initiatives demonstrate what can be achieved when support is tailored to individual circumstances. We should build on them and ensure that young people in Derbyshire Dales can access comparable support regardless of where they live.

10:16

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Nearly a million young people are outside education, employment or training. We call them NEETs, but we should consign that term to history as it defines them entirely by what they are not, and it tells us nothing about what they can do or how they can get there. I have been spending a lot of time in Selly Oak. Earlier this year, I brought local employers together to talk about what they were seeing. They told me that too many young people were reaching them without the confidence or basic communication skills needed to get into work.

Some of those problems start exceptionally early: at 10 to 16, not 16 to 24. I have spoken before about boys and young men. Just 62% of boys are school-ready, compared with 75% of girls, and they fall further behind through school. The NEET rate nearly trebles at 18, when the statutory participation age ends. If school has not worked for them and there is no obvious next step, it is disappointingly easy to drift out of sight. I am convinced that we need employers’ involvement much earlier with work exposure to inspire, embolden and enlighten, and to close the gap between expectation and reality across the job market.

The Government should be obsessed with closing that gap. As we invest in rebuilding British industrial capacity, we need to think about where the workforce will come from. If a company is expanding a factory with public support, who are we training to work there? If the company knows it will need technicians in five years, it should be working with schools and colleges much earlier. An apprenticeship will not be the immediate answer for everyone, as some young people will need help before they are ready or before an employer is willing to give them their first experience of work. The youth guarantee needs to reach those people.

Alan Milburn estimates the annual cost of youth inactivity at £125 billion, which is an extraordinary amount of money. Minister, are we working across the Department for Education, the Department of Health and DWP? Are we working earlier with 10 to 16-year-olds? Are we closing the gap between expectations and the reality of the job market? We should be much better at bringing employers and education together, and in doing so we should consign the term “NEETs” to history.

10:18

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this debate. A lot has been said by hon. Members from across the House that I will seek not to repeat, but I would like to push the Minister on a couple of points coming out of the Milburn review. Its diagnosis shines a light on what was known to most of us. Indeed, Stoke-on-Trent has quite often been seen as an exemplar both of where things were terrible and of where things are getting better. Our NEET rate has dropped from 16% to below 10% because of work done by partnerships, but we still have more to do.

Part of that is because our local environment has flexed to do what it needs to, sometimes against Ofsted and Government guidelines. I commend to the Minister the work done by the CEO Futures Forum, which brings together multi-academy trusts from across the city to look at the pathways that young people need now for the jobs that will exist in the future, much as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said. We are constrained by the fact that good apprenticeship providers are unable to take on the numbers of young people who want to do apprenticeships, because they are held back by the de minimis rules under the apprenticeship provider and assessment register regulations. I urge the Minister and her Department to look at how, if this is a moral crusade, we can use our entire arsenal to ensure that every young person has the right pathway. If need be, that should include liberalising some of the rules around the registration of apprenticeship providers so that groups such as Dan Canavan’s Spark Group can take on the young people they want.

I urge the Minister not to fall back on some of the rudimentary politics that suggests that artificially capping the wages we pay young people, in contrast to the wages we pay a full-time adult, is a way to address the NEET problem. People should be paid fairly for the work they do, regardless of their age or the way they do it. That was a Government manifesto commitment, but the siren voices are calling for it to be slowed down. I urge the Government to resist that as much as they can.

10:20

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this vital debate.

The interim report of the Milburn review is as stark as it is comprehensive. It is a damning indictment of a broken system that has left more than a million young people across the country not yet in employment, education or training. That is more than a million young people whose talents, aspirations and potential are at risk of being wasted, leaving long-lasting scars on themselves, their families, their communities and the taxpayer. Such a figure reflects not individual failure but a systemic failure at the heart of Government policy over many years.

For too long, young people have been failed by Governments that lacked the very ambition that they themselves hold. Conservative Governments in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood have presided over a steady erosion of opportunity. Those parties’ level of interest in today’s debate is instructive. They failed to equip young people with the skills they need, they failed to provide the support that young people deserve, and they failed to recognise that lack of opportunity is a driving force behind rising youth joblessness.

We see the career ladder being weakened everywhere. Entry-level jobs have declined dramatically, with 1.6 million fewer opportunities available across the country. The traditional Saturday jobs that many of us had when we were growing up—I worked in our local veterinary surgery—have been disappearing for years, while apprenticeship starts have fallen by 35% over the last decade. The hiring process itself is broken.

Young people desperately want to work, and they need to be given the opportunity to do so. These complex, multifaceted challenges deserve a comprehensive plan that is equal to the generational scale of the crisis, so I urge the Minister and the Government to set a clear direction that fixes youth mental health services, reforms technical education, bridges the transition gap between compulsory education and employment, and transforms the culture in our jobcentres.

10:22

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this debate. Across my constituency of Aylesbury and the villages, there is no shortage of talent or ambition among our young people. What they lack is opportunity, confidence and sustained trust and support. I will share three ideas that I think will help, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

First, we have to recognise the multiple pathways to success in work. Both national and local policy should better recognise and support self-employment and entrepreneurialism as legitimate employment pathways. We have a fantastic example in Aylesbury, where the “Making It” programme run by Youth Concern combines leadership development with guidance on self-employment and the chance to gain direct experience working in the creative industries. The programme has had strong interest from young people, particularly those for whom traditional employment feels too inaccessible or unattractive.

Secondly, we have to measure success not just by how many people enter jobs but by whether they stay in them. The Buckinghamshire College Group offers the “Positive Steps” programme in collaboration with Jobcentre Plus and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust. The jobcentre identifies people who are unemployed, the college provides training through its immersive healthcare suite and its work preparation support, and the NHS trust provides a placement and a guaranteed interview. The important point is that it does not stop there. The college’s programme data shows that 85% of participants are not just getting jobs but progressing into permanent, sustainable NHS employment.

Thirdly, we have to recognise that employment is just one part of young people’s lives. Too many young people experience poor mental health, family difficulties, exclusion from education and other challenges. As a result, they lack the confidence to progress into education, training or employment. Beyond the job interviews and the work prep, they need access to mental health support, as well as wider support to help them recognise and articulate their strengths and skills. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and to making Alan Milburn’s recommendations a reality for young people in Aylesbury and the villages.

10:24

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this debate.

Alan Milburn’s interim report is a thorough and, in places, uncomfortable piece of work, but it is an important foundation for anyone serious about tackling the waste of a million young people’s talent, not least because it takes apart some myths. Some 54% of young people who are NEET told the review that they want to work, and another 30% want to get into education or training. These are not lazy young people: as the report puts it, they are “exhausted”. The mechanisms that used to bring young people into work are working less well. The first rung has thinned. The share of 16 and 17-year-old students doing any paid work has fallen from 35% in 2006 to just 19%.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

UKHospitality highlights that over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector, particularly in areas such as Torbay where hospitality can be the first rung of employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are seeing a crisis of opportunity for young people, rather than a NEET crisis?

[Ian Sollom]

I agree. Opportunities have been thinning for a long time, and that is a big part of the issue.

Employers ask for experience, but the pathways through which experience was once gained have narrowed or gone. The report is blunt about why the system is failing. Britain has not ignored youth employment. It has had the new deal for young people, the future jobs fund, the youth contract and kickstart, but each was abolished once the immediate crisis passed.

Milburn describes what we have as “parallel play”: education is accountable for attainment, welfare for benefit flows and health for treatment, but nobody is accountable for the pathway from childhood to working life. The clearest sign of that is what the report calls the “hidden cohort”: about 314,000 NEETs aged 18 to 24 in England, nearly half of whom claim no benefits at all. They are in no caseload, and no institution is responsible for them.

The system needs a long-term commitment through a permanent architecture. That is why the Liberal Democrats advocate a wholesale overhaul of jobs coaching so that every young person has a real person who sits down with them several times a year and helps them to plan where they want to get to, building on models from the Netherlands and Germany.

Such support has to be delivered locally, because labour markets, transport and employers operate locally. The risk, Milburn warns us, is that without a national framework, devolution can become a delegation of failure. Skills England ought to be part of that national framework, but in its short life it has already been moved from one Department to another, and it remains simply an Executive agency. It needs supercharging; it should become a genuinely independent body with the standing to work across Government, including local government.

The Milburn review estimates that for every £1 the Department for Work and Pensions spent on employment support for young people in 2024-25, about £25 was spent on benefits. In its words,

“The UK’s approach for decades has been to pay the bill for…youth inactivity, rather than invest in preventing it”.

Milburn argues that the Treasury’s usual value-for-money tests do not look far enough ahead to capture the lasting damage of time out of work or training at a young age. Once that is counted, early intervention pays for itself many times over.

In the Budget last week, the Chancellor announced that from the next spending review there will be a ringfenced budget for prevention. The question is whether the support for young people at risk of becoming NEET will go in that ringfenced budget. The report shows that we can already identify many of those most at risk while they are still at school, but the pupil premium stops when a young person turns 16, at exactly the point that the risk peaks. Extending it to post-16 learners, including those in further education, is a long-standing call from the Lib Dems. I hope we see it in Milburn’s prescription. We would also like to see a guarantee to every young person of 100 hours of work experience before they turn 18, so that it no longer depends on who their parents happen to know.

That brings me to who else needs to be part of the solution. Milburn has said that there is a contract at the heart of all this, referring to the relationship between young people and the state. I suggest that the contract is missing a signatory. For most young people, the first job is offered not by the state but by an employer. If the final report’s recommendations are to work, employers must be part of the bargain. Milburn’s own evidence makes the case. He argues that as the cost of employment rises, the case for taking on someone inexperienced becomes harder, unless employers are given the support to offset the risk.

On cost, the national insurance changes of the Government’s first Budget undoubtedly added to the pressure on part-time, entry-level roles, especially in retail and hospitality. That is why we Liberal Democrats have called, at the very least, for a lower rate between £5,000 and £9,100, but cost is only half of it. A large employer can absorb the risk of a young recruit who needs supervision and support; a small firm often cannot, however cheap the hire. That is why we have proposed skills co-operatives as part of the solution, with SMEs pooling training and pastoral support so that no single business carries the whole risk of giving a young person their first start.

I realise that the Minister will not pre-empt the final report, so I have three questions of principle. First, the report highlights that no institution is responsible for this. Does the Minister accept it as principle that someone must be, and should that responsibility be with a named local body working within a national framework that guarantees a minimum standard? Secondly, will employment support and post-16 provision for disadvantaged young people count as preventive spending when the new ringfenced budget is set? Thirdly, before any new obligations are placed on young people, will the Government ensure that the support offer is in place? The report says that inaction or tinkering at the edges is itself a decision—a costly one. I hope the Minister will tell us that the final report will be met with something much more than that.

10:32

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing the debate. I thank all Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who referred to the thoughts of even the most zealous right-wingers. I am not sure where I sit on his zealot-o-meter, but perhaps we will see by the end of my speech—I am sure I will wear it with pride. It is great to be shadowing the Minister; it is always wonderful to debate a fellow Boltonian.

The issues raised by the interim report are made all the more topical by the delay in publishing the final report and by last week’s Budget, which was notable for the absence of any action on the number of young people not in education, employment or training. Alongside the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a figure that should give every Member pause. Over this Parliament, the Government will spend £911 billion on working-age welfare. That is more than £48,000 for every one of Britain’s more than 18 million working households.

There are few subjects this House debates that matter more to the future of our country. Behind every figure in Alan Milburn’s interim report is a young person whose working life is either not starting well or not starting at all.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution I highlighted the issue for young people with mental health issues. That the percentage of those affected went up from 21% to 35% is an indication of a special issue for young people today. The hon. Gentleman will know that through his own constituency, as I do through mine. Does he agree that young people’s mental health must be a priority and that we must focus on them to ensure that they get the employment and the purpose in life that they need?

[Mr Snowden]

Speaking of badges of honour, it is always a badge of honour to be intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I totally agree with his point.

The figures that I just referred to are stark. Youth unemployment reached 15.6% in the first quarter of this year—that is 715,000 young people and 139,000 more than when this Labour Government came to office. Almost a million young people—981,000—are not in education, employment or training. Our youth unemployment rate is now higher than that of Hungary, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Perhaps the most telling finding of all is that six in 10 young people without a job have never worked. For them, this is not about getting back into work; it is about getting a start in the first place.

The Opposition welcome the review and recognise much of its diagnosis. Work is not just a wage; it brings structure, confidence and purpose. Prolonged unemployment early in life leaves a scar on earnings, health and life chances that can last for decades. In Government, the Conservatives understood that. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the kickstart scheme during the pandemic, helping more than 150,000 young people into paid work. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the apprenticeship levy and supported millions of apprenticeship starts. We acted because we knew that the first job matters most. It teaches the value of punctuality and the necessity of taking instructions and it builds social skills in a personal setting.

Since the election, this Government have had more than two years to get to grips with post-covid youth unemployment and the rising cost of welfare. Instead, we have seen a culture of dither, delay and U-turn.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that making it easier for young people to get functional skills qualifications, rather than being stuck in an endless cycle of resits, would allow them to get those qualifications and then on to an apprenticeship and into work, exactly as those at the Aspire youth hub in Witney do so well?

[Mr Snowden]

Tailored support is something that I will come on to shortly.

Worse still, the Government’s own choices have made the problem harder. The rise in employer national insurance and the new burdens of the Employment Rights Act 2025 have made it more expensive and risky to take a chance on a young person. The Government cannot tax the first rung of the ladder and then express surprise that fewer young people are climbing it.

At the same time, spending on personal independence payments for 16 to 24-year-olds has risen from £1.3 billion to £3.2 billion in five years. Some 45% of young people who are NEET now report a disability, and of those who fall out of work or study through ill health, eight in 10 are still NEET two years later. New analysis from the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows just how deep that runs. In April this year, more than two thirds of universal credit claimants in their twenties—some 870,000 young people—were not in work. In just two years PIP claims rose by almost a quarter among 20 to 29-year-olds and by nearly as much among 16 to 19-year-olds. These are not numbers to be managed; they are young lives being put on hold.

The Minister for Social Security and Disability at the DWP has told us that PIP is “not fit for purpose” yet he also said that the current level of spending is not “of great concern.” The House is entitled to know which of those statements accurately reflects the Government’s position. Nor is it reassuring that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is reported to have written to Peter Mandelson:

“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’”.

All of this raises some simple but urgent questions for this Government that I would like to put to the Minister. First, will she confirm exactly when Milburn’s final report will be published and when the Government will respond to it in full? Will the Minister also explain why neither the Milburn review nor the Timms review was allowed to report before the Budget? Secondly, will she set out precisely how those two reviews will be brought together? Will there be a single package of welfare reform and when will it come before the House? Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the rise in employer national insurance has reduced entry-level hiring?

[Alex McIntyre]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman might remind the House how much employer national insurance contributions are for an under 21-year-old earning less than £50,000 a year.

[Mr Snowden]

That is precisely why the Conservative party has pledged to reduce them by 50% to take them down even further.

[Alex McIntyre]

Fifty per cent of nothing is still nothing.

[Mr Snowden]

We are talking about 21 to 24-year-olds.

Fourthly, on the youth guarantee and youth jobs grant, how many young people have actually started a job so far? What is the cost per place and how many remain in unsubsidised work once the subsidy ends? Fifthly, how many apprenticeship starts have there been for those aged 25 since the growth skills levy replaced the apprenticeship levy and how does that compare with the year before?

Finally, will the Government at last accept the offer made by the Leader of the Opposition, repeated at Prime Minister’s questions in June, to work with us on serious welfare reform? That offer stands because we have a plan. Our get to work scheme rests on a simple principle: no young person who can work should leave education and drift straight on to benefits. Every young person would have a dedicated get to work manager and work requirements from day one. It would cost a net £303 million, paid for by streamlining existing employment schemes and as part of the broader £36 billion of welfare savings set out by the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately).

We all share the objective of giving every young person the dignity and opportunity of work, but good intentions are not good enough and another review is not a plan. A working age welfare bill of £911 billion in a single Parliament is not the mark of a system that works; it is the mark of one that is failing both the young people trapped in it and the working families who pay for it. I press the Government for straight answers today: when will they act, how will they pay for it and how will they measure success?

10:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Lilian Greenwood)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this important debate. I know that he has paid significant attention to the NEET crisis, and as he has rightly said before, this cannot be treated as just another political issue. It is one of the most serious social and economic challenges facing the country, as is clear from the fact that 20 Back-Bench Members have spoken in this debate—it is just disappointing that the official Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), is the only representative of his party here.

This challenge requires Government, business and others, including the third sector, to come together to tackle it and to treat doing so as a national cause—a moral mission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said. It is for those reasons that the Government commissioned Alan Milburn’s independent report. We asked him to get under the bonnet of this issue and look across the piece at the deep-rooted causes of long-term trends that have led to almost 1 million young people being stuck on the sidelines, not in education, employment or training—I gently remind the Opposition spokesperson that that number rose by 250,000 between 2021 and 2024, and that youth apprenticeship starts fell by 40% over a decade. Those are young people with talent, ambition and potential who, for too long, have not had the opportunities or support they need to succeed.

As the interim report makes clear, the challenge goes deeper than that headline figure. Around 60% of young people who are NEET are economically inactive, and six in 10 have never had a job. This Government will not accept a generation being left behind. We recognise that there is no single cause of rising economic inactivity among young people. Poor physical and mental health, disengagement from education, a lack of qualifications, limited work experience and difficulty navigating a changing labour market can all play a part. That is why our response must be comprehensive and co-ordinated across education, health, welfare, skills, employers and employment services. Alan Milburn’s final report and recommendations are coming soon, but this Government are already taking action.

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

The Minister listed some of the drivers of the problem, one of which, as many Members mentioned, is transport links, particularly for people in rural communities. As she will remember, the Transport Committee recommended that to help solve the problem, the Government should look seriously at Scotland and institute free bus travel for young people in England. Will the Government look at that again?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend that provision of affordable and convenient transport is vital. I shall leave that to my colleagues in the Department for Transport.

At the heart of the Government’s current approach is the youth guarantee, which will be backed by an additional £2.5 billion by 2029, alongside investment in the growth and skills levy. Together, that funding will support almost 1 million young people and create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn or learn. We are strengthening support at every stage of a young person’s journey, and through an expanded network of youth hubs and the youth guarantee gateway, young people will receive earlier and more intensive support.

We owe young people that support. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, this generation has faced, and is facing, a unique combination of challenges. They are not to blame for their predicament; it is the system that has failed them. As many hon. Members have said, the interim Milburn report found that 84% of NEET young people want to find a job, education or training—and I agree that we need to find a better acronym. The will is there, but it needs to be matched by support and opportunities. We are giving employers practical incentives to create those, including the £3,000 youth jobs grant and a £2,000 apprenticeship hiring payment. Also, I remind all hon. Members that employers pay zero national insurance on employees who are under the age of 21 and earn less than £50,000.

Our wider reform of employment support also matters. The new jobs and careers service will bring together employment, skills and career support, with stronger links between employers, local areas and people looking for work. The objective is simple: to have a service focused not on processing people, but on helping them to find work, build skills and progress. Personalised support will be at the heart of our approach, to help people to access the support that best meets their needs. We have launched new digital tools, expanded community-based delivery and strengthened our employer offer.

We are also increasing access to work experience and training, which will play a critical role in breaking that age-old cycle—no experience, no job; and no job, no experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) got her first chance at a vet’s, and my Saturday job was at the newly opened Superdrug in Bolton. Such opportunities help us to learn what work is like, but far too many young people have not been getting them. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) highlighted, work experience is as important as, if not more important than, ever.

However, where unemployment becomes entrenched, we must go further. That is why the jobs guarantee will offer eligible 18 to 24-year-olds who have been claiming universal credit and looking for work for 18 months a fully subsidised, six-month paid job. That offer is already changing lives for the better. In August, the Secretary of State came to Boots in Nottingham to meet young people who are benefiting from the jobs guarantee. He spoke about how remarkable it was to see the transformation in their self-belief, confidence and hope for the future. We are going to see more of that. Following the first phase of the programme, national roll-out will begin this month across 25 areas. The programme is expected to support more than 90,000 young people over the next three years.

Crucially, we are also extending that opportunity to eligible young disabled people and young people with long-term health conditions. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) will be pleased to hear that from April 2027, eligible young people receiving health-related benefits can voluntarily take up that offer shortly after their work capability assessments. They are going to the front of the queue, because nobody should be written off because of their health. Through programmes including Connect to Work, WorkWell, Access to Work and disability employment advisers, we are bringing employment and health support closer together. Our approach recognises that different people face different combinations of barriers and that we must see people in the round and take a joined-up approach to how we offer support.

We also know that we cannot solve this challenge only when a young person walks through the jobcentre door. Prevention must begin much earlier. There is a strong relationship, as hon. Members have said, between disengagement from school and becoming NEET later in life. That is why improving attendance is fundamental to our approach. We have set a national ambition to increase school attendance to over 94% by 2028-29, and we are supporting schools through clearer expectations, better data and new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—attendance and behaviour hubs. Alongside those actions, we are fixing the broken SEND system and reforming careers provision so that young people have greater exposure to the workplace before they leave education.

I mentioned earlier how crucial work experience is. That is why our ambition is for every young person to receive two weeks of meaningful workplace experience during secondary school, building progressively through key stages 3 and 4. There are 44 careers hubs supporting that work, while additional provision is targeted towards young people who face the greatest barriers.

[Gareth Snell]

The aspiration of work experience is laudable, but the guidance that came out in the recent keeping children safe in education update now requires, if a young person will be spending more than three days in a workplace, that workplace to undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check, as part of its being an unregulated activity. That is a significant barrier for many small businesses, particularly those that have previously hosted young people, but now have to go through the burden of getting a check. Could the Minister take that back to the Department and work with the Department for Education to find a way of ironing out that kink, so that we keep children safe but do not preclude the opportunities they previously had?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of that issue and we are setting about addressing it.

Alongside all those measures, we are reforming post-16 education so that young people can have clearer academic, technical and vocational routes. We are transforming the apprenticeship levy, backed by an additional £1 billion, supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New foundation apprenticeships, fully funded apprenticeships for eligible under-25s and additional support for employers will all create more routes into skilled employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) rightly said, the skills needs are changing in the world of AI.

These reforms represent significant action, but we recognise that the Government must continue to listen and learn. Alan Milburn’s interim report set out starkly the scale and complexity of the participation challenge facing this generation. Our ambition is straightforward: wherever a young person starts from, whatever barriers they face, they should have a genuine route into education, training or good work. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central.

Achieving that ambition means intervening earlier and joining up services across departmental boundaries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said. It means working with employers, colleges and local organisations such as those highlighted by many hon. Members, including Saints Works in Southampton, the Spear Programme in York and Making It in Aylesbury, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said, place-based solutions show great results. It also means refusing to accept that any young person is destined to remain outside opportunity. I should have said that it also means better public transport, especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) emphasised.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is worth noting that 13% of NEETs are university graduates. I meet many people who have just graduated with good degrees from good universities, who are applying for more than 300 jobs and not even getting a response. There is very little talk about support for graduates, and we are disappointed that in the Budget there was no mention of reforming the student loan system that is adding pressure on them. Will the Minister assure us that the Government are looking at the student loan system?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can assure the hon. Member that we are considering the issues for graduates, as well as for younger people leaving school with lower-level qualifications.

Tackling the NEET challenge is not only an economic imperative, important as that is; it is about fairness, aspiration and ensuring that every young person has the chance to build a better future. We look forward to the publication of the final “Young People and work” report in the coming weeks. Its findings will provide an important opportunity to consider what more must be done to address the challenges facing young people today, and to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to participate, to progress and to thrive.

10:55

[Andrew Ranger]

I thank all hon. Members for coming today, for their valuable contributions and for sharing their experiences and the work going on in their areas. Doing that is vital, because we can all learn from one another and take this mission forward. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the spokespeople from the other parties, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), for their responses.

The number of people contributing today shows how important this issue is across the UK. We are at an important moment, because the publication of the final Milburn report is coming up. How we respond here is vital; it will define our country and our legacy here for many years into the future. It will need all of us to fix this issue, and I hope that we can work across the House and beyond to do that. It is clear, from everyone’s contributions here today, that we need a whole-system approach, covering transport, the economic approach, early intervention, local design and delivery, and so many other things that hon. Members have mentioned. Once again, I thank them all for contributing to today’s debate, and thank you, Ms McVey.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the findings of the Milburn Review into Young people and work: interim report, published on 28 May 2026.

10:56

Sitting suspended.

Strangulation: Prevention and Awareness

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention and public awareness of strangulation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Twenty-seven per cent of women killed by men in the UK were strangled to death. That is a shocking statistic that should concern us all, but behind the statistics are the stories of victims and survivors, many of whom have bravely shared their experiences. I want to recognise their courage today, and thank everyone who has helped to bring this issue to Parliament, particularly the Institute for Addressing Strangulation.

One of the reasons why I am grateful to have secured this debate is that far too few people understand how prevalent non-fatal strangulation is or the devastating harm that it can cause. But let me start where I believe we must begin: by listening to survivors. Last month, I attended the IFAS conference, where I met an inspirational woman whom I will call Rose to protect her identity. I want to share her story because it brings home, far more powerfully than any statistic could, the devastating impact that strangulation can have on someone’s life—not just in the moment, but for many years afterwards.

In 2021, Rose was raped in an ordeal that lasted several hours. During this already horrific attack, she was also subjected to strangulation. It was the moment she thought that she was going to die. As Rose explained:

“The strangulation was not a minor detail within the attack; it was central to the violence I experienced.”

In the aftermath, Rose sought medical help at several hospitals, but struggled to obtain an appropriate assessment, have her injuries documented or receive the compassionate, trauma-informed care that she so desperately needed. At one hospital, she waited alone for hours before eventually leaving. At another, her request for photographs of her injuries was not acted on and she was questioned about why she had not reported the rape.

Rose had already endured an horrific attack, yet when she turned to the very services that should have helped her, she was left feeling dismissed and unsupported. The consequences of that failure were significant. Rose waited almost a month before reporting the attack to the police. Even today, she continues to live with the physical and psychological consequences of what happened to her.

Rose’s attacker was eventually sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, with a further five-year extension period. Despite that outcome, Rose describes having to fight for the strangulation to be properly recognised as central to the violence that she experienced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this incredibly sensitive and difficult subject to the House. Back in 2022, we in Northern Ireland introduced legislation for a stand-alone criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 14 years. Strangulation is a terrifyingly accurate indicator of escalating abuse and potential lethality. Does the hon. Lady, who is a friend, agree that if we are truly to protect victims, the Government must work hand in hand with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and local support charities to launch a robust and targeted public awareness campaign, to ensure that healthcare workers, police officers and victims themselves can recognise the signs of non-fatal strangulation before it turns fatal?

[Aphra Brandreth]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Later in my speech I will address the work that has already happened in Northern Ireland to raise awareness, but certainly much more needs to be done.

To return to Rose’s story, the message that she gives us today is really clear:

“Do not wait for a perfect disclosure, a police report or visible injury to take strangulation seriously.”

I want to recognise the positive steps that have been taken to recognise the seriousness of this offence. The introduction of a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important step taken by the previous Conservative Government, recognising that strangulation should be treated as a serious crime in its own right. But legislation is only part of the answer. My question to the Minister is about whether it is working effectively in practice. Are we doing enough to close the gaps between healthcare, safeguarding and criminal justice that have failed victims such as Rose?

Rose’s experience is sadly far from an isolated case. Strangulation is reported in around one in five rapes and sexual assaults, but it is also a particularly serious and dangerous form of domestic abuse, with a quarter of women who access domestic abuse community and refuge services reporting having experienced strangulation or suffocation. It is particularly frightening that strangulation is also a major warning sign of potentially fatal violence. Research has found that women who have experienced strangulation by an intimate partner face around seven times the odds of being killed by that partner. That is why strangulation must be treated as a red line. It is not simply another act of violence; it is a warning sign that must be recognised and acted on before it is too late.

I pay tribute to the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, led by Bernie Ryan, which has worked tirelessly to give victims a voice and improve our understanding of the crime. IFAS has made an invaluable contribution to improving recognition of strangulation and the response to those who experience it. The evidence it has uncovered is staggering: between June 2024 and June 2025, police recorded 44,426 strangulation and suffocation offences in England and Wales, up 13% on the previous year and 87% since the stand-alone offence was introduced in 2022. Some of that increase may reflect better recognition and reporting, which is welcome, but we must not lose sight of what the figures represent. Behind every recorded offence is a victim of an extremely dangerous act of violence. For too many women, strangulation forms part of a wider pattern of domestic abuse and coercive control, with potentially devastating consequences.

The Government have set themselves the ambition of halving violence against women and girls, and I am sure Members across the House will want to see that achieved, but if we are serious about preventing violence against women and girls, we must be serious about recognising strangulation as one of the clearest warning signs of potentially fatal abuse. That means recognising it early, supporting victims and ensuring that police, healthcare and safeguarding professionals understand the risks and act. This is not just about securing justice after a crime has been committed; it is about preventing further violence and potentially saving lives.

IFAS has done remarkable work since the stand-alone offence came into force in June 2022. I hope the Minister has read its recent impact report, which sets out clearly what still needs to change. Let me start with the medical response. To understand why this is so important, we need to understand what strangulation does to the body. Strangulation can restrict the flow of blood to and from the brain. It can cause hypoxia, brain injury and stroke, with symptoms that may not become apparent until after the attack. For pregnant women, it can have serious consequences for their pregnancy and their unborn baby. It can leave lasting psychological scars that survivors carry for years. Yet in many cases, there are no visible signs of injury at all. That means that a woman who walks into A&E looking on the surface as though she is fine may be anything but. If our response depends on what can be seen, we will continue to fail women who need help.

I recently met my constituent, Dr Helen Bichard, a clinical neuropsychologist whose research includes the effects of non-fatal strangulation. She made it clear that healthcare professionals need the right guidance and training to recognise the danger and respond with the compassion that someone such as Rose was denied. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that happens consistently across healthcare services.

There is an inequality at the heart of the current system that must be addressed. If a woman is strangled during a rape or sexual assault, she may be able to access a sexual assault referral centre with specialist medical, psychological and forensic support. But if a woman is strangled by her partner, in her own kitchen, without sexual assault, she does not necessarily have access to the same care or forensic medical examination. The medical risk does not disappear because of the circumstances in which the attack took place, and nor should a woman’s access to proper assessment, documentation of her injuries and ongoing support. That is why I support IFAS’s call for a national pathway, so that wherever a victim first seeks help, they can access the care and support they need. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that proposal.

The same applies to the criminal justice system. Now that non-fatal strangulation is a stand-alone offence, we must ensure that the police have the training and resources to investigate it effectively. Will the Minister update us on how the Government are assessing the implementation of the offence? What more is being done to improve consistency in police investigations and evidence collection?

Improving our response to offences that have already happened is vital, but we must also stop them happening in the first place. That means confronting an uncomfortable truth: strangulation is increasingly being normalised. Young people encounter depictions of strangulation through pornography and social media, often without the information they need to understand the very real dangers involved. We need to get the message across: there is no safe way to strangle.

Sadly, it is not only in pornography that strangulation is being portrayed in ways that risk normalising it. This year, the BBC broadcast Romania’s Eurovision entry, a song called “Choke Me” in which that phrase is repeated around 30 times. I find it deeply troubling that a song that appears to glamorise such a dangerous act was broadcast into family living rooms across the country. I am particularly disappointed that the BBC, funded by licence fee payers, did not heed the concerns raised about the dangerous message the song could send. This is not about censorship; it is about the messages that we are sending to young people, and whether we are doing enough to educate them about the very real dangers of strangulation.

IFAS research found that, among sexually experienced 16 to 34-year-olds, almost two thirds reported having been strangled during sex. That is a deeply concerning finding. We need to talk to young people about healthy relationships and make sure that they understand the very real risks of strangulation. Our public institutions have a responsibility to take these issues seriously. Will the Government raise with broadcasters concerns about the portrayal and normalisation of strangulation?

This debate is particularly timely, because this Friday new criminal offences will come into force in England and Wales that make it illegal to possess or publish pornographic material that depicts strangulation or suffocation. I very much welcome this change, which follows the important work of Baroness Bertin and her review of pornography regulation, but legislation must be effective in practice, so will the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that the new offences are enforced?

Alongside legislation and education, we need to raise public awareness more widely. When Northern Ireland changed its law, it ran a broadcast and poster campaign so that the public understood what had changed and why, yet there has been no equivalent national campaign in England and Wales. A well-targeted public awareness campaign could help to challenge dangerous misconceptions, encourage victims to seek help and make sure that people understand the risks. Will the Minister commit to that today?

Regarding the future of IFAS, I acknowledge the Minister’s letter, which arrived—almost as if by magic—yesterday. I welcome the commitment to meet IFAS to discuss its future sustainability and funding opportunities. Unfortunately, there is no commitment to continued funding, let alone the long-term certainty that IFAS needs. Since October 2022, IFAS has brought together clinical, forensic research and policy expertise that simply did not exist in that form before. The Government have invested more than £2.1 million in that work, and I believe that was money very well spent, but IFAS has been kept going on short-term funding arrangements, sometimes for as little as six months at a time and with very little notice. No small specialist organisation can retain staff, plan its work or protect its hard-won expertise in that kind of uncertainty.

We have invested in building up expertise; surely, we cannot now allow it to be lost. That would be a loss not just for IFAS itself, but for victims, who depend on better awareness, better training and better support, and for the police officers, healthcare professionals and others who rely on the expertise of IFAS to help them to do their jobs effectively. Although the Minister’s letter did not give me the reassurance that I had hoped for, I am giving her an opportunity today to reassure me. Having heard the evidence, will she commit to working with IFAS to secure the long-term funding it needs to continue its vital work?

I will finish by returning to where I began. Rose survived. She found the strength to tell her story and the courage to share it, so that others might be spared what she went through. She should never have had to fight to be believed. The next woman should not have to, either. I also say to anyone listening to this debate who has experienced strangulation: please, seek help. There are organisations that can support you. You do not have to wait until you have visible injuries or have reported a crime to seek medical advice and support.

The previous Conservative Government took an important step by making non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone offence. We must not lose the momentum that that legislation created. We have recognised the seriousness of strangulation in law; now we must make sure that that recognition makes a difference in people’s lives.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVeigh.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), both for securing this important debate and for her tireless efforts in advocating for improved prevention of strangulation and for greater public awareness of the risks that it poses. I was also going to thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution to the debate, but sadly he has left the Chamber.

Before addressing the many points that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made, I will first say that I agree with her on why tackling this issue matters. As she said, this Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and improving our response to strangulation forms an important part of that mission. As she also said, that means recognising the signs early, supporting victims and training professionals to identify those signs.

We know that strangulation is a life-threatening form of violence and abuse, and non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest indicators of future serious violence and domestic homicide. The scale of the challenge is vast. The hon. Member mentioned some of the statistics; around 44,000 strangulation offences were recorded last year alone, up by 13% from the previous year, with research suggesting that over half of young people aged between 16 and 25 have experienced strangulation or suffocation. I thought that nothing could shock me in this job any more, but that last statistic certainly did. There is also worrying evidence that strangulation is becoming normalised among young people.

Let me be clear: there is no safe way to strangle someone. As the hon. Member rightly said, we know that behind every one of those statistics is a victim—a victim living in fear, a victim dealing with trauma, a victim whose life has been put at risk. I thank the hon. Member for sharing Rose’s story, and I thank Rose herself for having the bravery to come forward and tell it. What Rose experienced is shocking and unacceptable, and clearly the failures in her case must be addressed and acted on.

We also know that victims of strangulation can experience serious physical and psychological consequences without displaying obvious signs of injury. Opportunities to identify risks can therefore be missed and victims can be left without the support they need, as the hon. Member rightly said. That is why prevention and public awareness are so important. I assure her that this Government are taking action focused on prevention, but she is right that legislation alone is not enough. There must also be changes in the education, health care and criminal justice systems to prevent and tackle strangulation.

On prevention, we are challenging the harmful attitudes and behaviours that can underpin violence against women and girls through our Enough campaign, which is raising awareness of this abuse. I am happy to send the hon. Member more information about that campaign. We are also supporting young people in and out of schools to understand healthy and respectful relationships by strengthening statutory relationship, sex and health education guidance to include specific teaching on strangulation and suffocation. That is now part of the school curriculum and will be financially supported. As the hon. Member rightly said, it is vital that we get to children early. As she knows, new offences criminalising the possession and publication of pornography depicting acts of strangulation will come into force this Friday. We are taking decisive action to challenge content that can contribute to the normalisation of dangerous and abusive behaviours.

The hon. Member mentioned health, and we are improving the identification of domestic abuse and sexual violence in healthcare settings through the NHS Steps to Safety programme, helping to ensure that victims are connected to specialist support at the earliest opportunity. She gave some really powerful examples of how cases have been missed; hopefully, the roll-out of Steps to Safety will act as a preventive measure, enabling us to get to victims as early as possible. We are also improving research, professional training, clinical guidance and public awareness through our support since its inception of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation. It has become an important centre of expertise. I will come on to its funding in a minute.

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury mentioned the importance of justice. We are bringing perpetrators to justice, even where there is no visible injury, through the stand-alone offence of strangulation and suffocation. The police can already use domestic violence protection notices and orders to provide immediate protection following violence or the threat of violence, and that includes strangulation. I am pleased to say that by the end of this year we will strengthen those protections through the roll-out of the new domestic abuse protection notices and orders, which will provide longer term and more flexible protections against all forms of domestic abuse, including strangulation.

An important part of that is multi-agency working. The hon. Member rightly identified that this is not just a matter of the police doing their part, but one of everybody really focusing on the victim and how best to support their needs. We know that there is more to do. Preventing abuse requires awareness, early intervention and a co-ordinated response across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services. Hopefully, the multi-agency work that we are bedding in will make a difference.

The hon. Member asked about policing. She will be aware that we are introducing specialist teams in every single police force across the country. Hopefully, the domestic abuse protection orders that will sit alongside that will go further in encouraging victims and survivors to come forward and know they will be taken seriously. I have heard, as I am sure she has, that too often victims do not come forward because they do not think that they will be believed. Hopefully, we can turn a corner with that.

The hon. Member mentioned the important work of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, and we agree on how invaluable its work is. The Government are proud to have supported IFAS since its inception, investing more than £2 million in strengthening the research, improving professional practice and raising awareness of this issue. Through that support, the Institute has become a recognised centre of national expertise on strangulation, helping to improve understanding of these crimes across healthcare, policing and the criminal justice system while providing training to more than 22,000 frontline professionals. On funding in particular, she will know and, hopefully, understand that I cannot comment on funding arrangements currently being considered. I can say that I support her analysis of the exceptionally good work that the institute does, and I will push for those decisions to be made as soon as possible, so that we can offer the certainty that it so desperately needs.

I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury again for securing this important debate. I offered her a meeting beforehand, and I am more than happy to follow up on that to talk about this further. This debate has, rightly, highlighted the progress that has been made but also the challenges that remain. We know that strangulation is a serious and potentially life-threatening form of abuse; we know that its impacts are often hidden, and we know that improving awareness, identifying risks early and strengthening support for victims can save lives. While progress has been made through the introduction of a stand-alone offence, improving professional awareness and the work of organisations such as IFAS, there is more to do.

We must continue to improve understanding of the risks associated with strangulation and challenge the attitudes that can normalise this abuse. We must continue to work across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services to ensure that victims receive the support they need and deserve. Although it is action rather than words that will ultimately make the difference, debates such as this one provide an important opportunity for us to review our commitment to working together across political parties, sectors and services. Victims deserve nothing less. By doing this work, we can improve awareness, prevent harm, support victims and ensure that this dangerous form of abuse is recognised, challenged and addressed wherever it occurs.

Question put and agreed to.

11:26

Sitting suspended.

Train Services: Extreme Weather

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of extreme weather on train services.

It is a pleasure to open the debate with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As we all know, we love to talk about the Great British weather but that weather is not particularly predictable and it is becoming more extreme as a result of climate change. Although I was motivated to apply for the debate by the impact of this summer’s heatwave on train services in my constituency, I suspect that hon. Members have come to it with a huge range of weather in mind; I am sure we will hear about something akin to the 10 plagues of Egypt, reflecting the diversity of our great nation.

For many passengers on the Chase line, the turning of the seasons into the warmer months now brings a familiar question: will the train make it to Rugeley? That is not quite the seasonal tradition that people usually have in mind. We might have hoped for a little sunshine, a trip away or an afternoon in the garden but now we will probably have to check whether we can get a train home. Passengers along the Chase line know the problem well: as temperatures rise, delays and cancellations become more frequent. Services are cancelled at short notice and journeys are cut short. The trains that do run are often overcrowded and often halted at Hednesford, with the dreaded rail replacement bus completing the journey to Rugeley Town and Rugeley Trent Valley stations.

My constituent Alan, who heads the Chase Line Rail Promotion group, rightly asked me to tell the House that, for many months this year, trains did not reach Rugeley for much of the day. At best, services were cut from half-hourly to hourly and passengers often did not know even where to catch the bus. As hon. Members will have heard from their constituents, missing a train is not just—as the Tannoy often says—an inconvenience; it can mean missing an appointment, arriving late for work, or even having to lean on friends and family to get home after a long day.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for starting this debate so powerfully. During the July heatwave the East Midlands Railway service between Leicester and Nottingham ran directly and did not stop in between because, the Tannoy said, it was simply too hot. Does the hon. Member agree that students and businesses cannot revolve around a service that works in that way?

[Josh Newbury]

Having grown up in Leicestershire, I am familiar with the line that the hon. Gentleman talks about. There we have another example of how hot weather can affect train journeys. I will describe in detail how it affects my constituency, but he is right to raise how it affects his constituents. It massively impacts those who need to stop off on that line, at somewhere such as Loughborough, and can really affect their lives.

I wanted to make sure that my constituents’ experiences were heard directly in this debate, so my office ran a survey of people who use the Chase line regularly. The responses covered all sorts of journeys: people going to work, students getting to college, and families trying to get their children where they need to be. I want to share details of a few of those experiences.

Rosie told us about her regular 8 am journey from Hednesford to Walsall for college. She said that delays and cancellations have meant arriving late and missing lessons. Replacement buses make the journey much longer and on some occasions she has had to spend around £22 on an Uber just to arrive on time. She told us that she sometimes found out about cancellations only after buying her ticket and then struggled to get a refund.

Another respondent told us about their son’s travelling to college in Stafford. There is no direct bus from where they live, so the train is only practical way for him to get there. Both parents work so they cannot drop everything to drive their son when the train is cancelled. Emma also highlighted the importance of the Hednesford to Rugeley Trent Valley connection for children who travel on to Stafford. There is no direct bus alternative for that journey, either. Without the train, how are those students supposed to get to college? What do those aborted journeys mean for their futures?

The impact on people travelling to work is just as clear. Jack commutes from Cannock or Hednesford to Birmingham New Street. He described repeated delays and serious overcrowding, particularly at peak times. He told me that during hot weather two train-loads of passengers were often squeezed on to one service. He wants more frequent services during the morning and evening peaks—a fair request.

Angela told us about travelling from Rugeley to work at Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital. She uses the train to avoid the difficulty of parking, but the lack of reliability has made train journeys increasingly difficult. On one occasion her outward journey was cancelled so she had to drive to another station. On her return she found that she could not get back to Rugeley, where her car was parked. Lewis, who also commutes from Rugeley to Birmingham, has recently secured a major career opportunity after years of study and hard work, but constant delays and cancellations make it difficult to know whether he will get to work—and, just as importantly, get home. His commute costs him around £100 a month. We know how difficult it is at the moment for young people to get a foothold in their chosen career. Lewis should be able to concentrate on making the most of his opportunities, rather than worrying about whether the train will get him there. His role is hybrid, which helps, but not everybody has that flexibility.

Kris told us that after repeatedly being stranded at work, they stopped going to the station altogether. On some occasions, they had to travel via Wolverhampton and arrange a lift or find another bus because no replacement transport was even provided. Susan described a similar problem on her journey from Rugeley towards Birmingham. Her return service terminated at Hednesford; with no replacement bus, she had to pay for a separate bus outside Tesco just to get her home. Lee described repeated summer cancellations and the explanations that he has been given about infrastructure and signalling. He said that the stretch between Hednesford and Rugeley must have a world-unique microclimate because it is so consistently affected. I am not sure we can scientifically back that one up, but as a Chase line passenger myself, I am very much with him in that frustration.

The survey that we ran also showed how much the uncertainty can affect people’s working lives. I have heard from constituents who have suffered migraines from the stress of their commute, and others who have had to take annual leave because of cancellations. I do not think anybody expects a railway to run completely without disruption. There will always be incidents and occasions when services have got to change—safety must come first, after all—but passengers are entitled to ask why hot weather keeps causing such serious problems and what is being done to address them.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing this debate. Like him, I have surveyed my commuting constituents; as a result, I regularly complain about the unreliability of South Western Railway. It is particularly unreliable whenever there is hot or cold weather. Does he agree that the Government should deliver an investment plan to improve our railway network so that it can adapt to climate change, including by introducing air conditioning on all train services?

[Josh Newbury]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. Extremes in temperature are increasingly affecting our railways. In many cases our lines were not designed to run at temperatures into the high 30s or even below minus 10°, although they are increasingly having to endure those conditions. Those conditions are not going to get any easier—milder winters are not suddenly going to come back—so we absolutely need to make sure that the services in and out of the train are resilient to that reality.

The hon. Gentleman leads me perfectly on to my next point. We know that high temperatures affect the railways. Rails expand in the heat, signalling equipment can overheat and overhead lines can also be affected. Network Rail already takes steps to manage those risks, including through track inspections, painting rails white to reduce heat absorption, and monitoring infrastructure during hot weather. I recognise the hard work that railway staff do to keep services safe in difficult conditions, and I sincerely thank them.

I want to know what more can be done to make the Chase line more resilient. We should not be having to have the same conversations every summer. We all know that hotter and hotter weather will be coming. Passengers need to know that lessons are being learned and that the work is happening before the next heatwave.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In the south-west, we share a lot of those problems. The Salisbury-to-Exeter line runs a reduced service over the summer as a result of “soil moisture deficit”—a catchy term that means the ground is too dry and too hard, and the trains cannot run over it. That is not a new problem: we had a reduced service last year and the year before. Proper planning for what is now our everyday experience of climate change is vital. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Railways Bill, currently in the other place, is an opportunity to ensure that our infrastructure is resilient for the future and is also taking account of our climate targets.

[Josh Newbury]

We are hearing about a different impact from a different part of the country; it is great to get that perspective from the west country. I completely agree that we need to look at how the changing climate will affect different parts of the country in different ways. The different realities, different weather patterns and different topographies all need to be factored in. I also agree that the Railways Bill, which I will come to a little later, provides us with an opportunity to think about resilience when it comes to the future of the railways for decades to come. That is absolutely where our thinking needs to be: in the long as well as the short term.

[Shockat Adam]

As the hon. Member mentioned, Network Rail has itself admitted that the summer was extremely challenging and that it has work to do. Does he agree that apology is not a strategy and that every route, including the midland mainline, needs a published heat resilience plan before next summer?

[Josh Newbury]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point about what we need from Network Rail to ensure that the particularities of each area are taken into account. He is right that such work on resilience to climate change is needed; I hope that Network Rail will take that on board. Recently, I had a meeting with Network Rail and some of the affected passengers in my constituency, and the issue of long-term planning in the face of what we know is going to get worse and worse was part of it. I hope that the hon. Member will have a similar opportunity in his constituency.

Another question is about communication, because people can make other arrangements if they know in good time that a cancellation is happening. It is much harder when they have bought a ticket and travelled to the station to discover only then that the train is not running. Furthermore, when a service is cancelled or terminated early, replacement transport must get people to where they actually need to go.

Thankfully, we already have the diagnosis and the prescription for the Chase line; we just need the fee to dispense the cure. Back when the line was electrified, about a decade ago now, the project ran over budget and the previous Government refused to allocate additional resource; therefore, corners were cut. The track circuits, which tell the signallers where trains are on the line, were bought on the cheap. A model designed for underground railways was used and, unsurprisingly, they do not fare too well outdoors, in particular in the warmer weather. In fact, typically, they trip at any point above 24°. It goes without saying that this summer we had many days when night-time temperatures were higher than that, let alone during the day. That has led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the Chase line for successive summers. Network Rail itself tells us that a full replacement is needed.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In my constituency, passengers on the Bangor-to-Belfast line know about disruption to do with severe weather, in particular where trees grow close to railways. Does he agree that the UK Government should work to support all relevant transport agencies—and, where relevant, the devolved institutions—to audit routes at risk from falling trees and to support prevention measures and actions before the next storms?

[Josh Newbury]

I am glad that fallen trees and leaves have been raised as an issue. We have all heard about the dreaded “leaves on the line” being the reason for service disruption. The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise it. That is an issue in all four corners of the UK, particularly as budgets have been cut and maintenance work has not always been done to the previous standard. He is absolutely right that we need to look line by line to identify where the risks are and to address the most severe ones, in particular, as he said, where trees are at risk of falling before the next season. We know that we have a stormy autumn and winter ahead, so that is a particularly poignant point. He is right that we need to look at that in the longer term as well.

My constituents faced that misery on the Chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tells us that full equipment replacement is what we need. However, I am told that that will cost in the region of £3 million. With budgets being tight, we need the Department to support us with that essential infrastructure correction. At the moment, the alternative being looked at is a coating for the circuits, which might raise their operational temperature to about 30°. That will buy us a bit more time, but will still leave us vulnerable to major disruption next summer.

I hope that the Minister will pass this on to the noble Lord Hendy: my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and I would heartily welcome Minister Hendy to Rugeley to discuss the challenges on the Chase line. While he is there, we should also discuss the urgent need for an accessible footbridge at Rugeley Trent Valley station. The lack of a lift is a total barrier for wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. It can also make journeys difficult for older passengers, people carrying luggage and parents with young children. I heard from an older constituent who found the stairs at Rugeley Trent Valley a barrier to visiting his family. I also heard from a passenger with severely impaired knees, who had to crawl up and down the steep footbridge just to change platforms. No one should have to face that just to catch a train.

I recognise the wider challenges taking place on our railways. London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway have returned to public ownership—an important step in the Government plans for Great British Railways. I welcome the move. Bringing railways closer together, with track and train working closely, should make it easier to plan services, deal with problems and give passengers clearer accountability.

The Government have also invested in new trains and stations right across the west midlands and in the midlands rail hub. That is all really welcome progress, and I want people in Cannock Chase to benefit, too. The wider issue, however, is about the condition of our railway infrastructure and its ability to cope with more extreme weather. Network Rail’s current five-year funding period, known as control period 7, runs from 2024 to 2029. Its total funding envelope is £45.4 billion in cash terms, but inflation has put that settlement under considerable pressure.

The Office of Rail and Road reports that Network Rail now expects to deliver just 83% of its original renewals programme in England and Wales by the end of that period. It has also warned that an increasingly ageing asset base has implications for reliability, performance and safety, and that that could lead to more asset failures over time. We have heard about that from hon. Members. I recognise that the railway faces financial pressures and that difficult choices have to be made, but hotter summers and wetter winters place greater demands on our network, so it is important that we keep the renewals programme under review and ensure that essential work to protect the railway’s resilience is not lost.

The Rail Freight Group has been in touch with me to raise a concern about the Railways Bill, which is currently before Parliament. At present, Network Rail pays compensation to passenger and freight operators when services are disrupted by bad weather and other incidents, which gives it a financial reason to keep services running where possible and to get them back up quickly when things go wrong. Clause 65 would remove the requirement to pay compensation for events outside Network Rail’s control. It is not yet clear whether that includes seasonal weather, but we understand that Network Rail is considering weather-related exclusions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify—if not this afternoon, in writing—what counts as being outside Network Rail’s control and when we can expect that to be defined. If weather-related disruption is included, there is a risk that Network Rail will have less financial incentive to keep services running or restore them, which could impact the Government’s ambitious target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050.

I welcome the Government’s wider ambition to build a railway that people can rely on. The Railways Bill will create a strengthened passenger watchdog that will set minimum standards on many things, such as delay compensation and accessible travel. That is a welcome step towards ensuring that operators are held to account more when things go wrong and that passengers are at the heart of every journey. That is exactly what people on the Chase line are looking for. That line is an important connection for Cannock Chase and southern Staffordshire. It links people to jobs, education and services in Birmingham and beyond, so making it reliable is absolutely part of delivering the Government’s ambition.

I have a few practical suggestions. First, we need a review of the parts of the Chase line that are most vulnerable to hot weather—particularly between Hednesford and Rugeley, as hon. Members have heard me say many times—with a clear plan and a timetable for the work needed. Secondly, we need a proper hot weather plan for passengers, with good information, replacement transport to get people to their destinations and clear arrangements when services are cancelled or cut short.

Thirdly, we need to take a serious look at the frequency and capacity of services, especially at peak times. An hourly service is difficult enough when everything is running normally, let alone when services are disrupted. Fourthly, we need an update on step-fee access at Rugeley Trent Valley, including on the work that is needed and how it can be funded.

The people who responded to my survey are asking for very simple things: Rosie wants to get to college, Jack wants to get to work without being packed on to an overcrowded train, Angela wants to get to and from the hospital she works at and Susan wants to be able to complete her journey home. We can reasonably expect a bit of sunshine in the summer—we might even look forward to it—but the people using the Chase line should not have to spend the warmer months wondering whether the train will run, whether it will get them to their destination and how they will get home if it does not. I hope the Minister takes those experiences seriously and sets out what can be done to make lines such as the Chase line more resilient before next summer. I very much look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

14:48

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate.

Many decades ago, I did an excavation in Rugeley of a Mesolithic cave site. Moving forward a little to the bronze age, we know from the excavations at Flag Fen that our forebears knew how difficult it was to travel across the fenland and how to build, maintain and keep an investment in good routes. Moving forward to the 21st century, it is extremely disappointing that we do not seem willing to put the same level of investment into our transport systems as they did back in the bronze age.

In June and August this year, one third of the trains on the line between King’s Lynn and King’s Cross did not run at all. Of the two thirds that did, 80% were delayed. That is extremely unreliable for commuters, students and people just trying to go about their daily lives—to go to the theatre and sports events. They cannot rely on a train that may or may not come, and may or may not arrive on time.

The other insult is that the train quite often terminates partway through the journey, so someone trying to get back from London will get as far as Cambridge, be told that that is as far as the train will take them and have to work out how to finish their journey from there. I myself have been impacted by that, obviously quite often, with all the going back and forth, but there was a particular instance when I had a surgery in Littleport. I left in plenty of time, but the train that I was trying to catch was cancelled and the next train terminated at Cambridge, so I arrived an hour later than I had intended and therefore was late for my surgery, which is extremely rude, and I really hate being rude to my constituents.

Worse than that is what constituents have written to tell me. One in particular has written to say that because their train has been so unreliable for getting to their job in London, their employer is now putting them under pressure. They are becoming an unreliable member of staff; their employer does not know when they will turn up to work. They are also having to make up the time at the end of the day, which means that they are getting home very late—often later than they expected, because not only have they left late but the train has then been delayed. That makes it a complete nightmare for them, because they have to be up early the next morning to go in.

The reasons are many and various, but one of the main ones is the overhead power lines. They do not like very hot weather. I think they do not like very cold weather either, but in the summer the issue was the very hot weather. However, the really big problem is that the tracks are buckling, because the soil underneath is moving. We have the same problem with our roads. This is a major problem and, with climate change, it will happen year in, year out, so we need to put investment into sorting that out.

I have talked to Great Northern and, in fairness, it is doing a lot to try to make the service less unreliable, but it will need proper funding from Government to help it to address the problem. My constituents rely on the service. As I have said, they need it for getting to work. Many students rely on it because the sixth-form colleges are in Cambridge and they need to get to college. Our main hospital is in Cambridge, so people need to get to the hospital. These train services are vital to people, so I call on the Government to look hard at what the particular issues are with extreme weather and the impact that it has on fen soils and at how we can make our rail lines more resilient so that my constituents can rely on a good train service.

14:53

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and thank him for securing this debate on extreme weather and rail services. He will have known that I would probably turn up to talk about it, because the issue is felt so acutely in my coastal and rural constituency of Truro and Falmouth.

Coastal and rural areas such as mine need a railway that is reliable, resilient and speedy, so that our communities and economy can thrive. In fact, Cornwall has the fastest growing branch lines in the country; demand for rail has soared since covid. Yet in the duchy there is just one rail line going in and one going out. For the 1 million residents of Cornwall and Plymouth, that is all.

Anyone living or working across Cornwall and Devon knows the fragility of that vital link. The line through Devon and into Cornwall sits right on the sea wall at Dawlish and Teignmouth; it is exposed and exceptionally vulnerable to heavy seas. When bad weather hits, this section frequently breaks down, leaving us 1 million people effectively cut off from the rest of the country. In February 2014, the railway line was basically swept away and cut off for eight weeks—the track was hanging into the waves.

Great Western Railway shared with me in August that last winter’s cancellations exceeded 10% of services and punctuality dropped to 75%. As others have said, it is not just about storms and wintry weather. The heat we experienced this summer meant there were four separate lineside fires on the Falmouth branch in July resulting in full cancellations. Alternate branch line services were cancelled because the rails were too hot.

On Saturday the lines in Cornwall were “too slippery”. This is not just a story of severe named storms. Our line is now so precarious that train services get knocked out by standard non-extreme weather. High tides, leaves on the track or routine heavy rain are sometimes enough to trigger speed restrictions, single-line working or total cancellations.

When major storms do hit, the crisis deepens. Storm Goretti closed the route entirely. It was over a day in the end because we could not get home. And just a week later, during Storm Ingrid, I was on the 6 am train home from Westminster when we were halted at Dawlish as massive waves crashed over the track. With one line swallowed by the sea we joined a queue of trains crawling forward on the single operational track. Soon after that, Storm Chandra cut the line off yet again. The human cost of this persistent disruption is immediate. I have constituents contacting me regularly, sharing their frustrations and the impact of the disruption on their lives.

One constituent contacted me about an overfilled train from Reading to Truro that was impacted by Storm Austen, leaving her husband, who was coming back from abroad, heavily delayed. It is unacceptable that passengers travelling thousands of miles across the globe face the greatest hardship on the final leg home through our region. Network Rail teams work heroically round the clock, clearing fallen trees, repairing track faults and executing a £2.6 billion national investment in climate resilience, but our local infrastructure is simply failing to cope. Long-range forecasts warn of increasingly challenging weather this coming winter. It has already started with Storm Austen. With climate change the disruptions will become more frequent and severe unless we take decisive action.

In 2014, after the storms, the Department for Transport started the south west rail resilience programme. Phases 1 to 4 have been completed, but phase 5 at the Teignmouth cliffs has been delayed and is currently unfunded. Phase 5 involves de-watering and stabilising the cliff face. Testing is occurring, but funds are simply not there. There is a very real risk that a cliff could fall on a train. Much of the capital funding has gone to Northern Powerhouse Rail. We have one vulnerable line in and out for our 1 million people. There is no way of flying from Newquay to London most days because we have lost the public service obligation for our airport. It appears that Network Rail accepts that we will get cut off for a day or two when there is inclement weather, which I do not think would be accepted in many other parts of the country.

There are options. Brunel obviously did not think ahead when he designed where the line was going to go. We cannot really blame him, I suppose, but now we look back, we can see that maybe this was not the best place to put it. The Okehampton line has been reopened and—we have always talked about this as a distant dream—a second line could go along by the A30. The Railways Bill will mean that regional transport plans can be considered by Great British Railways. We hope that will apply to our Cornish transport plan as well. GWR will be nationalised in December this year.

Cornwall has extraordinary economic potential. We have immense value to offer the country, partly through the critical minerals that we have under our feet, but we need to remain connected. I am trying very hard to reopen the freight line that runs between Falmouth docks and the Falmouth branch line, which could bring some of those critical minerals in and out of Cornwall. But we need a more resilient line to connect to. The Royal Albert bridge is hard for freight to get across, and the cliffs are difficult to get past. Better rail links are not a luxury. They are a real necessity, particularly when we are out on a limb as we are. We will keep pushing until the far south-west gets the resilient rail network that our constituents need.

14:59

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on landing this really important debate.

Climate change is the real enemy we are facing, whether in the form of extreme heat or storms. Twelve years ago, the storm at Dawlish ripped away the sea wall, leaving it looking almost like a railway line somewhere in South America after a big storm. It resulted in eight weeks of closure down to the south-west of England—eight weeks that massively impacted us. One estimate suggested that the economic impact was around £1.2 billion. I remember getting on trains at Paddington that were usually busy but felt more like the Mary Celeste. It was incredible.

There were five parts to the puzzle of sorting the rail line out, as part of the south-west resilience programme. The fifth and final part remains outstanding, which is extremely worrying. Most of us enjoyed the really good summer we just had—some of us endured it—but the other side of the coin is much wetter winters, which could massively impact the cliffs at Dawlish. The cliffs are the enemy now, rather than the sea, as they could collapse. Work on that is unfunded, and we desperately need the funding. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in his comments.

Further up the line from Dawlish is Powderham, often a place for events. The challenge there concerns the Environment Agency’s choice of a managed retreat from Dawlish Warren, such that the warren, which currently acts as a protector to the estuary, could break and open up the railway line at Powderham to attack by storms and the sea. We need investment to protect that rail line, after we have achieved the success at Dawlish that we are hoping for from the Minister.

I want to reflect on where we are with the heat. In Devon and Cornwall, we have really poor-quality local rolling stock, which is almost life-expired. The perverse thing is that although they are new to us, the trains are third or fourth hand-me-downs from elsewhere in the country. The class 175s were handed down from south Wales, and they have not quite been got running, so even the hand-me-downs do not work. In the north of England, there has been investment in quality rail solutions for the trans-Pennine railways—partly electrification and partly battery. We should have a similarly futuristic rail service for Devon and Cornwall, which would not only be a lot more sustainable in our changing world, but would ensure that we tackle climate change by taking the carbon out of travel on our railway.

A specific challenge facing trains in the south-west is the lack of moisture in the soil, which means that they have to travel particularly slowly. We need to be alive to that issue, as well as to buckling rails. I speak to hoteliers such as the owner of the Berburry hotel, which is quite close to Torquay rail station. She gets international visitors, whose experience on the continent, sadly, is often of a much better-quality rail service. After decades of under-investment, we really need that investment.

I look forward to the Minister’s reflections on the fifth and final piece of the Dawlish puzzle, on how we protect Powderham in the light of the threat I highlighted, and on investment in quality rolling stock for Devon and Cornwall, so that we can face the future with confidence.

15:04

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing such an important—and, given the weather on Sunday, timely—debate. When the weather turns, the Tyne valley finds out very quickly how well looked after its railway has been over the years. Last Tuesday, for example, 20 services were cancelled across the Northern network because of Storm Boelo and the whole Carlisle to Newcastle line was disrupted.

I grew up in my constituency and know what the morning after a particularly rough bit of weather looks like: people get a message on their app saying “Cancelled” or see that message at the train station, they make an apologetic phone call to their boss or client, and they wait for news at home, in the station coffee shop or just hanging around under the shelter. But this is about far more than just one storm. Extreme weather is no longer the exception. Heavy rain, flooding, landslips, high winds and extreme heat are all hitting the safe and reliable running of services, and climate change is the driving cause, as has been said.

The problem is that our railway was not built for this. Most of our infrastructure is of Victorian origin. Around 90% of Network Rail’s assets in my constituency were installed before the year 2000. Our rails are stressed. We exceeded the standard operating limit of around 30° in 2022. Track has been recorded at 51°. The July 2022 heatwave alone cut performance by 40% to 50% and cost £30 million in lost revenue in a single week. We have seen that replicated every year since. The result is buckled track, sagging wires and failing embankments.

Those are the headlines, but behind each disruption is a personal story. In Haltwhistle, closure of the line turns hospital appointments into an ordeal. In Haydon Bridge or Bardon Mill, it means people potentially losing out on a day’s work. In Corbridge, Riding Mill or Stocksfield, it means commuters being forced on to roads that could be flooded or blocked. In Prudhoe or Wylam, it means people being forced on to a bus that carries a fraction of what a train can. Rural lines like those in my constituency feel it first, and feel it worst. Cities have other routes. In the Tyne valley, when the railway goes, all that is left is the A69, which immediately becomes congested.

I want to add to the weather problem the trains problem. I recently wrote to Northern about the lack of capacity between Hexham and Newcastle and across the west of my constituency, including the absence of extra trains when Newcastle United are playing at home. It is hard to square the aspiration of a modern, passenger-focused railway with the fact that predictable surges in demand are managed by existing timetables. Northern has been candid with me that too much of the fleet is approaching the end of its operational life and needs ever more repair. Those units become unavailable unexpectedly because Northern runs many different types of train and not all are compatible with all routes, which limits its ability to move units around to strengthen services.

I am grateful for that honesty, but thinking it through again, when a storm hits and units fail, there is no spare train and no flexibility. An old fleet and an old network are asked to cope with a climate that neither was designed for. That is what 14 years of putting off tough decisions looks like to rural communities in my constituency, some of which face extensive difficulties even getting to the central train line. In Bellingham, Slaggyford, Knarsdale, Allendale or up in Stamfordham, an unreliable local bus that has been cut by the Morpeth Conservatives often does not arrive on time or at all.

I welcome the Government bringing the railway back into public hands and the new trains programme—the Minister is aware of my enthusiasm for that—but the structures are not resilient. Let me put a few challenges to the Minister. First, we need sustained investment in resilience rather than simply repair. We cannot answer extreme weather with more cancellations and permanent reliance on precautionary speed restrictions. Will he look at longer-term funding for renewals and maintenance so that the embankments, drainage and track are built for the climate that we have now and the one that is coming over the hill?

Secondly, we need safety and reliability together. The choice is not between accepting disruption and taking risks. Train drivers see and tell me of ageing infrastructure and extreme weather at first hand. Their experience must be part of how we plan for the decades ahead. Will the Minister make sure that it is?

Thirdly, we need spare capacity. Will the Minister press Northern on how the new trains programme will give the Tyne valley the flexibility to respond when something goes wrong—and when something goes right, like when there is a full stadium on a Mags or Newcastle Red Bulls match day?

Fourthly, we need a plan for the day if it goes wrong. We need proper replacement services, early and honest information, and a recovery plan in place for rural lines before the storm, rather than my constituency feeling like it is consistently improvised after the fact.

There is a bigger argument too: if we wish to hit our climate goals we need to get more people and more freight on to rail. Domestic transport accounts for 30% of our territorial greenhouse gas emissions and road vehicles represent around 90% of that figure. Rail is a fraction of that. A single freight train could replace up to 129 lorry movements. We cannot ask people to switch to rail and give them a railway that falls over at the first sign of trouble. The people of the Tyne valley and my constituency more broadly are not asking for luxury; they are simply asking for a railway that works when the weather does not.

15:10

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing the debate, which is another example of how he continues to deliver assiduously for his constituents—well done to him.

The events of the past year have given us a brutal wake-up call. We have seen record-breaking heatwaves causing rails to buckle, severe storms bringing down overhead lines and torrential downpours flooding key transport arteries right across the United Kingdom. This is no longer a temporary seasonal inconvenience; it is a permanent disruption to the daily lives of our constituents, and it requires an urgent and systematic response.

I want to give a perspective from Northern Ireland, which the Minister will be glad to hear he has no responsibility for. However, I wish him well; he always gives us helpful responses to the questions that we ask. Northern Ireland MPs fly over here, get the Heathrow Express—or, depending where the flight lands, the Gatwick Express or the docklands light railway—and then take the tube the rest of the way. There are occasions when there are delays on the railway due to obstructions. Sometimes there are people on the Heathrow Express line, and last summer a bus hit a bridge and the Gatwick Express was unable to progress any further until the obstacle had been cleared. There are always problems. That is one of the reasons why travelling is one of those things that I endure—because there is always hassle and there are always delays.

While much of the national debate naturally focuses on major inter-city networks, I want to draw attention to the harsh realities facing my people in Northern Ireland, particularly in my own constituency of Strangford. I want to talk about the delays that happen and how they affect people’s daily lives, social engagements and their ability to have normality. We must look at how infrastructure failures are directly impacting two crucial groups: our children trying to access education, and our hard-working citizens trying to travel to work.

Let us look first at our young people and children who are simply trying to better themselves through education. We have students from across the Ards peninsula and the wider Strangford area who travel every single day to universities and colleges in Belfast and right across the Province to Londonderry. Their only way of getting there, if they do not have a car because that would be too expensive, is the railway. On many occasions now, when the rain comes, it is a biblical downpour, and the impact right away on roads and gullies is incredible.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue now is not just confined to the south and south-east of the United Kingdom, as it may have been 20 or 30 years ago, and that given the increasing warming of our climate, it is imperative that all our devolved institutions, both north and south, need to ensure that they take steps to try to mitigate the problem that we see everyone encountering?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for those wise words. He underlines the very issue. When extreme weather hits Northern Ireland, as we have seen with increasingly violent storms and localised flooding, our transport network instantly buckles.

For a student heading from our area to the Magee campus in Coleraine or Londonderry, a single weather-related rail restriction, a flooded track or a missed connection means missing vital lectures, labs and exams. They are fighting against a system where a simple weather warning can completely derail their academic work. We cannot expect our young people to fulfil their educational potential when the physical infrastructure to get them to the lecture hall is entirely unreliable or continually breaks down.

The situation is even more acute for further education college students in my constituency who are travelling south to campuses in Downpatrick. Many of these young people depend entirely on the Strangford lough ferry service to bridge the gap between Portaferry and Strangford village. That ferry is supposed to be a lifeline—a one-mile crossing that replaces what would otherwise be a gruelling 46-mile journey by road. Yet we have repeatedly seen sudden suspensions of the ferry service due to severe storm conditions, high tides and subsequent mechanical strains caused by vessels operating in extreme weather. When the ferry stops, the education of these teenagers stops. Bus substitutions are hastily put in place, but they cannot make up for the hours that are lost. These students arrive at college exhausted and late, or—even worse—they are unable to get there at all. They face attendance penalties through absolutely no fault of their own.

The Minister will probably look at a map and say to me, “Well, Strangford does not have a railway line.” No, it does not, but our workers and our commuters are resourceful. Thousands of my constituents utilise the Belfast to Bangor rail line, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) referred to. It is located just 10 minutes away from the edge of my constituency, so it is a good way to get a mainline train into Belfast; it is not too far away and its location means that people do not have to park their car in Belfast. Our workers, jobseekers and commuters drive, get lifts or catch connecting buses to Bangor station every morning to access a wider employment market in Greater Belfast, where the jobs are.

What happens when extreme weather strikes? On the Bangor line, as the hon. Member for North Down said, trees fall and there are leaves on the line; there are always problems. The Bangor line suffers immediate cancellations, or trains terminate early or skip vital stops, such as the City hospital stop or the Grand Central stop.

When the Bangor line fails due to weather-stressed infrastructure, the knock-on effect on Strangford’s workforce is immediate and devastating. It is the low-wage shift workers, the apprentices and the people who do not have the luxury of working from home who suffer the most. They are left stranded on cold platforms, they lose vital wages and on occasion they face disciplinary action from their employers for being late. Someone cannot say every time, “The train is late again today”, and expect it to be a normal excuse. It is the real reason, but repeatedly using it as excuse does not always work out.

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

It is interesting listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech and realising the commonalities that we have, even though our constituencies are so far apart, with mine being located on the south coast of England.

A lot of my constituents travel outside the city of Chichester for work; similarly, a lot of people living in Bognor Regis and Portsmouth come into Chichester for work. All these people are encouraged to use public transport, but since extreme weather is rapidly becoming just weather, does he agree that it is incredibly frustrating for people who are constantly being told, “We are sorry for the disruptions, but we are experiencing extreme weather”? On 40 days this year temperatures have reached over 30 degrees. Similarly, leaves on the line can stop trains from running; indeed, the other day swans on the line stopped the trains from running on our arterial railway route. We need to get a grip and ensure that trains can run, so that people can continue to work.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has given an incredibly accurate explanation of what happens in her constituency. When we look across the world, we see that Canada has extreme weather—snow in the winter and real warmth in the summer—but they seem to be able to cope with it all right. We must ask ourselves why we cannot adjust or perhaps learn from what Canada does.

I suggest that the social contract is being broken. We are asking people to slog their guts out and go to work every day, yet the state—as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) suggested—is failing to provide basic, resilient infrastructure to allow them to do so safely and reliably.

I say this respectfully: the national funding allocated for weather resilience must not be hoarded by the Treasury or spent exclusively on major English inter-city routes. We need that investment deployed with absolute urgency into regional infrastructure. We need it to be spent on securing the resilience of the Translink services, on stabilising the vessels on the Strangford ferry service, and on ensuring that vital regional feeder lines, such as the Bangor rail track, are fully weatherproofed against extreme temperatures and flooding.

The Minister probably does this already, but just to have it on the record, I will ask him to engage with the relevant Minister in the Northern Irish Assembly. Will he hold discussions and exchange thoughts and ideas about how we can better learn to deal with the extreme weather—whether the warm summers of 35° to 40° or the bad weather in the wintertime—that means that we are not able to travel in the same way? While exchanging those ideas with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, will he commit to resilience funding being released? Let us fix these lines, protect our commuters and ensure that extreme weather stops putting the lives, education and careers of our people on hold.

15:20

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this debate. It is one that I have tried to secure on a number of occasions, because the west of England line runs through my constituency, passing through the towns of Axminster, Honiton and Feniton. I was struck a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) describing how extreme weather has become, simply, weather. That was very well put. In this debate, we could talk about not extreme weather but the impact of climate change on our transport infrastructure.

It is good to see the Minister for Local Transport in his place, because he has been fantastic at securing new railway stations for mid-Devon and Somerset at Cullompton and Wellington, respectively. He does an excellent job in his role, and that is why I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about Liberal Democrat policy as well as the west of England line. The line connects Exeter with London Waterloo and goes via Salisbury. Much of that line, certainly west of Salisbury, is single track. When there is a disruption or delay, that means that the whole timetable gets thrown. Understandably, a lot of residents in east Devon have contacted me about that in the dry hot summers that we have had in the last two years. South Western Railway describes the main consequences of that dry weather as “soil moisture deficit”, which is a euphemism for embankments that are dry. That is largely due to the route sitting on clay. When prolonged heat and drought remove moisture from the soil, the clay shrinks, the embankments move and the track moves, too.

In those conditions, it would be dangerous to carry on as normal. Speed restrictions have to be imposed. We saw the consequences of extreme weather on a railway line that does not have any disruption to the schedule in Lewes earlier this year, when a Southern train derailed. The problem in that case was “track geometry irregularity”, which I think is a euphemism for rails that have bent. In seriousness, I accept that safety has to come first. But we have to acknowledge that while safety is a priority, it is having severe consequences on the people we represent.

I want to consider young people who are trying to build their futures. One person from Awliscombe wrote to me to say that his 17-year-old daughter could no longer get to her apprenticeship for 8 o’clock in the morning, because the only train reaching Exeter at that time had been cancelled. Without any replacement bus service, he and his wife are having to make a 40-mile round trip by car to get their daughter to work. That is not an isolated incident: roughly 550 college students travel on the west of England line to Exeter college. A father from Offwell told me that his daughter, who has just started, is subjected to train cancellations and delays, and often spends two to three hours every day waiting for a train home from Exeter. A mother from Honiton explained how, since both the 7.30 am train and 7.45 am bus have been cancelled, there is no way for students to arrive on time for their 9.45 lectures.

Students are relying on the service to access their further education, but it is also affecting working people. Shelby Gittens is a dental hygienist from All Saints near Axminster. She has been prevented from reaching Exeter reliably before the start of her working day. Due to the delays, her office has had to reschedule her 9 o’clock patients indefinitely until the matter is resolved. Given that Devon is one of the UK’s foremost dental deserts, that is quite a serious consequence for people trying to get dental work in Devon.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Forgive me for being late, but the railway did not want me to be here for the start of this debate. My hon. Friend talks about the impact of delays on the line on working people; we in the west of England are going to be impacted for two years or possibly more by the works at Old Oak Common. For the tiny sum of £12 million, which is just over half of what is being spent every day on HS2, highspeed wi-fi could be put on every one of the 94 trains on the Great Western Railway network. If it was, all those working people like me who get stuck on delayed and slow trains going down to the west of England would not mind an extra 10 or 15 minutes on the journey time, because it would be productive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to fund that project?

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Time is not wasted on a delayed train if there is a good wi-fi connection for the workers onboard, so I recommend that investment in the main line. On the west of England line, which is the poor relation to Great Western, I have heard from constituents who have been trying to get to colleges, schools and businesses, and from patients and families, about the effect it is having on the local economy. Those disruptions often hit the most vulnerable in our society the hardest.

Kathryn Wilkerson from Sidmouth told me that over the course of six journeys to London for work that she made in the summer heat, only one featured working air conditioning. She explained that on multiple occasions when she was on packed trains, she had to pause her journey and get off the train due to dizziness and to avoid fainting from heat exhaustion. Kathryn pointed out that this means that train travel in the heat can be dangerous, and that the rolling stock needs to be updated to adapt to the climate change that we all see.

Students, workers and the vulnerable all tell the same story. People I represent are right to ask why a line of such importance for the network as a whole remains so vulnerable. People can accept that temporary measures may be required because of soil moisture deficit, but this is no longer a temporary measure—it is the second year in a row that a schedule has been introduced for months at a time meaning that trains are only running once every two hours.

Weather-related delays across the country have cost around £370 million over three years from 2023-24, but that is just the narrow economic consequence on the railways, not the wider consequences for all those people whose anecdotes I have described. The Liberal Democrats believe that passengers deserve railways that withstand the climate conditions that we are set to face. Too much of our infrastructure, particularly in the west country, still relies on Victorian earthworks and drainage systems and assets that were not designed for today’s climate—and of course they have been subject to the Beeching cuts. Instead of bringing those facilities into the 21st century, the last Conservative Government left behind a legacy of underinvestment and crumbling infrastructure.

I have corresponded with Ministers in the Department for Transport, not least with Lord Hendy in the other place, about the west of England line. The specific thing that I have sought from Ministers is investment into passing loops on the line. To make an analogy with the road, passing loops are like pulling over to allow an oncoming vehicle to come the other way. I understand from Lord Hendy that if we were to make the case for investment in passing loops in control period 8—the period of 2029 to 2034—we could potentially see them developed at Tisbury, Feniton, Whimple and other places on the west of England line, to enable trains to pull over and to run on a more frequent basis, even when experiencing soil moisture deficit.

What further can the Minister recommend that we do to secure those passing loops in control period 8? More generally, how will the Government accelerate investment in climate resilience so that we can get ahead of the changes we know are coming down the track and make sure that our students, workers and most vulnerable members of society get the transport links they deserve?

15:29

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship yet again, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate.

The challenges posed by extreme weather on our railways are not new. After all, in the early days of British railway innovation, plans could be repeatedly derailed by bad weather. For instance, one of the many challenges with Brunel’s infamous attempts to introduce an atmospheric railway in south Devon was that they repeatedly fell foul of the weather. That part of the country is still acutely impacted by such extremes today, as we have heard from many Members across the House.

Unfortunately, the problems posed by those extremes are not a thing of the past. After a spring and summer in which the performance of our railways has worsened, I commend the hon. Member for proposing this debate. As the Conservatives have repeatedly said—I hope this goes for all sides of the House—the approach to the railways must be evidence-based. Our railways should not be run according to a dogmatic ideology, but according to what serves the travelling public best.

Although Britain has one of the safest railways in the world, we cannot remain complacent. As we recently saw in Spain, rail accidents can have the most tragic consequences and we must do everything possible to avoid them. One approach we need to take involves improving the resilience of our railways—making them much more effective at coping with whatever weather conditions we experience. Given that the railways are performing worse now under almost every metric, that issue is all the more important.

Data for the first six ORR periods of the 2026-27 financial year showed a deterioration in performance across the vast majority of operators. That included delays on services such as South Western, London North Eastern Railway, Southeastern, c2c and Greater Anglia, many of which were performing much better under previous operators. That is reflected in the cost to the taxpayer. According to the DFT’s own numbers, South Western Railway spent £8.25 million on payouts to rail users under its delay repay scheme, despite the fact that fewer than half of eligible passengers actually claim compensation, meaning that that figure should be at least twice as high.

Possibly most worryingly, given the terms of this debate and the importance of addressing extreme weather, Network Rail-attributable delay minutes increased across every region of the UK except Scotland. That means that more delays for passengers were directly attributable to the organisation that manages infrastructure and which is likely to play a leading role within Great British Railways once it is fully established.

As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, the impact that this issue can have on the freight sector is incredibly important. We need to fully understand some of the clauses in the Railways Bill and the impact they could have on what we want to see, which is greater numbers of freight trains taking lorries off the road where appropriate. However, freight companies need to have certainty that that will happen and that they will get properly compensated if there are issues with the network.

The changes we have seen are not small; they are significant. In the southern region in the last few time periods, Network Rail was responsible for over 50% more delays in minutes per 1,000 train miles than during the first few months of 2024. It is worth noting that, considering Network Rail’s comments about the challenges it faced this summer. If the governing manager of our rail infrastructure is facing severe problems with the weather, how can we have confidence that it will be a core part of GBR and manage the process of full nationalisation effectively?

I recognise that a number of these concerns have been raised previously and reiterated today. For example, I understand that some of the Lib Dem Members who spoke today have raised the need to reconsider the current rail stress temperatures, given the much wider range of temperatures we are now experiencing across increasingly hot summers. Furthermore, more modern railway electrification infrastructure is much needed. It needs to be more resilient than the older and, as hon. Members have pointed out, sometimes inappropriate equipment installed over the decades. Given the Government’s cancellation of projects such as the midland main line electrification, it is unclear how they will effectively upgrade the older, less resilient infrastructure. We all acknowledge the costs involved in making significant changes to increase stress temperatures, but the Government must explain how we can maintain our railway in a cost-effective and targeted way. The previous reviews of extreme weather highlighted a clear need to better establish where the problems are and to target the root causes. However, to achieve that, Network Rail must embed cost control into its approach so that its resources are used as effectively as possible across what is a large network.

I share other Members’ love for our environment and acknowledge the need to protect it, but we must ensure that money is allocated to our railways properly and used as effectively as possible. The question is whether Network Rail’s current projects make the best use of such funds. Ministers have unfortunately given less than clear answers to some of my written parliamentary questions about biodiversity projects, so it is sometimes hard to understand how the money allocated to biodiversity is being directed, and whether it is being used in the best way to protect the infrastructure that our constituents across the country rely on.

We have heard from Network Rail about its innovative use of technology to achieve its aims of managing such projects, but does the Minister think that that technology and investment would be better directed towards ensuring that our infrastructure continues to operate successfully during periods of extreme weather? For example, Network Rail uses technology such as thermal imaging to examine issues around earthworks. East Midlands Railway reported savings of about £100,000 from doing that. However, the priority must surely be to ensure that those tools are always directed to improving resilience when facing weather conditions such as those we saw this summer.

Furthermore, in adapting to the changing causes of weather-related delays, we must consider how to build and maintain our infrastructure more cost effectively. Wherever possible, that means removing unnecessary regulations that make it more difficult to carry out the enhancements needed to make our railways more resilient. We cannot allow unnecessary bureaucratic regulations to stand in the way of measures designed to improve the railway’s resilience to the extreme weather conditions we are increasingly facing.

That can be achieved only with funding. The Government’s responses to written parliamentary questions on this matter as recently as September referred to £2.6 billion. However, the official control period 7 delivery plan, published in spring 2024, set out a

“step change in our approach to mitigating the impact of extreme weather…targeting £2.8bn of investment to protect our most susceptible assets, in particular earthworks and drainage to support reliability.”

Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between those numbers? If he cannot do so today, will he write to me?

The summary of regional plans for 2024 to 2029 set out clear spending commitments across all regions amounting to £2.79 billion. Is the discrepancy due to different classifications of maintenance spending, or have cuts to the resilience budgets led to a reduction in the allocated spending? Given that £2.6 billion is obviously less than £2.8 billion, that we have seen significant inflation in the rail sector and that the majority of the spending was earmarked for earthworks and drainage, is the Minister confident that all the necessary money for those projects is being delivered? That is what Members have been asking about today on behalf of their constituents.

The Government’s decision to indefinitely pause phase 5 of the south west rail resilience programme is directly linked to funding and the priorities that they have chosen to pursue. Although we obviously recognise that there are tough decisions to be made on spending, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify precisely how much the Government are spending and whether they expect other significant projects in this space to be halted.

To reiterate the points that were made at the start of the debate, when dealing with extreme weather the Government must focus all their efforts on works that are most cost-effective and deliver for our constituents. Having wasted money on GBR signage, obscure bureaucratic projects and other ideologically driven activities, the Government need to demonstrate that they are prioritising things that matter to our constituents. We understand that our railways are experiencing a different set of challenges resulting from extreme weather conditions, but the Government must adapt accordingly. Otherwise, they will fail to deliver on the targets that are there to support our constituents.

15:39

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

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the tragic train crash in Toledo, Spain, on 28 October and to all those affected. I know that the UK rail accident investigation branch was quick to offer its expertise and support to its counterparts in Spain in the aftermath of the tragedy. I also want to acknowledge the recent derailments at Lewes and Wickford and the collision at Bedford over the summer. My thoughts are with everyone affected by those incidents. I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services and all those involved in the responses.

Those incidents are a reminder of our responsibility to remain vigilant, learn from what has happened and maintain an unwavering focus on safety. As the relevant independent authorities continue their investigations, it is important that we avoid speculation and allow their work to conclude before drawing any conclusions about causes.

I am pleased to speak about the impact of extreme weather on train services. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate, and I thank all other Members for their contributions. If I do not manage to address specific points, I assure Members that the Rail Minister will have heard them, and they can always follow up in writing.

The effects of extreme weather on the railways are felt not as abstract statistics, as my by-election twin, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), said. This is about not just statistics but missed connections, disrupted working days, uncertainty for passengers and freight, and the impacts on local economies and customers. Communities need a railway that is safe and reliable and able to recover quickly when conditions deteriorate.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

In Cumbria, we fully appreciate how disruptive bad weather can be, and we have quite a lot of experience of it, but we do not appreciate why bad weather in Scotland can mean that trains heading north on the west coast main line terminate in Preston, which is nearly an hour away from Penrith and even further away from Carlisle. Will the Minister commit to writing to Avanti and Network Rail to determine why that is and consider solutions that might get my constituents home a bit quicker?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend raises a really interesting question. I do not know the answer, but I will make sure I speak to the Rail Minister and see what answers we can get for my hon. Friend.

This summer brought the challenges we are discussing into sharp focus. The UK experienced five widespread heatwaves between May and August. In June, the Met Office issued a rare red extreme heat warning. During the most severe conditions, on 24 and 25 June, passengers were advised to make only essential journeys in affected areas, including the west midlands. Services continued to run, but safety required reduced speeds and amended timetables. That meant longer journeys and a greater risk of delays, cancellations and late changes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is right to highlight the experience in his constituency. This summer, heat reduced Chase line services, while intense rainfall flooded the railway between Hednesford and Rugeley and forced trains to terminate at Hednesford. Further storms disrupted services in October. These events reinforce the need for better preparations, including drainage, targeted investment in resilience and strong local partnership working. Network Rail has produced a weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan for each of our regions, and those plans indicate where investment may be needed during hot weather and how issues can be addressed.

The first duty of the railway is, of course, to keep passengers and staff safe. Speed restrictions, targeted inspections and temporary closures can be really frustrating, but they are needed to ensure a safe railway. The task is to make those decisions earlier and more precisely, communicate them clearly and restore the service as quickly as conditions allow.

The industry has drawn practical lessons from summer 2026, including preparing earlier, focusing on the greatest risks, planning for prolonged heat, and making decisions sooner. Operationally, that means acting as one railway, using restrictions in a targeted way, building recovery into the response and adapting quickly as evidence changes. The Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways, which will integrate operations and infrastructure in regional routes to ensure that they act as one railway. In the meantime, the rail industry has established a climate change programme co-chaired by Network Rail and Department for Transport Operator Limited to provide strategic direction, align the industry and monitor delivery.

Preparation is not confined to summer, nor are climate risks confined to heat and the consequential moisture and soil deficit in many areas. The developing El Niño is expected to increase the chances of wetter, stormy conditions across the UK this autumn and in early winter, with stronger winds and increased risks of heavy rainfall and flooding. Colder spells are also possible. The railway is therefore preparing for a range of conditions using drones, specialist treatment trains and autumn forecasts, while managing vulnerable trees, planning contingency timetables, monitoring conditions in real time and deploying winter equipment to keep passengers moving safely.

As well as operational preparedness, we need to look to the future. Summers such as the one we experienced this year will become increasingly common. As was said, extreme weather has become the weather. The changing climate means that resilience cannot simply be something that we consider after extreme weather strikes. It needs to be built into the everyday decisions we make about how the transport system is maintained, operated and funded. That is why the Department for Transport launched its climate adaptation strategy for transport in December 2025, setting out our vision for a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient to a changing climate.

Importantly, the strategy is about turning that ambition into practical change, supporting the transport system to prepare for the impacts of climate change by setting the strategic direction, strengthening the evidence base and embedding adaptation into planning and decision making. That approach is already being put into practice on the railway. Network Rail is pioneering work on adaptation planning through its adaptation pathways so that investment can be prioritised and staged as risks change.

Publicly owned train operators have for the first time also developed weather resilience and climate adaptation plans looking at climate risks across the railway, not only in respect of infrastructure, but to staff and customer welfare too. For example, working air con is equally important. Just yesterday, the Department for Transport published the first transport resilience strategy to provide strategic direction to improve the resilience of the transport sector and ensure that resilience principles are embedded in decision making and planning. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will be pleased to know that as part of that work, we are setting up a four nations transport resilience group.

Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.9 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029. That has been invested in activity but also technology to improve resilience to extreme weather and climate change.

[Steve Darling]

A few months ago, Network Rail met me and other south-west MPs who are here today and told us that it is occasionally acceptable to close the Dawlish rail line. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will come on to talk specifically about the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. All endeavours are being made and a great deal of funding has gone in to make that track as resilient as possible. I do not think that anybody wants to suspend services through that area, but unfortunately there will be instances where that may have to be done. The investment that has put in has made it more resilient; we saw that during the latest storms, when the line was reopened the day after its closure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and the hon. Member for Torbay talked about south-west rail resilience. I think that more than £165 million has been invested through the south-west rail resilience programme, including a new seawall, a rockfall shelter at Parson’s tunnel to Teignmouth and major cliff stabilisation work. As I just said, the value of that investment was demonstrated during the storms at the start of this year. This year also saw Cornwall’s worst ever rainfall totals, but the new seawall performed as designed, helping to protect the infrastructure from major damage and allowing the line to reopen the very next day.

Phase 5 of the resilience programme was not funded as part of the 2025 spending review. We are continuing to fund investigative work on that section of the route. Network Rail is currently undertaking a drainage trial to remove water from the cliffs, as well as further ground investigation. That will give National Rail the more detailed data that it needs for longer term solutions. All the monitoring equipment that is installed in those areas of the cliff between Parson’s tunnel and Teignmouth will help to provide a quick response when triggered. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) also mentioned Northern; it is procuring, I think, 450 new trains due in 2031. I appreciate that feels like a long time away but it is also looking at shorter term options to improve capacity.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and hon. Members throughout the House that this Government recognise both the immediate disruption experienced by passengers and the longer term challenge facing our railway. In a single season, Cannock Chase has seen the effect of heat, intense rainfall and storms. We will continue to work with Network Rail, train operators and local partners to learn from those events, improve drainage and operational preparedness, target investment where risk is greatest, and give passengers clearer information. Extreme weather cannot be prevented but its consequences can be better anticipated, managed and reduced. That is how we will secure a safer, more reliable and more resilient railway for Cannock Chase and for communities across the country.

15:51

[Josh Newbury]

I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s debate, either through interventions or speeches. I have found it very enjoyable, not because of the litany of examples of disruption we have heard from across the country but because of the richness of experiences with which hon. Members have come here today to speak up for their constituents. We heard many interventions in which Members highlighted particular constituency concerns, including from the hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Woking (Mr Forster), for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).

I was interested to hear about the archaeological endeavours in Rugeley of the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). We will have to find her site and have her back to repeat that. She is right to raise her constituent’s problems in travelling in and out of London as well as within Cambridgeshire, and I support her calls for investment in her line, even if it is just after for my line.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) rightly highlighted the human consequences of disruption, particularly in Cornwall, as well as the fact that big pots of money have gone to elsewhere in the country, but Cornwall, where there is just the one line, has missed out. She is right to raise that as well as the lack of alternatives such as flights, many of which are being cut too. She highlighted the issues at Dawlish, to which the Minister and the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred. He is right that the real enemy we are facing in this battle is climate change.

The hon. Gentleman was also right to speak about the risks further up the line at Powderham. He mentioned ageing rolling stock, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) who drew personal experience, having grown up in his constituency, and the fact that so much of the infrastructure in his part of the world is getting very old now. He rightly highlighted the disruption around major events, which I think underlined the fact that these disruptions can affect our sporting, hospitality and leisure industries as well as us individually as passengers.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), present and making an excellent contribution to the debate, as always, despite the lack of a train line in his constituency boundaries, was right to highlight the experiences of his constituents who use the Bangor line and the importance of resilient services going into Belfast, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) also mentioned. I thank him for highlighting the issues for our young people, whose opportunities are often limited by travel disruption. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) reminded us that transport worries are spreading right across Northern Ireland, and of the need for cross-border collaboration, which I think is true right across the British Isles.

The hon. Member for South Devon made a really important point around train wi-fi. She is absolutely right: we face a lot of productivity issues in this country, and if people were able to work while they were stuck on trains, that would go some way towards addressing that problem. I commend her for the campaigning she is doing, although it is a road issue rather than rail, around the A379 at Slapton Sands. Her constituency is one that my family and I visit every year to go on holiday, and when we were down there this year I was struck by the explanations on hoardings of businesses affected by the washing away of the road and the immense storm they had at Torcross. I was also struck by her explanation of the work that she is doing as an assiduous constituency MP to get those issues resolved. I really wish her all the best with that campaign.

I finish the debate by once again thanking hon. Members. I am sure we will all continue to talk about this disruption, which we hope will be resolved soon. I thank everybody for bringing their stories to the debate today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of extreme weather on train services.

15:55

Sitting suspended.

Solar Panels on Agricultural Land

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of agricultural land for solar panels.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Currently, planning permission is being sought for a large solar panel development in my constituency on 150 acres of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land. It is among the best and most versatile agricultural land, it includes 70 acres of grade 1 farmland and it forms part of an historic rural landscape. The local residents of Tabley and Knutsford are distraught and mystified that, at a time when the importance of food security is being increasingly recognised as a national priority, we should be allowing our highest-quality agricultural land to come out of production.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Lady and I share this concern, among many others. In my Strangford constituency and across Northern Ireland, a great number of solar applications are coming through that would take away prime agricultural land. In Northern Ireland, agriculture is the most important part—the backbone—of the regional economy. Does the right hon. Lady agree that weighted consideration must always be given to brownfield sites and rooftops, to ensure that the valuable land that she talks about is retained for the production of food?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an absolutely correct point, and I will come to that, as will, I know, other Members. Once development of this kind is approved, the land is no longer available for its primary purpose of producing food.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

A clean-air solar farm is proposed near Beverley on some excellent BMV—best and most versatile—agricultural land. Given that such fantastic, high-quality land constitutes only about 40% of farmland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is insane to allow solar to go on the best land when 60% of land that is widely available could have solar on it? The Minister would be well advised to tighten up the rules, because his solar strategy would then be far more likely to retain public support.

[Esther McVey]

Insanity is the right word, and that point has also been expressed by many of my constituents. At the most recent public meeting arranged by Rayna Jackson and the newly formed community group, Knutsford Solar Action, hundreds of local residents gathered, hoping to get some answers from the developer and the local council as to why the site had been chosen. Sadly, neither Aukera—the developer—nor Cheshire East council bothered to attend, so not even the most basic questions, such as why an environmental impact assessment had not been done for the site, could be answered.

The whole process has shown absolutely no regard for the local rural community. The truth is that the Government’s colossal rush to achieve their net zero targets is coming at the expense of our nation’s food security and destroying the UK’s farming land. Then again, we know what this Government think of farmers and farming—not a lot.

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

Does the right hon. Lady agree that it cannot be right that farmers in the South Cotswolds, who have had no say in this, now face the compulsory acquisition of rights over their land purely because the developer has chosen to locate a solar farm 13 miles away from the nearest grid connection?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope the Minister is listening to what all right hon. and hon. Members are saying about this issue.

According to the Commons Library, between August 2025 and July 2026 some 733 solar photovoltaic projects received planning permission across the United Kingdom. That shows the pace at which solar developments are reshaping our countryside, with around 188,000 acres approved for grid-scale solar projects across the UK.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

rose—

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and then to my constituency neighbour.

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend is being generous in allowing interventions. She talked about the scale and pace of solar developments on agricultural land. In my constituency, we already have a huge development of over 700 acres, and another one on 160 acres near Rodmersham has just been given permission. A huge quantity of important agricultural land is being destroyed by solar developments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to take that into account in their guidance on planning decisions so that we do not jeopardise our food security?

[Esther McVey]

I do indeed. That is precisely why are having this debate: to impress on the Government what actions they need to take.

[Aphra Brandreth]

My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making an excellent and important speech. Energy security is of course important but, as she has pointed out, we cannot lose sight of the vital importance of food security. Does she agree that we need action, not words? A lot of people have said we should prioritise brownfield sites. It is not enough to say it; we need to make sure that solar panels go on brownfield sites and rooftops instead of building over prime agricultural land.

[Esther McVey]

I do not know how many tens of thousands of people the Government need to hear saying precisely that before action is taken. Ministers repeatedly state that lower-quality land should be used, but in reality that is not the case. There is a growing gap between policy and practice.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

In my constituency, the Secretary of State has just approved the Green hill solar farm, 60% of which will use best and most versatile land. That means that arable land will be lost for 60 years in our area. Local groups are considering a judicial review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the policy says we should not use that land, it does not make sense that the Government approve these farms none the less?

[Esther McVey]

I think that, like with most things, the Government do not know what is going on. They talk the talk but do not put what they say into practice. In 2025, the Campaign to Protect Rural England found that 59% of England’s largest solar farms are located on productive farmland, with almost a third occupying the very best agricultural land. The proposed Tabley Hill solar farm in my constituency is another instance of a large-scale solar development being directed towards some of the country’s best agricultural land.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Does she agree that, apart from rolling over the wishes of local communities, the ideology driving these solar farms is economically disastrous because we are losing good agricultural land, and environmentally disastrous because much good prime land is being destroyed by machinery, pipelines, concrete bases and so on? It is being lost for a generation because solar farms are not a short-term thing; they will last at least 60 years.

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, as I will call him. The Government have been blinded by their net zero zealotry. They need to open up their eyes and listen to what the public, and we as the public’s representatives, are saying.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I applaud my right hon. Friend for her speech and for securing the debate. I want to say something vital. We finally managed, against Government pressure, to get an amendment into the Great British Energy Act 2025 to stop the Government buying solar arrays made in Xinjiang in China, where slave labour is practised, but we know that they simply do not check enough. We have clear evidence that cheaper solar arrays are still made using slave labour. It is all very well to talk about 300 years ago, but right now we are allowing slave labour to take place. The Minister needs to get to his feet and give us a pledge that he will put in proper checks to stop that filthy trade being part of the disaster that my right hon. Friend is eloquently describing.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. He spends a lot of time and energy investigating and pursuing it and I am glad he has brought his expertise to this debate.

The Government have made it clear that solar energy will be central to their clean power mission, with solar capacity expected to increase from 17 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by the end of the decade. However, meeting that target should not come at the expense of the country’s agricultural land.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Solar energy must continue to make a huge and growing contribution towards our clean energy future, and that must include far more solar on rooftops and car parks and a considered approach to the use of land for energy generation. There are competing demands in respect of food production, renewable energy generation, nature and rural livelihoods, and I am concerned about the lack of an integrated land use framework and strategic spatial energy plan to guide solar expansion, which is resulting in lots of speculative applications. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we must move towards a co-ordinated spatial strategy that balances energy security, food security and nature recovery, and seeks to enhance all three?

[Esther McVey]

I agree that the Government need to have oversight of what is going on. It seems that our farming land and our food security are currently being put at a lower level of priority than a net zero mission and vision. As we have all agreed, solar panels should be put on appropriate brownfield land, on top of roofs and on industrial land, not on agricultural land.

Does the Minister know how much prime agricultural land the Government are prepared to sacrifice to meet their green targets? Supposedly, Tabley Hill solar farm is a temporary development, yet a scheme expected to remain in place for 40 years is not temporary—and other Members have talked about 60 years. It will determine how the land is used for a generation.

I recognise the financial pressures that many farmers face, particularly under the Government’s savage policies, and why the certainty of a long-term income from solar development may be attractive. The fault does not lie with individual farmers. It lies with a system that can make generating electricity more profitable than producing food on some of the country’s highest-quality agricultural land. There are impacts on tenant farmers, who are threatened with eviction, and there is further pressure on land values, which makes it harder for new entrants to join the sector and begin farming.

Aukera, Tabley Hill’s developer, points to a community fund that it has established—which I think is derisory, at £10,000 a year—as evidence that it is bringing benefit to the local area. Local residents are entitled to ask whether £10,000 a year is proportionate compensation for a development covering 150 acres, occupying green-belt agricultural land and altering the character of the area for decades. I say that it is not. Community benefit funds have their place, but should not be treated as a substitute for meaningful community consent or as a suitable replacement for our food security.

The burden of development will not be confined to the site. Construction traffic is expected for around two years, with every construction vehicle accessing the site via Chester Road. Heavy goods vehicle movements are expected to increase by 60% for up to a year, placing additional pressures on local roads and nearby residents. It is a rural community, and local people are understandably concerned about increased traffic, noise, disruption and the danger of such traffic on rural roads.

Tabley Hill is about more than just one planning application in my constituency; it raises broader questions about how we meet our energy needs without undermining food production, eroding green-belt protections and placing unnecessary pressure on rural communities. There are also questions about whether land used for solar farms will—or ever could—be returned to agricultural use. Many people are questioning that, and they do not have the answers.

I support a balanced energy mix, and I recognise that solar power has a role to play in our energy future. But I do not support the unnecessary loss of some of our highest-quality agricultural land when brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, warehouses and industrial land remain available alternatives, as other Members have said. Productive farmland should be protected wherever possible, and the alternatives should be exhausted before land of such quality is taken out of use for a generation. In my mind, though, it should never be used.

The Minister presumably agrees with me about this issue. Solar planning guidance says that planning authorities should encourage the development of solar farms on non-agricultural land, but that is clearly not strong enough, as it is not working. What does the Minister propose to do to save our vital agricultural land? Stopping his Government’s assault on farmers would be a good start. Will he toughen up official planning policy to protect more agricultural land against solar-farm developments? If not, how much agricultural land is he prepared to see lost from our nation’s ability to provide food for its people?

16:16

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Ms Jardine. I thank all hon. Members for coming to this debate. Obviously, many colleagues from across the House have raised concerns about projects in their constituencies. I understand entirely why, but given that those projects are subject to planning processes, I will say at the outset that I cannot comment on the positives or negatives, or the decisions through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—process, in relation to any of those particular applications. Those are rightly matters for the Secretary of State to make decisions on in due course.

I will touch on the general points that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made. First, we should recognise an area where I think we have common agreement: building infrastructure across our country is necessary but it should be done in sensible locations and take account of local impacts. I have said throughout that I find much of the nimby debate coming up in this a bit redundant, when we are actually trying to bring communities with us. But I have also said clearly that we need to build infrastructure as a country, and it is not possible to just build all of it “somewhere else”. Inevitably, in these debates, we often get back to the argument that people are in favour of the technology, but “just not anywhere near my constituency.” There has to be some common ground in the middle that recognises that we need to build infrastructure somewhere.

Solar is particularly important because it tackles our energy security issues, and is also by far the cheapest electricity generation to deploy in the country at the moment. With affordability at the forefront of all our constituents’ minds, it is right and proper that we try to deploy as much solar as we possibly can.

[Graham Stuart]

Of course, I had the Minister’s role just two and a half years ago. I think I agree with pretty much everything he has said so far, but there is a backlash because we are seeing so much high-quality land lost. We are seeing a cumulative impact, which, again, notionally, the Government say should be looked at, but they never seem to stop a project. There is also the issue of slave-labour supply chains.

I therefore invite the Minister to tighten up the rules on best and most versatile land, given that 60% of the land is not the best and most versatile. I also invite him to tighten up the rules so that there is real protection around cumulative impact, and to tighten up the rules on slave-labour supply chains. I think that he can still fulfil his ambition to see the infrastructure built and make sure that we have a system that is sufficiently rigorous so that communities are quieted. It will not stop every nimby everywhere, but at least it will give reassurance and show that there are real rules providing real protection, because right now that absence is causing scepticism right across this House and across the country.

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to several of those points. The right hon. Gentleman has always been more pragmatic than his party on many of these issues—I hope that does not do him a disservice—and I have always appreciated that. He is right that we want to try to find a place where we can build the infrastructure that we need but bring communities with us and not turn them away from the energy transition. That is really important.

I want to share some statistics, because individual applications often paint a picture of a much greater use of land across the country than is actually the case. At the end of September 2024—the latest set of figures I have—the land devoted to solar farms covered an estimated 21,000 hectares, which is around 0.1% of the UK’s total land. Even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios in the clean power action plan, we expect to get to 0.4% of deployment and 0.6% of agricultural land in the country. I recognise that there are local impacts from all these projects—I speak as a Member of Parliament from an area very close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms built under the previous Government—and that land use is a challenge across communities, but this is nevertheless a very small proportion of land across the country overall.

The right hon. Member’s second point was about supply chains, on which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly challenged us, and I will say two things. First, it was right that we accepted the amendment but also set up Great British Energy to not only be a leader in how we build supply chains, but to try to get a supply chain on solar panels here in the UK again and do due diligence on supply chains coming in from China. There is much more work to do and I do not pretend that the work is complete yet. Some initiatives, such as the solar stewardship initiative, need to go further to ensure that we get into the detail of supply chains.

Secondly, when we left Government in 2010, three companies were building in solar supply chains in the UK and, when we came back, there were none. That comes back to a really important point about re-industrialisation: if we want supply chain security, a line of sight on things such as human rights, and to create good jobs across the country, we need to invest in manufacturing capability. We need to nurture it and not let it go to the wall, which is where we get to particular risks.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I give way first to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why so many UK firms disappear is that they cannot compete against firms, especially from China, who have cheap labour or labour at no cost at all? That is why it is so important that the Government tighten down on where the supplies of this equipment come from.

[Michael Shanks]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The main point I want to make to the Minister is that China thwarts all the rules around commerce. It subsidises all its industries, including the solar industry. It uses slave labour, which we have mentioned. The thing about slave labour is that America does this in a much cleaner way: it assumes that the companies are using slave-made solar panels and leaves it to the company to prove, using serious checks including forensic science, that it is not. The Government should look at and adopt that process; it would kill the supply of slave-made solar panels tomorrow.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; he made similar points during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill. We continue to look at and review that across Government in relation to procurement and Government investment in these projects. We want to incentivise, as much as possible, supply chains to be here in the UK.

I do not accept the point from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that cost alone is the reason why we do not have supply chains here in the UK. We must use the mechanisms we have to encourage manufacturing in the UK. That is why such things as the clean industry bonus are about saying that, alongside contracts for difference to build renewable energy in the UK, companies can also get investment to make sure that manufacturing is here in the UK, too, and the jobs that go with it. We also need security at a time when supply chains are critical. No doubt this is a challenge and I accept that point, but there is more we can do.

I want to come back to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net zero zealotry in this debate. At the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is recognition that solar is part of an energy mix, not the entirety of it. We need a mix of technologies, but the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security in a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing, and in terms of bringing down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that, and although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible and to support innovative projects such as floating solar, we also recognise that ground-mounted solar plays a critical role in this.

The right hon. Lady also made a number of points about food security, and of course, I absolutely agree with her. Food security is national security. We need to back British farmers and agriculture is really important in this country. I understand that it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and character of rural areas, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do. It weighs up different impacts with opportunities, looks through specific projects and takes account of local views, all of which are considered in these processes.

The planning system is also really clear that a number of projects in a particular area will have cumulative impacts on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and that is taken into account in these processes. Whether it is visual amenity, protected landscapes or the natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. As the right hon. Lady said, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land can take place only where it is absolutely necessary, and even then, lower-grade land should be used first.

[Adrian Ramsay]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly to the right hon. Lady, but I will then have to conclude.

[Esther McVey]

As the Minister has heard today, that is not the case. I was asking what specific steps he is taking to tighten up the planning process, or to have oversight so that what he thinks is happening is actually happening.

[Michael Shanks]

It is not for me to litigate individual planning applications; that is what the planning system exists for. We have given very clear guidance on this, and we keep these things under review. At the moment, we already have a planning system that takes these things into consideration, and I will not open up the debate on individual projects. Indeed, the National Farmers’ Union has said that solar poses no threat to food security.

I must also highlight the most glaring point in all this: clean energy is about us trying to get off fossil fuels, and although part of the reason for doing so is to reduce all our constituents’ exposure to the impacts on bills, the summer we have just lived through was a perfect example of climate change in action. It made the impact of not tackling the climate crisis on food security very clear and present for us. To exclude that from the debate misses the crucial point that climate change is far more likely to impact our food security in Britain than any infrastructure that we are building.

I have already told the right hon. Lady that I agree that we should be building much more rooftop solar, and that is why the future homes standards encourage new houses to be built with solar installed. That is also why I am working to see whether we can get even more solar on warehouses, supermarkets, car parks and everywhere else we possibly can, which I am entirely open to, but ground-mounted solar will nevertheless remain important.

I also want us to look much more at innovation in how we farm alongside solar farms. I have visited a number of solar farms where the two go alongside one another, such as where livestock grazing can go alongside solar deployment. There is also a lot of emerging science in agrivoltaics on developing new ways to make sure that we have arable farming alongside solar.

[Sarah Bool]

In the Green Hill solar farm application, one of the arguments made was that we could also have sheep farming, but the Secretary of State’s decision actually said that this was irrelevant and would not be considered, because they could not guarantee it. Actually, the promise of them sitting side by side is not a guarantee.

[Michael Shanks]

I am not making any guarantees here, and I have not pretended to do so. I am saying that there is much more opportunity to do these things side by side, and I have visited and seen some places where it is working, including places where there is a net gain in biodiversity from the deployment of solar panels.

In this focus group on solar, we will clearly not have support from everyone who has spoken in the debate today, and I entirely understand that. As I have said in a number of debates—I hope fairly—we want to ensure that we bring communities with us on this as much as possible, and the planning system is important. The right hon. Member for Tatton also talked about community benefits, and it is really important that those are meaningful to communities. We will say more soon about our expectations on developers for community benefits. We want those to genuinely invest in the future of communities, rather than be tokenistic. It is important to say that they are not compensation regimes; they are about saying, “You’re hosting infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we thank you for that. Here is a community benefit.”

Contrary to how it seems from my speech, I think there is much that we agree on. We want to preserve the character of the countryside across the country, but I also genuinely believe that we have to rapidly increase the amount of electricity that we can generate from clean sources. We have to ensure that we have renewables alongside nuclear and other technologies, and the planning system exists to balance that with continued food production and protecting communities. I am very open to looking at any further reforms that are necessary, but I think that the balance is understood at the moment. I hope we can continue this conversation in the manner in which we have had the debate today.

Question put and agreed to.

Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of adding gynaecological conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Jardine.

Gynaecological health should never cost a woman her livelihood, but almost a third of women with endometriosis are forced to leave work because of their symptoms. Behind the statistics are heartbreaking stories of women who struggle every day to get the support they need in the workplace.

A defining mission of my time in Parliament, which is coming up to 12 years now, has been making the workplace fairer and safer for women up and down the country. One of my proudest achievements in Parliament has been leading the campaign for mandatory flexible working rights, which has enabled parents, particularly women, to thrive at work while balancing their commitments, especially their family commitments.

Some people in the House might remember that in 2019 I delayed the birth of my son to vote against Brexit, because there was no other option. I had to come into Parliament because there was no other way to register the views of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. I am very pleased to say that afterwards proxy voting was introduced, which means that MPs can now ask someone to vote for them on the basis of parental absence. However, it should not have taken something like that for proxy voting to be introduced, and my experience showed the world how inaccessible even Parliament is for women.

I am pleased to say that the rules have changed, but we still have a long way to go before we make workplaces fully accessible for women. When one of my very brave constituents told me how they were unfairly dismissed from work after many years of loyal service while they were suffering from crippling endometriosis, and then had to fight for years simply to establish that the law protected them, I was absolutely astounded by her story. That is because not a single gynaecological condition is included in the disability guidance of the Equality Act 2010.

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

I also have a constituent who suffers with endometriosis and who has been unable to work as a result; she, too, has not received the support that she requires. Although the Equality Act protects pregnancy, does the hon. Member agree that it should also protect gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis? There are other conditions to consider, too. We know that currently one in six women leave the workplace due to endometriosis, because they just experience apathy, lack of understanding and so on, so it is really important that we empower women with conditions such as endometriosis to be able to remain in work.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She makes a very important point about people not quite understanding what endometriosis is about. I have to say that when my constituent came to me and started talking to me about her situation and her case at work, I had to look up endometriosis; if someone has not personally suffered from it, it can be easy just to dismiss it as something that does not cripple a person’s life. However, it does cripple people’s lives. I will expand on a few of the hon. Member’s points later in my speech.

I am here in Westminster Hall today because of my constituent, who is in the Public Gallery today and who launched a petition, which has received over 110,000 signatures, calling for this situation to be changed. She is a formidable campaigner who I am proud to say lives in our constituency.

The statutory guidance on the definition of disability names Meniere’s disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and certain types of depression as examples of conditions whose effects are fluctuating or recurring. However, it is silent on endometriosis, fibroids, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. These are conditions that affect millions of women, and their effects are, by their very nature, cyclical and recurring.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. The merits of adding debilitating gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis to the Equality Act list are clear, because doing so would legally guarantee women with those conditions the reasonable workplace adjustments they need to remain in employment. However, does she agree that that will mean very little if the underlying health care system is failing?

I know that it is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but for us back home we find ourselves in a situation where the care available is severely limited. Women in my constituency of Strangford are trapped on agonising waiting lists and are forced to pay thousands to travel across the water for surgery here simply because the care does not exist at home. Does the hon. Lady agree that protecting women at work is only half the battle? There is still a lot to do in the healthcare system.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am pleased to see the hon. Member attend every debate in the Chamber; he has not stopped doing that and he is always fighting for the rights of women in any of the debates that we have. He is right to say that we do need to settle what is happening in the workplace, but we also have to look at the healthcare system as well and make sure that it does not become a postcode lottery where women have to travel in order to get treatments that should be available for everyone.

In response to my constituent’s petition, the Government acknowledged that such conditions can affect women’s performance at work, but said they had no plans to amend the guidance. That is why I am standing here today, urging my colleagues in the Government to reconsider that decision. When a woman’s condition is missing from the guidance, she starts every conversation with her employer and the human resources department, as well as every claim, on the back foot. That is because courts and tribunals must take the guidance into account. HR departments and managers will use it as their checklist. It opens the door to legal protection, fairer workplace adjustments and a fairer system for millions of women across the country.

Last month, hon. Members may have seen that the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis published its “Endometriosis (Not) in the Workplace” report. The results were sobering. Evidence was gathered from more than 6,000 employees with confirmed or suspected endometriosis, and from 250 employers. The inquiry provides one of the most detailed pictures yet of the condition’s impact on working life. These are some of the facts: 97% of employees worked with severe pain; 94% believed employers lacked understanding of the condition; 62% were worried about losing their job; 47% had lost income and 39% were experiencing financial hardship; 49% had difficulties progressing in their career after the condition; 28% had been forced to leave their job altogether; 49% had received no workplace adjustments at all; and 72% of employers said they had no training or guidance on women’s health conditions, such as endometriosis.

It is fair to say that women with endometriosis have been failed by the employment rights system. It is damaging their lives, their families and the economy. With only 11% of employers in the UK having a menstrual health policy, employers are not making the reasonable adjustments to accommodate people with endometriosis, who are forced to suffer in silence. That shocking statistic highlights why there is such widespread discrimination of women with endometriosis. That is why gynaecological conditions must be included as impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects in the Equality Act 2010 guidance on the definition of disability. By doing that, we will strengthen workplace protections for women with disabling gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, fibroids, PMOS, PMDD, severe menopausal symptoms and other menstrual disorders.

One of the biggest challenges we have—I have learned a lot of this from my constituent who suffers from this issue—is the unpredictable nature of those conditions. Women can experience severe pelvic pain, debilitating fatigue, heavy bleeding that leads to anaemia, bowel and bladder symptoms, bloating, nausea, loss of appetite and other complications that can fluctuate in severity. For example, a woman with endometriosis may be able to function absolutely fine one day, but the next day cannot get up from her bed. Employers should take that into account. It is overwhelmingly evidenced in medical statistics, but my constituent tells me it is being ignored by employers because the conditions are not listed in the guidance, which is what we are fighting for.

I ask the Minister, who I know is passionate about this topic and has been in touch with me about it, to consider four practical steps. First, will she update the Equality Act 2010 guidance? It is issued by a Minister under section 6 of the Act, so no primary legislation is needed. Gynaecological conditions should be named among the examples of conditions that have recurring or fluctuating effects. The guidance should include worked examples of what a flare can look like in a working day, and it should discuss pain that stops a woman travelling, standing up or concentrating, heavy bleeding, fatigue, anaemia and recovery from surgery.

Secondly, will the Minister look at the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance and set out in the employment code examples of reasonable adjustments for such conditions, such as flexible and hybrid working, adjusted hours on bad days, access to facilities and rest breaks, time off for medical conditions and a phased return from surgery? It is incredible that women have to fight for those things—of course they should have a phased return after surgery, but lots of women do not have that option in the workplace. A lot of those things would cost little or nothing, but they would make the lives of those who are suffering so much easier.

Thirdly, I ask the Minister to give employees something tangible to take back to their managers or to human resources. A simple standard workplace adjustments passport, backed by ACAS guidance, would record what has been agreed so that the woman does not have to explain her condition over and over again every time her manager changes, which is exhausting in itself, and the managers know exactly what is expected of them.

Fourthly, I would build on the Employment Rights Act 2025. Large employers will soon have to publish equality action plans that include support for employees who are going through the menopause. The plans should extend to menstrual and gynaecological health. The Government’s Keep Britain Working agenda and their workplace health system should expressly include women with long-term fluctuating conditions.

Those changes would help not only women with such conditions but everyone living with a non-visible chronic condition whose effects come and go. Those basic changes could save jobs and so much money, and relieve so much anxiety for countless women across the county who are disabled by endometriosis and are not given reasonable adjustments in the workplace. By doing that, we can be a Government who ensure women have workplace protections and the right to reasonable adjustments for their conditions.

As the Minister knows, I was a part of the Treasury, so the economy is always on my mind. This is not just a question of fairness; it is actually about a strong economy and sound business. Endometriosis alone is estimated to cost the UK economy £8.2 billion a year in treatment, lost work and healthcare costs. The Office for National Statistics found that women with endometriosis earned about £4,500 less over the five years after receiving a diagnosis. The Fawcett Society found that one in 10 women who worked during the menopause left their job because of their symptoms, and many others worked on reduced hours.

The PMDD Project found that nine in 10 reported that PMDD significantly or extremely affected their everyday lives—particularly employment. They can be perceived as unreliable, inconsistent or unable to manage their workload, when in reality they are living with a recognised and often severely disabling condition. I am sure the Minister agrees that women are a vital part of our workflows and our economy. It is right that the law and guidance explain that and reflect the reality of their everyday lives.

Employment lawyers acting in such cases describe the same pattern again and again. Very senior women, in whom businesses have invested year after year through training and client development, are managed out after surgery or a period of sickness absence, when a phased return, a flexible pattern of working or a modest change to their duties could have retained them and helped our economy at the same time. The business loses the woman’s skills, client relationships and everything that has been invested in them. It then pays to recruit and train a replacement, and it very often pays again to defend a claim. Claims can take years. At the end of June this year, there were 70,000 claims waiting in employment tribunals—the highest number on record.

The average claim takes well over a year to resolve, with some final hearings being listed for 2028 and 2029. With appeals, a case can run for three years or more. Think about the damage that does to the economy, the business and particularly the morale of all our women who we need back in our economy working for our country. It is three years of legal costs for both the employer and former employee. It is three years of uncertainty and anxiety for all the women, and three years in which neither the business nor the woman can move. That cripples the economy, the business and, often, the woman’s life.

The cases that do reach the courts show what is at stake. In South Gloucestershire council v. Hundal, which was decided by the employment appeal tribunal in 2024, a social worker with endometriosis—who the tribunal found was managing complex cases well despite her disability—had her placement ended because of the absences caused by her medical condition. Her manager had suggested adjustments such as working from home and spreading her four-day week over five days. Neither of those was tried and an occupational health referral was not even considered. The tribunal found that ending her engagement could not be justified and an appeal tribunal agreed.

In another case, a tribunal accepted that a woman with endometriosis could not walk, stand or drive when her systems flared. The condition left her anaemic, exhausted and unable to sleep. It found that she was disabled, observing that nothing in the Equality Act requires a disability to be constant. That is exactly why guidance should be made plain: so that women do not have to waste time, effort and mental energy going to a tribunal to establish it.

Reasonable adjustments are the most effective way to avoid all this. They keep women in work, protect the employer’s investment and stop claims arising in the first place. Prevention is far cheaper than cure. For as long as our employment rights ignore the gynaecological conditions of millions of women in Britain, the injustice will continue. Making reasonable adjustments is simply the fairest thing to do. It is also the most sensible thing to do economically. Naming these conditions in the guidance would give every woman something concrete to point to, and every employer a clear basis on which to act. It would save money and time, and most importantly it would spare women, their families and their employers so much avoidable pain.

The benefits of doing that spread beyond the workplace, to all of us in society. It will improve the mental health and wellbeing of women by enabling them to be seen, heard and protected, and to advocate for themselves. The guidance will also help Department for Work and Pensions assessors, who are rejecting claims from women with endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions. For me, that is a win-win because it will protect women in the economy, education, healthcare, the workplace and beyond. I urge colleagues in Government to recognise what women experience every single day. I believe it is time to end this discrimination once and for all.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

16:48

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on an excellent opening speech, which has covered so many of the aspects that we have spoken about for so many years.

I started to raise the issues of endometriosis about a decade ago in this very room. Again, like the hon. Lady, it came to my attention through someone coming to see me in a constituency surgery. I then realised I had a close friend whose wife had suffered from endometriosis since her teen years. What is striking straightaway is how many people do not know about the condition. Therein lies one of the great problems. I remember when I first started doing this, I got lots of comments about why I was bringing this up as a man. I always found that comment particularly strange—surely we are elected to represent all our constituents, and well over 50% of my constituents are women—but it spoke to a greater problem: people do not understand women’s health needs.

Women’s health needs are exceptionally different from those of men. The reality is that men can sympathise, but cannot empathise, because they are unlikely to suffer from chronic diseases throughout their lives, from teenage years through to old age. Women can have endometriosis long after the menopause—it is not to do with being of a fertile age. Also, the growth of the endometrium is not linked just to having a uterus, as it can spread to other parts of the body.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate outlined some of the problems, but—I am sorry for this, Ms Jardine—I will get a little more graphic and try to paint a picture of what some gynaecological conditions can mean. If a person who has stage 3 or stage 4 endometriosis, there is a real chance that it has invaded their digestive system—indeed, that can be when problems start to become apparent, but by that time, it can have progressed a long way down the line. I am sure that everybody in this room will have suffered from food poisoning or an upset stomach, when—I do not want to be too graphic—they could not get off the toilet. We all know what is like, and it is horrific, but we stay at home, take our salts and fluids, and work our way through it for 24 hours. What happens is that we feel a bit rotten for a couple of days, but then we go back work.

For people who have reached such a stage of the disease, that happens all the time. They will be sitting at work and will suddenly have to rush to the bathroom. One thing that people recognise is that endometriosis can cause heavy bleeding, and how embarrassing that can be for a teenage girl. The very fact that people may soil themselves without realising is a great problem, which needs sympathetic employers to arrange an office space and position things so that they are able to go to the toilet quickly. There needs to be understanding from fellow employees, and we need to make sure that employers recognise the issues.

I will not dwell on this point, because many other hon. Members want to speak, but education plays an important role. I worked with some girls born in the 21st century who did not know about the condition, which shocked me. If it is taught to all sexes in schools, understanding will come through. If people do not know what a disease is, it is easy to try to dismiss it and say, “This person just takes time off work. Women get heavy periods. They’re just a malingerer—they’re not doing anything.” As I have spoken about for so long, such conditions need to be protected under the Equality Act. I am proud to chair the board of The Endometriosis Foundation, and that our brilliant chief executive officer, Carla Cressy, who has stage 4 endometriosis, has done so much to support people. Research shows that around 90% of affected people experience a mental health impact, and 50% think about taking their lives—unfortunately, about 30 women a year do take their lives. That is how serious the subject is.

If I can leave people with just one message, it is just to think about it. As an employer or a man, think about if you had to go to work every day, not knowing whether you will suddenly soil yourself while sitting at your desk. Think about that, and about how we should be dealing with people who suffer from this terrible disease.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I ask Members to stick to an informal time limit of three minutes.

16:53

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this debate to raise an excellent question. We can clearly see a troubling difference between the care delivered for women’s conditions and that delivered for conditions affecting the general population, which is an issue I have raised with my local NHS board. As hon. Members will know, health is a devolved matter in Scotland, but equality is not. I am open to any solution that would help the women and girls in my constituency to get the healthcare they need, when they need it.

When I met NHS Lanarkshire in November 2025, we discussed waiting lists. I was told that the board aimed to eliminate two-year waits by the spring, which I thought was progress, relatively speaking. However, there was a catch: the exception was gynaecology. I wrote to ask what the plan was for that, but was told that it was difficult and challenging. They were not able to share a plan, nor did they confirm that ensuring that women received the same levels of healthcare as men was a priority. It is true that they are operating in very difficult circumstances, and the SNP-led Scottish Government must take their share of responsibility, but this exception is not the answer. For endometriosis, the average wait in England is nine years and four months, and in Scotland, it is 10 years and two months. That is more than a decade of pain and more, as my hon. Friend described so well. The dreams that young women so rightly have for themselves can be lost in this process, which is devastating.

Many of us have heard somebody say, “Well, if men suffered from this, they would have found a cure,” but there is an even more modest question that we need to ask: what do we need to do to make sure that women get the treatment that already exists? Women are not born to endure. They are not born to accept pain or incapacitation as part of the feminine experience, and when they are ill, they should not be dismissed. They should not be told—it happens at every stage of life, quite frankly—that it is their age or, if it is really bad, that they could take a paracetamol. These examples are, and have been, far too familiar to too many women for far too long. We all know that these problems run deep, and my hon. Friend has cut to the heart of the issue. Much more needs to be done. It should not take a rewriting of the Equality Act to make it happen, but she is right to ask the question, and I thank her for it.

16:54

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

A few weeks ago, I posted a video sharing some of what I am learning about endometriosis, and the response was absolutely heartbreaking. My comments were full of people sharing their experiences—years of pain, being dismissed by doctors, struggling to get a diagnosis and then, on top of that, trying to hold down a job and get their employers to understand. I heard about lives turned upside down by a condition that they have no control over and very little support with.

I hear the same stories from people in Gorton. What gets me the most is that it does not have to be this way. All that is needed is for women’s pain and the pain of those who are assigned female at birth to be taken seriously by the doctors who serve them, by the employers they work for and by the Government who represent them, yet instead, as has so often been the case throughout history, it ends up being the people most affected who are left to fight for the change that they deserve. Despite the pain and debilitating symptoms of endometriosis, they are the ones coming up with the ideas, solutions and plans. They are the experts, and we should all be listening.

One in six women with endometriosis leaves the workplace due to their condition. Almost half say that they have struggled to progress in their career because of endometriosis, and almost half had not received workplace adjustments. Almost half had lost income. Despite endometriosis affecting one in 10 women, it is rarely taught effectively at medical schools as part of the curriculum, leaving future healthcare practitioners without the necessary knowledge.

Those with endometriosis in Gorton and Denton and in every constituency across the country are losing money, missing out on opportunities and struggling to stay in employment, not because they do not want to work but because the support simply is not there. We are talking about basic, practical help that could make the difference between someone staying in work and having to give it up completely. Good employers want guidance. They want advice on flexible working, on time off for medical appointments, extra breaks or a phased return after surgery. Good employers want to help their staff so that their businesses can perform to their highest potential.

We need a Government that will finally listen to, and act on, lived experience by adding gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis to the Equality Act 2010 guidance on the definition of disability. These conditions are long term—often lifelong—and by definition, they fluctuate and recur, meeting the criteria for disability. There must be specificity in the guidance to ensure that employees disabled by debilitating chronic conditions such as endometriosis are supported with reasonable adjustments and legally protected against workplace discrimination.

To Sanju Pal, who has campaigned for so long and so hard on this, as well as the tireless work of countless other organisations, and to everyone for sharing their experiences and who are out there fighting for change, I say thank you. This debate is entitled

“the potential merits of adding gynaecological conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance”,

but I think the people living with these conditions would find it pretty shocking that we even have to debate the merits. The debate should be about how much longer we can afford not to.

16:59

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this important debate.

Seven years ago, I was sat in this very room for a debate on endometriosis workplace support, in which the much-missed David Amess announced that the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis would be launching an inquiry into the state of care—at this point I also want to thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) for all his work over the years. I wish I could say that I cannot believe we are having the same debate again, yet I know from the countless emails I have received from women across the country about their experiences that many of the issues identified by the APPG all those years ago still persist.

One constituent recently reached out to me, having been repeatedly bedridden as a result of her pain. She spoke about a fruitless struggle to access healthcare, which had left her untreated and worried about keeping her job. Some changes have been made in the right direction, but we cannot ignore the evidence telling us that support is not reaching far enough. A recent endometriosis APPG call for evidence found that less than half of respondents with the condition had received any workplace adjustments, yet 80% of employers giving evidence supported changes to the guidance to explicitly recognise the condition as meeting the definition of a disability.

Our workplaces are clearly willing to make adjustments, but the guidance is failing them, as well as the people it is supposed to safeguard. The Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission must review the guidance so that it clearly reflects chronic and fluctuating conditions such as endometriosis. Will the Minister look carefully at the APPG’s findings and consider whether the guidance for employers should now be reviewed?

I have two further questions. First, will the Minister work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS on practical guidance that covers support before a diagnosis and the fair handling of short recurring absences? Secondly, as the Government develop the workplace health system, will the Minister ensure that endometriosis and other fluctuating menstrual health conditions are part of that work? Women have waited long enough to be believed by their doctors. They should not have to wait any longer to be supported by their employers.

17:02

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this important debate and to everybody else who has championed this issue, including those joining us in the Gallery.

We all know that, for far too long, women’s conditions have often been dismissed. They have not been a priority, and in some cases they have been misunderstood. Some might say that it is down to misogyny that is baked into the system, but these conditions truly impact every stage of women’s lives, from when they are very young girls and through the teenage years, all the way to when we are supposed to be full of wisdom—or not, in some cases. These conditions are fluctuating, which is partly why employers take the opportunity of not having to address reasonable adjustments. In fact, employees requesting reasonable adjustments are often faced by unreasonable expectations.

The scale of the challenge remains significant, so I welcome the fact that waiting lists are coming down in Wolverhampton’s NHS trust. Over 5,800 people in Wolverhampton were waiting for treatment this summer, which is an improvement on the 6,462 the year before, but hon. Members can see the scale that we are still facing. I welcome the Government’s action on the renewed women’s health strategy, but I call for levers across Government Departments to push faster.

Today’s debate is about more than just healthcare; it is also about employment and workplace protections, as we have heard. Too often, the support depends on whether an employer understands and has the resources to support what an individual is going through. That is inconsistent and can lead to further harm for the individual. The Equality Act already provides important protections where a condition meets the legal definition of disability. However, many women find themselves in a grey area where their condition significantly affects everyday life but the support remains inconsistent. That is why I believe there is a strong case for explicitly referencing gynaecological conditions within Equality Act guidance.

Clearer guidance would support employers to be better and to better understand conditions such as endometriosis, fibroids, PMOS and menopause. It would encourage earlier conversations, reduce stigma and support the reasonable adjustments that are needed. In many cases, those adjustments are straightforward, whether it is flexible working, time off for specialist appointments, temporary changes to working patterns or maybe some flexibility with home working. Will the Minister work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, employers and women’s health organisations to consider how Equality Act guidance can better reflect the realities faced by women living with those conditions?

Women have waited long enough to have these conditions recognised. We are making progress in healthcare and that progress should be welcome, but now we have an opportunity to ensure that the support extends beyond hospitals and GP surgeries and into workplaces.

17:06

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this debate. I speak as the chair of the APPG on PMOS and as a woman living with PMOS and endometriosis—I feel like I somehow won the cup when I got both of those. One in eight women in the UK suffer from PMOS, yet despite how common it is, it remains poorly understood, underdiagnosed and too often overlooked. The World Health Organisation estimates that up to 70% of women affected globally remain undiagnosed. Both of those figures are women waiting for answers.

For me, diagnosis took over 18 years. During those years I developed an eating disorder—I became bulimic—experienced depression and lost confidence. I passed out in sixth form on so many occasions. I lost the feeling in my legs and when I went to the GP, he told me over and over again, “It’s all part and parcel of being a woman. Take some paracetamols.” I share that because we must understand what delayed diagnosis costs. It reaches into your relationship with your food, mental health, working life and sense of self. Failure to diagnose does not make the condition disappear; it leaves women managing its consequences without the explanation, treatment or support they deserve.

PMOS affects more than fertility. It can affect metabolism, periods and mental health and it increases the risk of conditions including type 2 diabetes. Earlier diagnosis provides an opportunity to manage those risks and offer support sooner. Instead, women can spend years questioning themselves when the system should be asking the right questions.

Those failures do not fall equally. The condition disproportionately affects women from south Asian and black backgrounds and those on lower incomes, yet access to diagnosis and support remains inconsistent. Without greater awareness, existing inequalities in health can translate into inequalities in employment, career progression and economic opportunity. I cannot tell hon. Members the amount of times I have had a sleepless night before an exam, a driving test or anything important, worried that I would be too ill to stand up and do it.

A woman’s income, ethnicity or postcode should never determine whether she is heard or helped. We must tackle racism, language barriers and unequal access to care. For someone on an insecure contract, attending an appointment can mean losing wages, and asking for flexibility can feel like risking her job. The advice to seek support means little if that support is beyond her reach.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to provide for early diagnosis, access to psychological support, targeted action on inequalities and clear workplace guidance. Changing the name of polycystic ovary syndrome to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome must be matched by changing women’s experience. I cannot get those 18 years back, but we can stop another generation enduring the same wait, the same pain and the same anguish.

Greater awareness of PMOS and endometriosis in the workplace can help to ensure that women are supported, valued and able to thrive at work, rather than being forced to choose between managing their health and progressing in their careers. No woman should have to lose her health, her confidence or her future before the system finally decides to believe her and act.

17:10

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this really important debate. I would also like to join other Members from across the House in congratulating and commending the campaigners, some of whom are in the Gallery, on the incredible work that they do on behalf of not just themselves but all women across the country and, indeed, internationally.

Millions of women face the difficulty and pain of managing gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, PMDD—the list goes on and on. It is obvious that more must be done to rapidly speed up diagnosis times and provide effective care and accommodations to those with these often incredibly debilitating conditions. Their impacts on women’s everyday lives extend, as we have heard, to education, employment and fertility. Some women leave work altogether because they cannot obtain the support that they need. We cannot—indeed, must not—accept that as normal.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that there would be merit in dealing with these conditions in the same way as cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis, which are deemed to be disabilities, under the Equality Act 2010, from the point of diagnosis and without the need to meet the functional test. I therefore urge the Government to examine that proposal further.

As we have heard, however, even getting a diagnosis is appallingly slow. Women’s symptoms are too often normalised or dismissed across all health conditions. I have heard outrageous stories of women’s persistent health concerns being dismissed with sometimes incredibly sexist comments attached. One young woman described to me fairly recently a particularly awful example. She was explaining to a consultant how she felt physically sick because of her persistent stomach pain, in this case while she was out shopping with friends, only to be dismissed by the doctor, who replied, “I often feel sick when I go shopping with my wife”—[Interruption.] There are groans from the Gallery. That actually happened.

With there being grossly outdated and misplaced attitudes like this, it is hardly surprising that it takes an average of almost 10 years to receive an endometriosis diagnosis in the UK. Recent research by Endometriosis UK has shone a light on the extent of the impact of this condition. In a recent report, the charity found that 97% of those surveyed worked while experiencing severe pain. It is no wonder that almost half of all those with endometriosis said that it had made it difficult to progress in their career, while 28% had had to leave their job altogether because of it. The same survey found that employers overwhelmingly want to help, but with there being little guidance and with employers facing the everyday pressures of running a business, the support for these women often just is not there. That is costing women—in pain, in missed career opportunities and, ultimately, in dignity.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have written to Baroness Merron, the Women’s Health Minister, on several occasions to raise the urgent need to improve care for women with gynaecological conditions. The Government know that health-related economic inactivity costs the UK £212 billion every year. Even if we think about this only in such crude economic terms, the action needed pays for itself. Indeed, one NHS Confederation report found that for every £1 spent on obstetrics and gynaecology, the estimated return on investment was £11. It follows that tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services should be a top priority.

That is why it was so disappointing that the women’s health strategy contained no specific, measurable, time-bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care, while the NHS 10-year health plan did not include endometriosis, adenomyosis, PMOS or fibroids in its prevention agenda. Without there being clear direction from Government, we risk consigning more women to even longer waits and prolonged, unnecessary pain. That is why I was proud that the Liberal Democrats tabled to the Health Bill a new clause that would have ensured that the average wait time for endometriosis and other women-specific conditions was no longer than the average wait time for other elective conditions in the NHS. That would be a meaningful step towards equality in women’s healthcare.

Finally, we know that what gets measured gets done in the NHS. I hope that the Minister takes this away and conducts a serious examination of adding gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance. We owe it to these women to do all we can to tackle this injustice.

17:15

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to everyone here today and welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I thank all Members for their contributions and the campaigners here today for raising it. I also thank the ladies in the Gallery who are studying public health at University College London; that is wonderful. We need more women bringing these issues to the forefront of our public health agenda.

This subject is close to my heart. I have suffered from a gynaecological condition, and I suffered in silence for a very long time. Oftentimes, we are told that it is just a ladies’ problem and that we can just carry on—“Take a paracetamol and you’ll be fine.” But that is not the case. The condition is debilitating, and one often needs surgery or multiple surgeries. It is a difficult thing to explain to employers or even a spouse, or whoever someone is with. Someone can carry on as a normal human being with the condition, but on some days it completely debilitates their everyday existence. I am very sympathetic to this debate and the need for women’s gynaecological issues to be brought to the forefront of public health.

It is a particularly warm and welcome development that the NHS is recognising biological sex. It is important to acknowledge that biological females with endometriosis and particular ovarian issues—all the things that specifically biological females suffer from—have been neglected over the years.

I do not know whether this is just my experience, but I found things to be very difficult on the NHS. There was a very long waiting list, and I was told that I perhaps did not have endometriosis and needed to go back to just taking some paracetamol to get over what was wrong with me. I did have endometriosis, but that was not found out until I had surgery. So many women suffering from the exact same thing are being told, “Just wait—you’ll be fine”, “It’s just your own personal issue,” or, “Take a paracetamol and you’ll feel better soon.” But it gets worse and worse over time.

I want to make sure that women have access to the same public health resources as everyone else. Those things have fallen through the cracks over the years, which is why I want to raise them in this debate. The reality is that women have to endure debilitating pain, uncertainty or discrimination simply because of a condition that is too often misunderstood or dismissed. It is a reality where overall waiting times for appointments with a gynaecological specialist are higher than they were the month before, the year before and since the last general election.

Women are waiting a very long time just to see a gynaecologist and have basic things checked, and then the referral process takes years and years. It is debilitating, and many women just give up. Many across the House have tried to change the reality of the wait that women face in the NHS. I pay tribute to David Amess for starting the APPG on endometriosis and raising this important issue for the House.

Endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome and heavy menstrual bleeding can have a profound impact on women’s lives. They can affect their ability to work, their education, their relationships and their mental wellbeing. Just recently, I heard a powerful story from a brave young woman called Sophia, who shared with me that she is suffering from extreme pain that can affect her ability to attend secondary school. It took a lot of courage for her to talk to me about this. Again and again, she faces the refrain of, “You’ll be fine—it’s just period pain.” Too many young women hear that phrase when it comes to conditions such as endometriosis because our NHS has been too distracted by other realities to put women’s health at the forefront of care and prioritisation.

For women with endometriosis, the average wait for a diagnosis is around nine years—nine years of uncertainty, pain and, in many cases, being told that their symptoms are simply part of being a woman. I hope that we can work together today to bring forward a solution that will help put women’s health at the forefront of care.

17:20

[The Minister for Equalities (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I will endeavour to speak at pace so that I can cover everyone’s points and respond accordingly.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for introducing this important debate on a serious issue faced by so many women and girls; I am sure that we can all agree that she spoke extremely passionately. I thank her personally for her ongoing efforts in this campaign. I extend my thanks to the campaigners in the Gallery and acknowledge the challenges that my hon. Friend’s constituent Sanju Pal has faced, which led her to create this petition to add gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance.

I thank everyone for sharing their stories and for their contributions. I am personally passionate about this issue. The stats speak for themselves; I am not going to repeat them, but we all know that behind every one of them is a woman potentially suffering in silence—a woman getting dismissed and a woman who needs support.

This Government recognise the difficulties and pain that women and girls face in managing symptoms related to gynaecological conditions. As today’s debate has highlighted, menstrual and reproductive health issues can have a significant impact on the physical and mental wellbeing of women and girls, including on their participation in the workplace. The struggle is real and I have felt it myself, so I can relate to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). I personally thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate for her efforts inside this House as well: I have definitely reaped the benefits from those internal campaigns. For example, I have been able to vote by proxy when struggling with my health.

As a Government, we do not believe that anyone in this country should have to choose between managing their health and pursuing their career. We are committed to protecting the rights of women against unlawful discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that they have access to redress. As Members will know, depending on the circumstances, the Equality Act already provides protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, age or disability. The Act’s definition of disability focuses, for the most part, on how a condition affects a person’s day-to-day life, rather than listing specific conditions or impairments. That flexibility is important to allow the law to cover a vast range of conditions, as well as to avoid the risk of excluding changing, fluctuating or progressive conditions that impact on individuals differently.

My hon. Friend and other Members may be aware that the Government intend to produce guidance explaining how the law protects against combined discrimination. We can, of course, consider how gynaecological conditions can form part of that, and I will ensure that that is considered effectively. Alongside that, my hon. Friend and others will agree—I know that she made noises to this effect—that the issue can be addressed more effectively and quickly through ongoing efforts to help employers themselves to take more effective steps to support the health and wellbeing of their female employees: strengthening rights related to sick leave and flexible working, and improving how the health system addresses these conditions.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, and I do not doubt for one second her belief in the policy moving forward. However, I am concerned—and it is just a concern—that putting it into the Act will make employers recognise that it is specifically there, whereas saying that the Act can deal with it is still a bit opaque. This is one of the problems we have had; we want specificity, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, to make employers recognise just how serious the situation is.

[Satvir Kaur]

I accept that making it clearer will absolutely help; that should be considered as part of the combined discrimination guidance. I reassure Members that that will be considered. It is also important that we stress what else the Government are doing to address these issues. This debate has been healthy in reflecting that this is a wider issue that cannot only be addressed in legislation, although legislation is, of course, important.

We want to encourage employers to implement workplace adjustments, which have been raised by several Members in the debate, to help women remain in work and thrive in their careers. This Government are committed to that—not just because it is the right thing to do, but because equality is a precondition to our economic success, as many have already pointed out.

By creating more supportive and informed workplaces, we can help ensure that women with endometriosis or other health conditions can remain in work, progress in their careers and reach their full potential. That is why there is a great deal of action being taken by this Government to improve the support and protections available to women experiencing symptoms relating to gynaecological conditions.

In April this year, Mariella Frostrup was appointed as the Government’s women’s employment ambassador. In that role, she will campaign on women’s health throughout their life course, working with employers across the country to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health issues and address wider challenges affecting women in work, highlighting the vital economic contribution that women make.

The ambassador attended the launch of the “Endometriosis (Not) in the Workplace” report. In her remarks, she emphasised that supporting women’s health in the workplace is not only the right thing to do, but vital in retaining talent, reducing inequalities and strengthening the economy. This work will also include engaging with Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent “Keep Britain Working” review, which highlighted the scale of economic inactivity due to ill health and disability, as well as the important role employers can play in helping people to stay in work.

During the vanguard phase, we have worked with employers, providers, unions and people with health conditions to develop and refine approaches that will help people thrive in work, including promoting early conversations about health needs and supporting reasonable workplace adjustments for women’s health conditions.

As we develop workplace health systems, we are considering how health and work interact across different stages of life, including the impact of endometriosis and other long-term fluctuating menstrual health conditions on people’s ability to remain and thrive in work.

We welcome the involvement of Endometriosis UK in the vanguard phase, which provides valuable insight into the experiences of people living with these conditions and helps inform our approach. As well as taking steps to create more supportive and informed workplaces, the renewed women’s health strategy, published in April, represents a decisive shift towards addressing long-standing failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences, and access to care. Some of the stories shared in this debate are heartbreaking, and all of them have led to this important shift. The women’s health strategy identifies endometriosis as a priority condition and states our commitment to improve the treatment and ongoing care for every woman affected.

Through the plan Make Work Pay, we are strengthening support for people and managing health conditions alongside their work by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests where it is reasonable for them to do so. We want to ensure that all employers are supporting their employees’ health and wellbeing, because that will benefit the employees and their organisation. That is why the Government are getting large employers to publish action plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned, setting out how they will make meaningful changes to tackle the barriers women face throughout their working lives, including the steps being taken to improve support for menopause and endometriosis and to address the gender pay gap.

Importantly, the EHRC was mentioned. As Members will know, that is independent of the Government and will make its own operational decisions. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I am sorry if I did not get to everyone’s points.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of adding gynaecological conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance.

17:30

Sitting adjourned.