Commons Chamber

Thursday 26th March 2026

(began 7 hours, 42 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
09:34
09:35
09:35
None Portrait Q1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the renationalisation of the railways on rail users in the East of England. (908516)
-

Lilian Greenwood. Right, Peter. Doctor Peter Prinsley.
09:35
09:35
09:36
09:36
09:37
09:38
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
None Portrait Q3. What steps she is taking to help reduce waiting times for driving tests. (908518)
-

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I
09:40
09:41
09:42
09:42
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:45
09:45
None Portrait Q4. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of Government funding for repairing potholes. (908520)
-

>> Right? >> Clive Jones very. >> Much, Mr. Speaker. >> Woking Council. >> Number four.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number four. Number four. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This
09:45
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:48
09:48
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:50
None Portrait Q5. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail services. (908521)
-

Bell Ribeiro-Addy number five, please, Mr. Speaker.
09:50
09:51
09:52
09:52
09:53
09:53
09:53
09:54
09:54
09:55
09:56
09:57
09:58
09:58
09:59
10:00
10:00
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:03
10:04
10:04
10:05
10:05
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:07
None Portrait Q8. Whether she has reviewed with Cabinet colleagues the status of land used for environmental mitigation along the A14 in Huntingdon constituency. (908525)
-

Question Mr. Speaker.
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:14
10:15
10:16
Torcuil Crichton Portrait Torcuil Crichton MP (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Labour)
-
-
Torcuil Crichton thank you, Mr. Speaker. 40% of flights diverted from Stornoway, Benbecula and Barra airports in my constituency could have been avoided if we were part of Egnos, which was shamefully abandoned during Brexit by the Conservatives. This is a huge ask them right now, member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out. This is huge kind of social and financial implications. Schedules are cut. People are considering not just their travel arrangements, but their living arrangements, because without 21st century connectivity, we cannot live 21st century lives.

So I would urge the Minister to consider the cost benefit of rejoining Egnos and by all means, meet with me on the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and some Cornish MPs as well who have raised this Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his repeated and consistent advocacy on this issue, and I'm cognisant of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that air connectivity in Speaker, that air connectivity in the Scottish Highlands is not a nice to have. It is an absolute necessity. As well as meeting with the two members, my officials would be keen to engage with a variety of stakeholders as part of the review stakeholders as part of the review on to obtain evidence on the benefits of the Egnos solution. This evidence will be really critical to ensuring that the government works out its future position carefully, and that any future decision delivers value for money to the taxpayer.
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:18
10:18
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:28
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:30
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:38
10:38
10:39
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on local government reorganisation.
-

Yes. the Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on local government reorganisation.
10:39
10:39
None Portrait
-

Always happy to be at the despatch box. I don't know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. And you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to set out the latest steps in local government reorganisation. For too long, many areas have been served by complex two tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The government's aim on local government aim on local government reorganisation is simple clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people.

We are getting on with delivering that aim. And yesterday the Secretary of State announced the next steps on local government reorganisation in six areas of England. He has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to implement proposals for 15 new councils in Essex, Southend on Sea and Thurrock, Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Norfolk and Suffolk, in addition to the Isle of Wight that will see 16 councils operating across these areas. In place of the current 44, these proposals are supported by two thirds of councils within these areas and many local communities.

They will help expand key towns and cities, deliver housing and growth, and simplify public services for residents. We will bring the secondary legislation forward to implement the proposals for the new local councils in due course on East Sussex, Brighton and Hove and West Sussex. We have carefully considered the four proposals submitted alongside the views expressed during the consultation, but no final decision has been taken at this stage, reflecting the need to address a number of important matters. Proposed modifications will form the basis of a further technical consultation to be carried out after the May local elections.

This will allow councils and partners to provide focussed views before any final decisions are taken. Taking the time to get this right now provides the strongest foundations for delivery, supporting improvements to people's lives in the places where they live and enabling councils to operate effectively. From day one, we have set out the timetable with elections to new unitary councils taking place in 2027, ahead of them going live in April 2028. Reorganisation for the April 2028. Reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour and we will continue to work with councils to see that these reforms are see that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at heart.
10:41
10:42
James Cleverly Portrait Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> And there is no mandate for this. Nothing in their manifesto. This is Nothing in their manifesto. This is an imposition from Whitehall. And if the government was so proud of this work, why did they try and sneak it out in a written ministerial statement and then be dragged to the despatch box to justify their decisions? I, unlike the hon. Lady, have spoken to local government leaders in the areas affected. They were presented with a plan and told to comply.

The outcome was predetermined. This is a stitch up for Labour. Labour redrawing boundaries from the centre, overriding local identity and local consent to maximise party political advantage. And the government is Mr Speaker has announced £63 million for this transformation. Yet it turns out that is the same £63 million that they've already committed to deal with. The consequence of their botched attempt to cancel local elections. So how can they now claim that is going to refund wholesale reorganisation? The government is telling well-run councils to subsidise poorly run councils money that should be filling potholes, actually filling black holes, resources that should be for collecting waste and supporting vulnerable residents instead will be diverted into restructuring and bureaucracy.

Estimates point to a borrowing a borrowing requirement. Because of these changes, running into the hundreds of millions of pounds potentially approaching £1 billion, all to fund their vanity project. And the cost will fall on local people. So some questions. How can she claim this to be local led when it is imposed on communities? Why are Ministers determining these boundaries rather than the Independent Boundary Commission? What estimates will be made of the total borrowing requirement? How much money has been set aside for the inevitable judicial reviews that will flood out after this announcement? Mr.

speaker, this is not reform. This is vandalism. It is not empowerment, it is imposition, and it is local people who will pay the price for this government's incompetence and arrogance.
10:44
Alison McGovern Portrait Alison McGovern MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Birkenhead, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, nobody could accuse the right hon. nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not saying what he really thinks about this proposal. So I'm glad that he's had the So I'm glad that he's had the opportunity to do that. He asks about proposals being locally led, and of course, these proposals have all been put forward by the areas that they affect, and residents and others have had their chance to feed into the consultation. And we weighed those consultation responses alongside other factors that he will be aware of, and he mentioned some of them, including finances.

He asks about the Boundary Commission officials have engaged with the Boundary Commission extensively, and I have met them myself to talk through the process, and I'm confident that they have the ability to do the work that they need to do to make this process success. And finally, on finances, Mr. Speaker, having spent the past six months or so, day after day after day listening to councils with deficits caused by a failure on send, a failure on children's care, a failure on adult social care, a failure that was presided over by a government of which the right hon.

Gentleman was an active part. I would be cautious if I was him lecturing other people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about council borrowing. Just to let people know there are. Normally Frontbenches wouldn't speak on this particular issue because it affects their constituency and they've got a direct involvement. There is dispensation today just to say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dispensation today just to say, let's start with Steve Race. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I welcome the government's move to reorganisation government's move to reorganisation that will benefit cities such as Exeter. The Minister may, though, have seen yesterday official
10:46
10:47
10:47
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
urgent question, rather than it being through a proper statement from the government yesterday. Exactly as I have said before, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where they strengthen communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top down. And in recent months, I have spoken with local government leaders across the country and their message is really country and their message is really clear and consistent. First, trust us. Second, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system, which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs.

So while the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability, they failed to address these fundamental issues. And in Sussex, the government has essentially said that local proposals. They dismiss them and they instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that this approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her department fully assessed the financial consequences of reorganisation? Proposals in these areas and across the country, and will she commit to a cross-party piece of work with local leaders, with local leaders? I note, to create a fair, adequate and long term funding settlement for councils.
10:48
10:50
10:50
10:51
10:52
10:52
10:53
10:53
10:54
10:55
10:55
10:56
10:57
10:58
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:01
11:01
Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Andrew Gwynne thank you. >> Mr. Speaker, and thank you for your dispensation to speak on behalf of my constituents today. behalf of my constituents today. Mr. Speaker, not once in six years in this House have my constituents written to me saying that the thing we need to do is Cleeve, West Sussex, into two with two educational catchment areas, two different highways authorities, two social care services and two expensive town halls and council offices. So will the Minister.

Now, at this late stage, listen to my constituents reject the proposals put forward by Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens to cleave our ancient county into two and join me in saving West Sussex.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the. Well, it's always worth a try. I'd like to thank the hon. Gentleman like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As as as I mentioned in response to others, this is not about the identity of this is not about the identity of our historic counties. It's about effective councils. And if I may say, the point that he made about say, the point that he made about what his constituents write to him about it gives the game away.

The reason why we're doing this is to improve services and deal with the things that people really care about, and making sure that councils are able to give people a good quality of life wherever they are in England.
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
was determined by the backbench Business Committee. Tuesday the 14th of April. Consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Wednesday the 15th of April. Consideration of Lords amendments to the Pension Schemes amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords messages to the Children's Wellbeing and Social Schools Bill, Thursday the 16th of April. General debate on the Modernisation debate on the Modernisation Committee's first report of the 20 2426 session on access to the House of Commons and its procedures, and the House administration's response.

Friday the 17th of April. The House will not be sitting the provisional business for the week commencing the 20th of April includes Monday the 20th of April if necessary. Considering consideration of Lords messages to the Victims and Courts Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lord's message to the Crime and Policing Bill. And on Tuesday, the 21st of April, consideration of Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I can also announce to the House that the State Opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday the 13th of May, 2026.

As is usual, the current session of Parliament will be prorogued ahead of the King's speech and this time will be used to enable logistical and security preparations for the State Opening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Parliament. The likely date of prorogation will be confirmed in due course. John Lamont thank you, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Lamont thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I begin by echoing your remarks around our colleague David, former colleague David David, former colleague David Winnick, and pay my respects to him? We must all condemn the We must all condemn the anti-Semitic arson attack against the Hatzolah ambulances in Golders Green on Monday morning. This was a sickening attack on the Jewish community. Anti-Semitism has no place in our country and we must stand together against this hatred and intimidation. Mr. speaker, today is Purple Day, the International Day of Epilepsy Awareness.

It is an important opportunity to raise understanding of a condition affecting many people across the United Kingdom. Can I ask the leader to join me in recognising the work of charities, campaigners and clinicians who support people with this condition? Can we also take a moment to remember Salih Mohammadi, aged 19, a talented wrestler and to all those executed by the Iranian government, their courage must not be forgotten. Every member of this House should stand in solidarity with the people of Iran in their pursuit of freedom, justice and dignity.

We all want to see the conflict in the Middle East brought to an end as quickly as possible. But with rising oil prices, the government must clarify what it is doing to control inflation and pressures on household budgets. The Labour Party promised before the general election to cut energy bills by £300. So can I ask the leader if that promise still stands, and when does the leader expect the
11:16
John Lamont Portrait John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)
-
-
Chancellor to come forward with her next inevitable U-turn on fuel duty? next inevitable U-turn on fuel duty? With less than 50 days to go until much of the country goes to the polls, the former deputy Prime Minister and former deputy leader Minister and former deputy leader of the Labour Party, has given a damning assessment of the government and Prime Minister. She government and Prime Minister. She said Labour is running out of time, that it is not delivering change that it is not delivering change fast enough and represents the establishment, not working people.

She also described some of the Labour government's policies as un-british. So does the leader agree with that assessment or is the right hon. Member for Ashton under Lyne wrong? Mr. speaker, there are of course, also critical Scottish Parliament elections. The smart way to stop the SNP majority is to vote Scottish Conservative on the peach ballot paper. The SNP are distracted by independence and divisive issues, while people facing rising prices, weak growth and job insecurity. John Swinney now proposes another push for independence, admitting nobody knows his tactics.

Meanwhile, the Labour government is failing to deliver change. It has abandoned the oil and gas industry in Scotland and broken promises to pensioners and farmers. The Chancellor is driving up bills whilst increasing debt. Labour's repeated U-turns show a government in chaos, and now that chaos is out in the open, with the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar calling for the Prime Minister to go. Mr. Sarwar and the Prime Minister have not spoken in over a month, so can I ask the Leader of the House if the Prime Minister has been banned from Scotland? Has the man supposedly leading the United Kingdom been told not to venture past Carlisle or Coldstream? Is this how weak the Prime Minister has become? Scotland, a place the Prime Minister visited several times during the general election campaign, is now a no go area for him.

And what of the rest of the Labour government? Are they also been banned from Labour's campaign in Scotland? Anas Sarwar this week said Mr. Speaker, I have been open about saying that this is an unpopular UK Labour government and we have an unpopular Prime Minister. That is a statement of fact, says Mr. Sarwar. So does the leader accept that fact? Will this unpopular Labour government help the Labour campaign in Scotland by staying away, or will they help the SNP by getting involved? Mr.

speaker, the Scottish Conservatives offer a clear alternative responsible spending, economic growth and lower taxes for hard working families. This election is about stopping an SNP majority, something we have done before and something we will do again. Finally, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the official opposition lost some of our precious debating time because the Chancellor decided to make a statement. Unfortunately, the statement did not announce any of the new and what there was had already been briefed out to Chris Mason at the BBC.

Can I therefore ask the leader for another half day opposition day debate before the end of the session, please? Mr. speaker, as we approach the Easter recess, may I wish you the Leader of the House and all honourable and right hon. Members and the staff, a very happy Easter.
11:19
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Yes, leader. I thank the Deputy Shadow Leader for his questions? It's always good to see him in his place opposite. to see him in his place opposite. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, can I join him in his remarks on the terrible attack in Golders Green? I hope the whole House, as he says, will join us in condemning the attack on the Jewish community ambulances in Golders Green. This was a horrific anti-Semitic hate crime, and we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community.

Mr. speaker, this week also marked nine years since the murder of PC Keith Palmer, who died protecting this House. His courage and commitment will never be forgotten, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with PC Palmer's family, friends and colleagues. And we thank, Mr. Speaker, the recent security officers who keep us and this place safe today. I also join him. And you, Mr. Speaker, earlier, in paying tribute to David Winnick with a distinguished more than 40 year tenure, he was unwavering in his commitment to his constituency, and I am sure members of the House will join me in sending our condolences to David's friend and friends and family.

Mr. speaker, I have just announced The King's Speech and that it will take place. I announce the King's Speech, but that it will take place on Wednesday the 13th of May, and at its conclusion, this parliamentary session will see the delivery of over 50 bills. And through this legislation, we are improving renters rights, changing planning laws to streamline the delivery of new homes. We are bringing our railways into public ownership and we are strengthening employment rights, and we are delivering on the changes that we promised, Mr.

Speaker, and we will continue to build on this in the next parliamentary session. And before I turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific remarks, I join with him in wishing all members a very happy Easter. I think it will be particularly special for the newly ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to take the role, and I hope that all members will be able to spend some time with their families and in their constituencies during the recess. Let me turn to the specific remarks of the hon.

Gentleman. I certainly join with him in recognising the important work of the charity's consultants, families and everybody involved in the battle against epilepsy. On National Epilepsy Day. I also join with him in standing in solidarity with the people of Iran. Of course, we hope that the conflict will end soon, but also that it ends justly and we do stand in solidarity with them. He asked about the cost of living. We're already bringing down energy costs, bills by £120, and the Chancellor, I am sure, and the Energy Secretary will keep the House updated as we see how this particular crisis, international crisis, unfolds, we'll need to take careful stock of what's happening, particularly to energy bills, and we will be coming back not only to keep the house updated, but if further action is necessary, we will be taking that action.

He refers to the remarks of my right hon. Friend, the former Deputy Prime Minister and MCHLG Secretary, and I've just read out a list of the achievements of this government in the first session, and she was at the heart of many of those achievements, Mr. Speaker. So I think the the divide which he seeks to create in here is not actually one that exists in that exists in in reality. He also talked about letting people down and he mentions pensioners. Well, pensioners will next month be achieving a considerable rise in their State Pension as a result of the triple lock, which we are committed to keeping.

Mr. speaker, unlike the party opposite. And then he also talks about the situation in Scotland, and I can reassure him there'll be plenty of support for our colleagues at north of the border. There will be plenty of opportunities for campaigning north of the border, where the choice Mr Speaker is a very clear one indeed. It is to continue with the failure and underachievement of the SNP government or real change under Scottish Labour. That is the choice and there will be plenty of opportunity for every member of this PLP and indeed of the party to be out making the case for that change.

And in terms of what he says about the Scottish Tories, it's great to see him finishing on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a joke. Can I just say to the two people who came in late, please don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who came in late, please don't stand. I don't want to embarrass you both. Sojan Joseph thank. You, Mr. Speaker. On Friday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On Friday. I met with my. Constituent Andrew. Mackay. Whose wife Katie.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Passed away at the end of September. Like Andrew, Katie was a retired civil servant, having worked for Border Force for over 40 years. Nearly six months later, Andrew is still not receiving his
11:24
11:25
11:26
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. late David Winnick, and can I join with all sides of the House in condemning the attacks in north London? We stand united against anti-Semitism in this House. And can I also say I'm grateful for the government's swift commitment to replace those ambulances as well? That was a much important gesture. Can I also welcome the confirmation of a date for the King's Speech? As the leader House knows, I won't be present for that King's speech because my first baby is due in a few weeks time.

I'll be on leave. Thank you, but I hope it all goes well. Moving on. Yeah, as well as it can. On Iran. Mr. speaker, it is clear that Trump's reckless war is causing death and destruction in the region. It's having repercussions for everybody across the world. And I do welcome that. The Chancellor has made a couple of statements on this issue already. She addressed the particular problem facing customers of heating oil, and has offered some reassurances that there'll be some broader targeted support in the weeks to come.

But can I bring the House attention to another group that hasn't been spoken about yet? And that's the customers on district heat networks. These people are on community based groups, often tied to a single supplier, often living in blocks of flats, usually in cities, and at the moment they are not covered by the Ofgem price cap. I've been a customer of a district heat network myself, and I know that sometimes it can mean you can be protected by global supply shocks, but it is entirely dependent on the network that you're on, where the heat comes from and the contracts that your supplier is signed up to.

And because they're not protected by that Ofgem price cap, they're going to be extremely worried about what the latest events mean for them. So could the leader House organise the relevant Minister to to come to this House and to offer reassurances to those customers, in particular, about what support will be in place for them with the forthcoming energy crisis.
11:27
11:29
11:29
11:30
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
Bob Blackman. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the leader for announcing the business for the next two weeks after Easter. I note that yesterday the House rose early when government business finished early, when we could have had a three hour debate in backbench business time, it was available. And I note that we're not being given any time in the week after Easter, other than half a day on the Monday we come back. Can I also announce that in Westminster Hall that the debates on Tuesday the 14th will be a debate on hidden credit liabilities and the role of the FCA.

On Thursday the 16th of April, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, followed by debates on the housing needs of young people and the NHS Federated Data Platform. On Tuesday, the 21st of April, there'll be. There'll be debate on merits of independent national body, on overseeing wheelchair provision on Thursday, the 23rd of April, there will be a debate on access to education and training for young adult carers, followed by a debate on gambling.

Advertising. In addition, can I also say, Mr. Speaker, that we should remind the House that government RPS should not put in bids to the Backbench Business Committee? I'm aware of the hon. Lady from Dudley, who became a PPS after she submitted the bid, and I'm grateful to her for arranging for someone else to take on her debate afterwards. In addition, can I urge the House to respond to the modernisation committee's consultation on backbench business time and petitions? Mr.

speaker, we had a lively debate in Trenton, Urgent Questions on potholes and we've all experienced the dreadful experience of having a tire go when we've driven over a pothole. Then it's reported and the workforce from the council have come round for some pitch into it, roll it. It then rains and washes the pitch away. In Haro, we have a unique solution to that. It's called Pothole Pete, a pothole pro affectionately known as Pothole Pete, which scurries the. The surface. Rhys recycles the surface, but then puts down a layer and.

And literally make sure that it's cemented to the to the surface and won't be removed. This means, Mr. Speaker, it's far more efficient, far more effective, and I can. Can the leader commend this to councils up and down the country?
11:33
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. hon. Gentleman, as ever for his work and the commitment of his work and the commitment of his committee to this place in terms of the use of time. He and I have discussed on a number of occasions discussed on a number of occasions how best we can use time in this place, and as he is, he said the modernisation Committee is looking at that now, and I would echo his request that members do take part in that and and do put in a submission over the next few weeks.

I can't make a promise that I'm unable to keep. These will be somewhat uncertain times in this place in terms of timing, because we will be dependent on messages that might or might not come back from the other players. But I'll certainly bear in mind what he says on the issue of potholes. Again, this is an issue that has been raised across the House with me on a number of occasions, and I note just this morning in transport questions, we are investing £24 billion in maintaining and improving motorways and local roads across the country.

And as my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has said, drivers are fed up with the state of roads and the extra funding that we provided is for potholes and road maintenance. It's not to be diverted elsewhere. As for my reaction to Pothole Pete, I will draw it to the attention of transport Ministers and seek their views rather than give my own.
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon MP (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )
-
-
Jim McMahon thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituents, Cassie Speaker. My constituents, Cassie and Ryan Claydon, suffered the loss of their unborn child, Matilda, at 36 weeks. Like every parent in 36 weeks. Like every parent in England and Wales who go through this trauma, they were required to attend the registrar's office in person to register the stillbirth. Sitting in a waiting room with new parents and babies, making the grief even harder than it needed to be. I am supporting their calls for parents of stillborn babies to be able to register remotely as they can already in Scotland.

Can the Leader of the House advise on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

best way to secure this change and join me in crediting the campaign led by Cassie and Ryan? Yes. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter and indeed the way in which matter and indeed the way in which he has raised it. I'm sure the whole House will join with me in recognising Cassie and Ryan's recognising Cassie and Ryan's campaign for this change. After such a devastating experience, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the understand, Mr. Speaker, that the General Register Office is considering options for registering births and deaths over the telephone or online to minimise the burden on bereaved families, but I will make sure that Ministers in will make sure that Ministers in the Home Office have heard my hon.

Friend's question and that he gets an update.
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
Tessa Munt Portrait Tessa Munt MP (Wells and Mendip Hills, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Tessa Munt. >> Tessa Munt. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituent Michael is autistic, actively psychotic, has a confirmed actively psychotic, has a confirmed lack of capacity. His parents have a power of attorney, his chronic medical problems include cysts deep in his chest, which could burst at any time. He has bowel disease, myopathies deep apnoea. His family contacts me with increasing distress as Michael hasn't washed or changed his clothes in eight months, refuses food, makes direct threats of violence to his mother, forbids his parents from using the phone, compels his father to drive him around town.

After midnight, a multidisciplinary team decided on the 3rd of March that a Court of Protection application was needed. But no agency accepts responsibility for filing. Can the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to ensure that his proposed reforms to the Mental Capacity Act addresses cases where capacity assessment has been made. All the professionals agree, of course, the course of action, but no statutory agency will act,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leaving his elderly carers at risk of violence in their own home. Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very concerned to hear of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very concerned to hear of the case that the hon. Lady raises in terms of drawing to the in terms of drawing to the attention of the Health Secretary, her concerns and about going forward with these matters. I'll
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this concern and as she to raise this concern and as she points out, it's similar concerns have been raised earlier in this session. I'm sorry to hear of the issues faced by her constituents, and I understand the frustration of my hon. Friend. We are committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agency standards. The standard of their service. I will make sure that Ministers are aware of this case. I hope that there will be able to provide her with an update of what our plans are going forward, but I have also listened to her call, and indeed others,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about whether or not we can find some time so that we can hear further about these matters. Can I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I. Thank the Leader of the House for his answers. This morning, and allow a couple of moments for the allow a couple of moments for the front benchers to swap over? Thank front benchers to swap over? Thank you. Which brings us to a statement on National Savings and Investments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Torsten Bell. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I would like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With permission, I would like to make a statement regarding National Savings and Investments. On the 18th of December, 2025, NSS and I notified the Treasury of an operational failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. some customers who had passed away. The result of this failure is that not all savings were identified by NSC and paid to the beneficiaries
12:32
12:32
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
significant attention at the time. However, what is now clear is that NSS and I and its suppliers did not respond to those warning signs as respond to those warning signs as fully as I and more importantly, their customers would expect. Nor their customers would expect. Nor did the last Government Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, Bereaved families whose loved ones held accounts with NSS and I will rightly be anxious NSS and I will rightly be anxious about this news. So let me turn to the action we have taken and to the further steps we are putting in further steps we are putting in place today.

Since being notified, the Treasury has ensured external advisers, including EY and legal experts, have been engaged to identify the scale of these errors. Through this work, NSS and I have reviewed over 34 million customer records. That work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,500 customers, with up to 476 million in deposits being affected. Three quarters of cases relate to the period between 2008 and 2025. This number is likely to fall in future, but while it represents less than 0.2% of Dns's customers, it is still far too many.

Now, NSC is not regulated by the FCA, but the government expects it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit taking banks. And so it is right that NSS and I is apologising today. The government's priorities now are threefold. First and immediately, to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place, NSS and I have received written assurances from their customer facing supplier, Sopra Steria, that the causes of this tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward.

Their previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full cooperation given they were responsible for handling bereavement cases until 2025. Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NSC holds. These deposits belong to customers. Returning them in no way represents an additional liability to the taxpayer. And for the avoidance of doubt, let me spell out that those savings are 100% safe. This issue is about tracing, not the security of any funds, but it is important nonetheless.

NSC has put in place a dedicated program team, and it's hired an additional 100 staff, and I have asked them to publish a delivery plan in May, detailing how they will take forward this work to reunite funds with their owners. This will cover the number of cases affected. How NSS and I will proactively contact representatives of of estates to ensure they receive the funds they are due, including interest on savings and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid. There is no need for individuals to waste money on a claims management company or solicitor.

I want to reassure people that the onus is not on them, but on NSC to act, to contact a state representative and to reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. Further information is available on the website and their contact centre is open seven days a week. I will ensure that MPs have a dedicated means to contact NSC to raise any constituency cases. Direct Madam Deputy Speaker dealing with bereavement is always challenging and I am sure all of us recognise that.

Finding out that errors have been made as part of that could be distressing. So we are committed to ensuring NSS and I support those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible. We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs. As a result of this error, we are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NSC delivery plan in May, Madam Deputy Speaker current NSC customers can access their accounts as normal.

Any wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NSC or the My Lost Account website. And because in the past, some searches have focussed too narrowly on searching for specific accounts, I have also instructed N, S, and I to make it simpler for people to search for all accounts or products they might hold. Our third priority is institutional. NSC plays an important role helping the public save and providing a material contribution towards government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role while addressing the tracing issues I have laid out today.

It must also complete what has been a challenging business transformation program. This program was put in place back in 2020, but with little progress made in the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report has set out, this government has appointed David Goldstone, former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, to support NSS and I to bring the program back on track. With all this in mind, I also want to make sure NSC has the very best leadership in place, effective from today.

I have appointed Sir Jim, a former HMRC first permanent Secretary, to take over as the chief executive and I on an interim basis to provide a fresh start for NSS next phase of development. I recognise his predecessor, Dax Harkins, 22 years of public service at NSC, as well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to this tracing problem, and to set out what lessons must be learned for NSS any going forward.

I have discussed this with Jim. I am confident that his extensive experience will help guide NSC in the months ahead, and I will ensure. Sir Jim's review is shared with the chairs of the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committees upon completion. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me end by saying that NSC holds over £240 billion of savings belonging to 24 million customers. It is an organisation that is valued by those savings, by those saving with it and by this government. And I want to repeat NSS and I's apology to their customers, but also to reiterate that every penny of their savings are safe.

And as always, they are 100% guaranteed by the Treasury. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
12:38
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Mark Garnier. Can I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement? Madam Deputy Speaker, This is a scandal that is affecting tens of thousands of people, and that is a scandal that could end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds. NSC is supposed to be as safe a place as anywhere. You can put your money and your savings, where savers can trust their money, will be looked after. 24 million people, as we've heard, do so, and it is a savings scheme the government can use as a benefit to taxpayers borrowing to provide funds for the running of the country.

It is something that needs to be demonstrably secure. In reality, bereaved families have been short changed, with NSC losing track of investments, delaying transfers and withholding premium bond payments. Customers have faced a complete breakdown in communication at the most difficult time, adding stress and worry. In the breaking news paper reporting today, we have heard about how people have had to chase up their own cases, only to be told that they would have to wait a further 6 to 9 months for a resolution.

Some families have also had to call in lawyers to obtain money that is rightfully theirs, and there are also examples of bereaved family members receiving letters incorrectly addressed to their dead relatives. N s and I have in the past tried to blame some of these failures on Covid and the outsourcing of staff. But whatever their excuses, this is unacceptable and a complete failure of management. NSC is letting down its customers and complaints have more than doubled in just over three years. At the same time, the digital transformation of NSC that was meant to cost 1.3 billion has now ballooned to 3 billion.

Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee was damning about the digital digitalisation plan, calling it a full spectrum disaster, concluding NSC is overconfident, has no workable plan and no idea of eventual cost. If the Public Accounts Committee could see it, then why has this government been sitting on their hands? Poor performance and a botched digital transformation mean that the NSC are short changing savers at a time when raising money for the government has never been more needed.

NSC is an arm's length body overseen by the Treasury. Specifically, it is an executive agency of the Chancellor. So what is concerning is that the Minister has today admitted that NSC notified the Treasury of these operational failings on the 18th of December last year. It is apparently taken a breaking news story in the Daily Telegraph for the government to come forward and make a statement today. So can the Minister please explain why it has taken him over three months to come forward with this statement? The Minister also said that the previous government failed to act.

That implies that there was something to act on. So can the Minister set out what actions he has taken between the coming to power on the 4th of July 2024 and 18th of December 2025? And I have some further questions for the Minister. So what provisions has been made for compensation and who will be paying for it? Were bonuses where bonuses have been paid to senior staff over the period of the poor performance, will they be recovered? On that note, we have seen reports of the chief executive will be resigning as a result of this and the botched digital transformation process.

So can the Minister confirm whether he has resigned or has he been sacked? Can he confirm whether he has received bonuses over this period of poor performance? And finally, what confidence does the Minister have and the government have that this is the true depth of the problem, specifically on this bereaved families problem? And what work is he doing to identify whether this might be the tip of an iceberg? And I'm not trying to impugn that it is the tip of an iceberg, but but in order to ensure that this is the limit of the of the problem and people have been let down.

Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst Ines and I have apologised for these mistakes, this will be of little comfort to those thousands of people who have lost out. The government does need to act swiftly and the families need to be compensated. But can I just finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that we on this side of the House will work collaboratively with the government in order to make sure this has a swift resolution. Thank you very much, Minister.
12:42
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. welcome the tone of the opposition front benches remarks. I obviously absolutely agree with him that customers deserve better and they deserve reassurance. And I've tried to provide that today, setting out what we are doing going forward, but also giving everybody reassurance that their savings are 100% safe and they are guaranteed by the government. Let me turn to a few of the questions he's raised. Specifically, he asks why we have come to the House today. That has been the intention for some time.

As he says, we were notified in December. We have reviewed during that period the 34 million cases, over 34 million cases of customer records that I mentioned. And we've put in place the process to make sure that we fix this problem going ahead so that we can provide the reassurance that I know we both want to see for customers. And I've put in place the change of leadership that I've set out today. The hon. Member asked about that change of leadership. And yes, I can confirm that the former chief executive of NSC has resigned today and that he did not receive a bonus last year.

Turning to the question he's raised about the cost to taxpayers, I do want to. There's been some deeply misleading reporting over the course of the last 24 hours. So I do want to be absolutely clear. The money we are talking about returning to the States belongs to those estates. It is their money. And so the returning of people's money to them is not a liability to other taxpayers, is the right thing to do. And that is what is going to take take place on.

He asks about would it have been reasonable to have expected the previous government to act? And I'm sure he would rightly note that NSC is operationally independent. I think the challenge will comes that around 2018, when it became clear there were significant problems in this area, I mentioned the Santander case in particular. There was widespread coverage of that within NSC. People realise this could pose problems for them. As I you know, I'm slightly he's taken an excellent tone today. It's less impressive to see the shadow Chancellor talking in the Telegraph overnight, talking about a staggering failure of oversight when he was the Treasury Minister in 2018, when Santander when Santander case came forward as as as often, he has shown better judgement than his superiors in this regard.

The. Although. Then again, the. The Member for Newark talks about incompetence on a staggering scale, which is an irony given that he was a Minister in the government carrying out the incompetence he is referring to, but I broadly, I welcome the. I welcome the way in which he has conducted himself today. It is absolutely right that we do provide the reassurance to both to taxpayers, as I've done, but most importantly to savers with N, S and I. And I hope I've done that today.
12:45
12:46
12:46
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Bobby Dean. Bobby Dean. >> Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker and I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement and for the action. He's outlined that the government is already undertaking. He will know that customers often choose National Savings and Investments because of the fact it is government backed, and because that provides them with extra reassurance that their savings will be safe. So this news that tens of thousand people essentially had their money lost for a period of time will be a hammer blow to trust in that institution.

And the fact that these cases involve bereaved families make it particularly damaging. So to restore trust in the institution, it's going to be vital that justice is served comprehensively and swiftly. And so can the Minister confirm the estimated timeline for identifying and contacting every family affected, and can he confirm whether or not the government has committed not only to reimbursing the returning the money that they are due, but compensating them fully to to reflect the distress that's been caused.

You've already mentioned interest, but confirming all that interest will be returned. He apologies and will will independent. Will legal costs also be reimbursed because some of these bereaved families resorted to legal action in order to get what they believed they were owed. And I'm sure they'll feel that they are entitled to be reimbursed on that as well. And will the government now carry out a full independent investigation to fully learn the lessons of what happened and ensure that there'd be much stronger oversight to the systems going forward?
12:48
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Well, I thank the hon. Member for his questions. Let me try to do justice to them. He's completely justice to them. He's completely right to say that one of the reasons customers do choose NSC is because they trust the institution, but they also know that it has that 100% government backing. And I think it's really important that we're all clear with everybody that that remains in place, that no funds have been misplaced and everybody will be entitled to every penny of their savings in terms of rebuilding that trust.

That is why I've put new leadership in place. So Jim's review will lay out those lessons, and he's an interim chief executive that we will be recruiting for a permanent replacement. So he's in a position to give us the full truth about what he sees it. And he's an experienced public sector and public service servant leader. So I think we should I think we should look to his review. And as I say, I've asked him to report in three months to give us that, and I'll make sure that the appropriate Select Committee chairs have that, and that will set out the lessons we need to learn.

He asks about compensation rightly, as I set out in my statement, we will ensure the appropriate compensation is paid along the lines of how the FCA encourages best practice. That will include compensation, compensatory interest, where funds have been withheld from estates for longer than they should have been them, and where people have more complicated cases, they will and that will be done automatically. But where people have more complicated cases, they will, of course, as always, be able to come direct to NSC to raise their cases and have them considered on a case by case basis.
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Minister. >> Well, I thank my Right Honourable, the hon. Member for for that, as he rightly says, he was a that, as he rightly says, he was a a Treasury Minister of some duration. It brings experience on these issues to this House. He's right to say that the job of Ministers, when it comes to an executive agency like this is to is to provide to receive assurance as well as providing strategic direction. So let me just say a bit about how we've been thinking about that in terms of assurance.

In the shorter term, I've asked for written attestation from the providers, not just from NSC, from the providers who do most of the customer facing work in this organisation. I've asked for assurances from the current provider that they will not be seeing any of these mistakes going forward. And as I say, I've asked Atos, the previous provider, to provide attestation that they will fully cooperate given that they were the providers throughout the entirety of the last government, as I say, up to until 2025.

So I hope that gives him some assurance about how we are seeking that assurance more broadly. And this is a slightly separate issue, but I think it is relevant to the question of leadership of the organisation. He's right to raise the challenges with the transformation programme started in 2020, but going far too slowly over Budget. As I say, the Public Accounts Committee has made that abundantly clear in terms of what we have already done. That is to put David Goldstone, who's the former chief operating officer at the MoD, in to support that programme of work and to make sure it is back on track.

But we need to make sure it is. And I'm sure we'll be updating both that Select Committee and and himself, if he would like, about that process of work.
12:53
12:54
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
My hon. Friend is obviously completely right, and I'm sure she does speak. For many today, the experience of administering estates is challenging for all of us at the best of the best of times, and it's of deep regret to me, and I'm sure to everyone at NSC that we are putting anybody through complications. With that regard, I can provide her with the reassurance that everybody is absolutely due, all monies that will be paid, we will make that is held by NSC. We will make every endeavour to reconnect people to their funds.

That will include, as I say, directly contacting the representatives of estates, who are the people that will have contacted NSC in the first place, to notify them of the death that has taken place, and then we will obviously put in place a chain of contact below that. Were that not to be successful, the details of that will be set out in the plan in May, but I can give a reassurance that that is already being worked through, and we will be using the time between now and May to continue to examine that data the NSC holds.

I talked about the the over 34 million cases that we are reviewing to make sure that we have the absolute best contacts and are able to go as soon as that delivery report plan has been set out. She rightly raised the question of distress, and I can absolutely give her that reassurance that everybody involved in this understands how they should be handling it. As I said, from the Treasury's part, that includes recognising that there will be worries about the implications for some estates and taxes due, and I will set out how we intend to address that in May.
12:55
12:57
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
And I thank. questions. Let me try to take those in turn on the question of compensation. I would think about it in two two buckets there will be automatic compensation that relates to the withholding of funds, and the FCA provides guidance on how that should be administered, and we will make sure that is put in place in full. There will also then be where there are more complicated cases. He's raised some of the particular examples where you might see that, where the where the deprivation of funds has had implications, and those will be considered on a case by case basis, not by the formula that I'm talking about from the FCA.

I am keen to praise journalists where we can. But in the case of, I'm afraid the Telegraph in recent weeks, that does need to be. That needs to be caveated, which. Is it important to raise cases where members of the public are bringing those up? But when I've looked at some of the reporting in the last 48 hours, it has been incredibly inaccurate. I will give him two examples. They've managed to publish a case claiming that there have been 160,000 cases brought to the force relating to NSC, when the truth is, it's in the hundreds printed on the front page of a newspaper without basic fact checking taking place.

And then overnight today, they've talked about taxpayers money being used to pay to reunite people with their funds. That is entirely inaccurate for the reasons I've set out today, and I worry that it will have worried some members and some members of the public. So it's important we do raise questions of customer service. And as I've set out, NSC has fallen short in that regard. So we should be welcoming that. But we should not be blind to what has been, I'm afraid, inaccurate journalism in the last 48 hours.
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:02
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Resident Doctors - Industrial Action
-

Yeah.
13:02
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker. by resident doctors. Yesterday evening, the BMA called its latest round of strikes for April the 7th to the 13th, immediately following the long Easter Bank holiday weekend. The announcement came just hours after its resident doctor committee rejected a historic deal that would boost pay, create jobs, improve career prospects and put money back in the pockets of its members. This was deeply disappointing. After months of highly constructive and good natured talks between the government and the leadership of the RDC.

In that context, the fact that the BMA's immediate response was to cause such extensive strike action rather than returning to the table, speaks volumes about what we're up against. And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me set out how we reached this regrettable position. Since the start of this year, the government has been holding extensive and intensive discussions with the BMA resident doctor, committee leadership, who themselves engaged in good faith. I have spoken personally to or met with the chair several times, and those engagements were, of course, on top of the near daily dialogue his team held with officials from my department, and together we got further than many thought possible.

As a result of our discussions, a landmark deal was put to the full Resident Doctor Committee formally on March the 22nd and based on our engagement with the BMA officers, we were optimistic that it would be received positively, albeit I was aware of the officer's preference that this should be a deal over two years rather than three years, and that they had expected the independent DRB recommendation to come out slightly higher than it did. Regrettably, and despite the deal having been designed with and supported by the BMA leadership, the committee itself rejected it yesterday.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me run through just what it is that the RDC has unilaterally rejected on behalf of the 81,337 resident doctors in this country, the headlines of this deal are these reform of the pay structure. So resident doctors would benefit from more frequent pay rises at each stage of their training. Pay rises over three years baked in, linked to the independent DRB recommendations, as requested by the BMA. Reimbursement of Royal College exam fees from April this year, which resident doctors currently pay out of pocket.

For psychiatry, this can be as much as £2,200 for paediatrics, £2,300 and ophthalmologists £3,700. Contract reform for locally employed doctors to ensure they also benefit from greater job security, equal opportunities for pay progression and improved terms and conditions, and up to 4500 more speciality training places created over the next three years, including 1000 for this year's applicants. Alongside this deal, the government has just passed the Medical Training Prioritisation Act so that domestically trained resident doctors no longer compete on equal terms with overseas graduates for specialist jobs.

This act will reduce the competition ratio for jobs from almost 4 to 1 down to almost 2 to 1, and this deal follows a 28.9 pay rise already delivered by this government as a result of the proposed package, resident doctors would have seen an average pay rise of 4.9% this year, starting pay for new graduates entering the profession this year would have been nearly £12,000 higher than they were four years ago, the lowest paid FY one and FY two would have seen a pay boost of two would have seen a pay boost of at least 6.2% and 7.1%, respectively, this year, and there would be a thousand more resident doctor jobs in a matter of days from this April.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Along with decisions on pay, I've already taken, this package would have meant that this year alone, resident doctors would have been, on average, 35.2% better off than four years ago. There are not many, if any, professions in our country for which that is true. The DRB recommendation is 3.5%. This is significantly less than what is on offer as a result of pay structure reform. The BMA has pointed to the war in Iran as reason to reject the deal.

So let me spell out the consequences of what this country is facing. This country wants to see de-escalation, a swift resolution to the conflict with a negotiated agreement that puts tough conditions on Iran and specifically its nuclear ambitions. However, we are planning on the basis of a prolonged conflict because that is the prudent thing to do. In that eventuality, there would be an impact on the economy and on the public finances. Were that to happen, a future offer to resident doctors will not look better than what is on offer today, and the government's tolerance for costly and disruptive action that undermines a critical public service is fast diminishing.

I do not want resident doctors in three years time to look back on this moment with regret as they turn down three years of guaranteed pay rises, more money in their pockets through reimbursement of exam fees and more jobs, the BMA is choosing more strikes as a direct result of their decision and despite our best efforts, resident doctors will be worse off. Indeed, on the very day that a thousand more speciality training places would have opened up for resident doctors.

With this deal, the BMA will be on strike, demanding more job opportunities. Let me turn to the impact on patients and the NHS. Yesterday, the British Social Attitudes Survey revealed that patient satisfaction has increased for the first time since before the Covid pandemic. Dissatisfaction has seen the sharpest decline since 1998. Patient satisfaction with access to GPS has gone from 60% when this government came to office to more than 75% today. Waiting lists are the lowest they have been for three years.

For our performance in A&E is the best for four years, and ambulances are arriving faster than they have for half a decade. All of this has been achieved despite the BMA's strikes, so I want to reassure patients the NHS recovery will continue. In the most recent round of strikes, the NHS team pulled together and delivered 95% of planned elective activity. I'm confident that we will see the same outstanding efforts if further action is taken, but to the BMA I would just say we can achieve so much more.

The improvements can be so much faster if you take this deal and stop your strikes. Strikes have a significant financial cost. Every penny spent on keeping the show on the road during strikes is a penny that cannot be spent on improving staff pay, working conditions or better care for patients, and the impact on the other staff working in the NHS who are left to pick up the pieces is severely felt. So I am asking the BMA's resident doctor committee to reconsider.

I will meet again with their officers. I am also repeating my offer to meet with the entire committee, who have thus far refused to meet me since I became the Secretary of State. Indeed, they are the only group of people I have offered to meet who have declined, which I find extraordinary in these circumstances. The deal on the table shows what we can achieve when we work together. In contrast to my predecessors, I've shown good intent from the outset. I have listened to the complaints resident doctors have about their working lives.

I agree with them. I want to work with them to improve their working conditions as we improve the NHS. But the reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, When it comes to making a deal, it is that it takes two to tango. As we ask the BMA to reconsider. They have until next Thursday to do so before we have to call time on the extra jobs and the focus of the NHS. And my department turns to minimising the disruption from this unnecessary and unwarranted strike action, which would also consume the money set aside for this deal.

But there will be a cost to the NHS, to staff and to patients. This was a historic opportunity developed in tandem with the BMA leadership. I urge the committee to reconsider. I urge the BMA to call off its industrial action, and I commend this statement to the House.
13:12
Stuart Andrew Portrait Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Daventry, Conservative)
-
-
The Shadow Secretary of State, Stuart Andrew. to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State was boasting about progress in the NHS. Today we are back here again, facing more strikes, more disruption and more uncertainty for patients. Quite the contrast in opposition. The Secretary of State made resolving these strikes sound straightforward. Just get round the table. Just negotiate. Just sort it out. He repeatedly stated that the power to stop the strikes lay in the government's hands.

Well, the power is now in his hands. He has had every opportunity to prove it. And yet here we are again. Not so easy, after all, is it? The government came into office promising to end these disputes. Instead, it has conceded heavily on pay at enormous cost and still failed to make it work. The Secretary of State says a comprehensive deal was on the table developed by the BMA leadership. Yet despite that, we are still facing further strikes.

So what exactly has the strategy achieved? After all the concessions, all the costs and all the disruption? There is still no resolution. And if, as he says, the BMA leadership helps shape the deal, why did he not secure the wider committee? This morning, the chair of the BMA's resident doctors committee said all the Secretary of State needs to do to avoid these strikes is come back with a better offer. That was the Secretary of State's argument in opposition to.

He has now had every opportunity to test that theory in government, and it has. It has not worked just as we warned. However, there is also an irony here that will not be lost on the public. The BMA says that 3.5% for doctors is a crushing blow, yet it is offering its own staff just 2.75%. So while it demands more from the taxpayer, it will not even meet its own standard for fairness. The inconsistency is obvious and hypocritical.

Now, the government's own position on affordability also no longer seems to add up. In October, Ministers were clear that anything above 2.5% would have consequences for the wider NHS commitments. They said that every additional 0.5% would cost around £750 million, yet we are now beyond what they had previously said was affordable. So what has changed? Were those warnings overstated or are other parts of the health Budget now going to pay the price? The Secretary of State even pointed to global events as a reason for future constraints.

That is a long way from just negotiate and sort it out. And after repealing minimum service levels, the government cannot now be surprised that patients are once again exposed to greater disruption. Labour promised to end the strikes. It paid a very high price and it still did not get the result. Ultimately, it is patients who are caught in the middle of all this, but it is also unfair on others in the NHS too. Consultants are left picking up the pieces yet again at the doctors and NHS staff are expected to carry the burden and keep services running.

They do not get to walk away. That is not sustainable and it is not fair. So I ask the Secretary of State these questions. He says he may now have to call time on the extra jobs he announced. Will those jobs ever truly secured or will they always, conditional on the BMA accepting the deal in full? And when he says that strike action will consume the money set aside for this deal, is he not really admitting that his own approach has ended up burning through the very resources he said would improve pay, jobs and conditions? And what is the cost of this latest round of strikes expected to be, and where will that money now come from? What assessment has he made of the impact on patient safety and consultant morale, and on training progression of junior doctors? And what is his plan to end this dispute, rather than simply manage the next round of disruption? Madam Deputy Speaker, Patients need certainty, the NHS needs stability and that is why we have been clear that doctors should not be allowed to strike and that minimum service levels must be restored to protect patient safety.
13:17
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Can I thank the Shadow Secretary >> Can I thank the Shadow Secretary of State for his response and questions? Beneath some of the criticism of the government was criticism of the government was actually a consistent message about the unreasonable and unnecessary position of the BMA. But let me address his criticism nonetheless. He accused me yesterday of boasting of progress this government is making on the NHS. For once, I can't say we're following the pattern of our predecessors because of course they didn't have any progress and from from the moment they entered government we saw the NHS begin to slide in the worst direction to the extent that we went into a modern health emergency, the pandemic woefully underprepared and more damaged as a result as a country.

So I am proud of the progress we're making. We know that what we've seen, both in terms of results and patient satisfaction, are grounds for optimism, not cause for complacency, but what we are trying to do as a government is absolutely essential for the country to give it back an NHS that is there for them, where they need it, when they need it, which is why the BMA's position is both disappointing and self-defeating for all of us. He talked about the approach I took in opposition with my predecessors.

There is a difference between the approach that this government has taken and the approach of our conservative predecessors. We've always been prepared to get around the table. We never closed the door. And as I said from the other side of the house, the power to end strikes does sit with the government when it's willing to compromise, when it's willing to negotiate, when it's willing to treat the workforce with respect. That is what this government has done in contrast to our conservative predecessors, which is why it is so disappointing that with a deal available a good deal available, the BMA are turning away.

And it's not just the contrast of the past that the BMA should reflect on, it's the contrast in the future. There is no more pro NHS, pro doctor, Health Secretary or government waiting in the wings. I'm not even sure the alternative is a Conservative health secretary. It may well be the party that occasionally turns up in the corner when they can be bothered, and when they're not flouncing out in a hissy fit to and when they're, you know, catch them, catch them on a good day.

Reform might even say the quiet bit out loud. They don't believe in the NHS. They don't believe in it as a public service, free at the point of use. And they are certainly not going to treat the BMA or resident doctors with more respect or generosity than a Labour government. And I think the BMA need to reflect on that. He asks about the affordability. One of the great things about the deal we agreed is that it's affordable because it involves productivity gains, not just the productivity gains we've already achieved in the NHS, the target being 2%, the reality 2.7% we've achieved.

But the productivity gains built into the pay structure reform the. He asks about the jobs. I'll be honest, and I'm sure NHS chief executives will want to say more about this. Look, the fact is, I and Jim Mackey have had to do a considerable degree of persuading and arm twisting to persuade NHS trusts to create additional speciality training places. They have not been convinced of the necessity or utility of these training places. Part of the reservation has been the conduct of resident doctors and the BMA, so I have had a hard job to do to sell.

Those jobs will not materialise if the BMA reject this deal. I'm afraid there is not a something for nothing culture here. And to the crab people who still believe they're pursuing a really effective bank and build strategy, I'll just look at what they're confronting now and let them let their members and their colleagues in the I. This isn't bank and build any longer. This is a high and dry strategy and it's not going to work. That's why I think it's important we end this dispute, that we do it together.

We do it in a spirit of partnership. There's still time to do that. There's still a week. The door isn't closed, the offer's still there, and I urge them to take it before it goes.
13:21
13:22
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Can I firstly thank my hon. Friend for his support in trying to influence a more constructive approach? The advice he has given to me, the advice he's given to members of the Resident Doctors Committee and the experience that he brings to these exchanges. He's. He's right to praise Jack Fletcher for the constructive approach that he and his officers have taken. It's not been easy, but I know that officials have enjoyed the constructive engagement, and I want to thank enormously the officials who've worked tirelessly on this.

I think all of those involved in the discussions on both sides of the table are disappointed by this outcome, and that's why I urge them to seize it before it's too late. He talks about other changes, the placements, the rotations. I think one of the things that the officers recognise is my desire to not only do this deal, but to create a new business as usual, as usual with the BMA, where we have people around the table on a regular basis looking at what we can do to improve the health service for patients and staff, and to make real progress on those issues.

We cannot do that if we are in conflict, and that is the tragedy of the position we find ourselves in. I think we have built trust through engagement. I think that trust has been built through dialogue with the BMA committee officers. It is only too disappointing that members of the committee aren't prepared to get around the same table as me, because they might actually realise the sincerity and the opportunity.
13:24
Helen Morgan Portrait Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Helen Morgan. Deputy Speaker. People across the country will be extremely concerned about the prospect of further strikes, having faced so much disruption already in recent years, it's important to recognise that the strike is a symptom of an NHS still coming to terms with the damage caused by the previous conservative government. Doctors are burnt out from working in high pressure environments under poor conditions, often trying to save lives on corridors with no space or privacy. But we all know how difficult public finances are.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is being compounded now by Donald Trump's reckless war in the Middle East, a further 26% pay rise, therefore, isn't affordable or realistic at the moment, and it's time the BMA recognised that. But there is much more the government there is much more the government could be doing to support both staff and patients. The BMA has a mandate to strike until yet, patients struggle to get GP appointments and suffer months of pain while stuck on waiting lists. pain while stuck on waiting lists.

How will the Secretary of State stop this situation from dragging on throughout the year and causing yet more harm to patients? We must also show staff and patients that things will get better. Lib dem plans to recruit and retain more GPS, offer 1 to 1 midwife care and fix the social care crisis would offer the NHS the hope it's needed by easing pressure on staff and patients. Will the Minister consider fixing crumbling hospitals a priority to give staff and patients the working conditions and dignity they need and deserve? A Shropshire's major hospitals it's common to see ambulances queuing up outside, unable to offload their patients, while corridors and staff inside are struggling to cope with patients.

Will the Minister commit to ending the misery of corridor care by the end of this parliament? I welcomed his intention to build more additional training places, but will he outline a timetable for the workforce plan to be published? Because that is critical for the future of our NHS.
13:26
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I thank the Liberal Democrats for for their support and and again, you know, I really hope resident doctors appreciate this is this is a party with a spokesperson that supports the NHS, wants to see it improving and is even from the vantage point of opposition, clear that what the BMA is demanding is unaffordable when it's frankly, and we know this from experience, it is a lot easier to to make promises in opposition and then and then have to deliver in government.

So when the opposition are also saying this is unaffordable, I think the resident doctors should accept that we are also we are we are also. Thank you. Noises off from the conservative front bench. We are also. I can reassure the Liberal Democrats committed to ending corridor care by the end of the Parliament. I'd be really impressed by some of the progress we've seen only recently in some hospitals. Queen's Hospital in Romford has shown it can be done, other hospitals are showing real progress and we are determined to put the foot down accelerator.

We will absolutely see capital investment to improve the NHS estate. We've got 2000 more GPS now than when we came to office. In fact, the highest number of GPS on record. More to do and my commitment to the agenda for change workforce is that so much of the oxygen and air time has been consumed by doctors. There are 1.5 million people in the NHS, many of whom will never be paid as much as the lowest paid doctors. They have been overlooked for too long, and we're determined through the negotiations and discussions we're having with agenda for change unions, to put that right.

And that will be my focus in terms of the future of the workforce.
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:30
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
The chair of the Health and >> The chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee is absolutely spot on. And I'm relieved now to report that only relieved now to report that only last Friday was I doing exactly that and walking the corridors of Queen's Hospital in Romford. And the reason I did that, I was there in January as well, seeing the worst of the situation. And, you know, just as I did last winter, I spent time on the front line in places that were under the most pressure not to go along and look down my nose at people, but actually to hear and listen and see firsthand what was happening, why it was happening, what we need to do differently about it.

And the the team at Queen's can really take pride in what they've achieved. We've got to sustain that progress. Last week there were no trolleys on the corridor and in February they saved 10,000 corridor hours. And that's thanks to brilliant frontline staff, senior clinical leadership on the front door. We will see that during strikes. Again, it's it's a certain irony about resident doctor strike. Urgent and emergency care improves because we have more experienced senior clinical decision makers in urgent and emergency care.

There is something to learn from that. I don't say that to denigrate resident doctors for a moment. They are learning and building their experience and we don't want to lose that, but we are seeing it can be done. It has to be done everywhere. We have to see it as a as a priority because corridor care, it can never be the safest care and it is never dignified care.
13:32
13:32
13:33
13:34
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Well, the pay structure reform >> Well, the pay structure reform and future pay is DRB linked. The DRB is an independent pay review DRB is an independent pay review body. That was one of the things the BMA wanted to. The. The deal to still be shaped around in terms of minimum service levels. And that's the government's position on that has been clear. And the hon. Gentleman sets out an alternative position from the Conservative Party. I think the BMA should look at that.

And, again, judge, with this government, aren't they better placed to do a deal and move forward constructively? And do they honestly think that if they hamper NHS progress, go on endless strikes over the coming years, that they will have a better government to work with at the end of this? I don't think so. The final thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, we ought to say take really seriously, and I've been thinking about this in the context of the Covid inquiry report and where we are in terms of threats to this country, the war in Iran and the war in Ukraine, the state of the NHS left this country more exposed during the pandemic than it might have been if the NHS had been in better shape.

This country faces some serious threats in the world and the NHS is not in good enough shape. I think we have to start thinking in that context whether the BMA's actions are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tolerable. Can I thank the Secretary of State for his statement this afternoon? I will allow a couple of moments for the frontbench to swap over before the Select Committee over before the Select Committee statement. We now come to the first Select Committee statement on behalf of the environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Jenny Carpenter will speak for up to ten minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of her statement, I'll call members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which must be questions, not full speeches.

And questions, not full speeches. And can I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member, not the government Minister, and that frontbenchers may take part in questioning? Jenny Carpenter. questioning? Jenny Carpenter.
13:36
None Portrait Select Committee Statement: Sixth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Erosion of trust: the impact of coastal erosion on communities, HC 1317
-

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to present the sixth report of the environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Erosion of trust the impact of coastal erosion
13:36
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Portrait Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP (Suffolk Coastal, Labour)
-
-
on communities. But I want to begin not with policy or about funding, but instead start by talking of the but instead start by talking of the people and their stories, which our report also so rightly sought to share. I stood here in this House share. I stood here in this House ten weeks ago and told the House that in my constituency, we'd lost four homes to coastal erosion in the village of Thorpeness. It is with great sadness that I stand here today and tell you that number here today and tell you that number has now risen to 1111 family homes lost to the sea this winter.

A 90 year old displaced with no home to go to. An 88 year old who lost her family home full of memories. All now gone. Too many have lost the only home they owned. And so many of them are now relying on the generosity of friends. Because, quite simply, there is just no other help available. And of course, it's not just thorpeness. The sea doesn't stop for these homes. This story is repeated right across the country in Hatboro, Hemsby East Riding, the Isle of Wight.

All these places and more are losing land and properties to the sea. Madam Deputy Speaker, the realities of climate change and rising sea levels mean we can no longer ignore this crisis. The Environment Agency predicts that within 80 years, more than 10,000 properties could be destroyed or lost to the sea, along with 180km of road. This report is the first output our inquiry into the climate and weather resilience we heard from local authorities, scientists, community groups and residents living with a daily reality of coastal change.

And the message was consistent coastal erosion is not just an environmental issue, it is a housing issue, a public health issue, a mental health issue, an economic issue, but above all a human issue. People spoke about grief. They told us it's not just about the loss, but the years leading up to it, about anxiety and isolation and the strain on families and communities, about a sense of injustice that they are bearing the cost of a problem that they did not create with systems that do not properly support them.

We also heard about trauma tourism, people flocking to visit erosion sites and demolish homes, filming the belongings left behind and sharing those stories online. It is difficult to overstate how distressing. That is for those going through loss this report. From their home. Coastal erosion is not consistently disclosed in property transactions, despite the fact that data exists and is publicly available. Madam Deputy Speaker, If my home is about to fall into the sea, I could sell it to you legally today with no duty to tell you about the risks.

That cannot be right, and it certainly should not be legal. Our report, therefore, recommends that coastal erosion is treated as a material information and conveyancing. And when it comes to insurance, there is simply no equivalent to flood re for coastal erosion that leaves families exposed and unsupported. It. We can make schemes like flood rework and it has. Then it should be exploring how we can do the same for erosion risk properties. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to turn to the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant.

At present it provides £6,000 towards the demolition costs for homes that need demolishing because of the coastal erosion threat, it has not increased since 2010 and in reality, demolition now costs around £35,000 and often more. In Suffolk coastal my constituency. This winter the cost has reached as high as £50,000. On top of that, eligibility is restricted to those who bought the home before 2009 in Thorp Nest. Residents who bought after that and face the prospect of paying for the privilege of demolishing their own homes, the council stepped in because they could see it was plainly wrong.

But that cut off is arbitrary. It's out of date and it's unfair. The committee's report makes this clear. This fund must be reviewed. I do welcome the government's recent funding announcement for coastal communities recently. It is a step in the right direction, but short term funding is not the same as a long term plan. At the moment. There is no national strategy for what happens when people lose their homes. Families are often left to navigate this alone or rely on already stretched local housing systems forced away from jobs, schools and support networks.

We have seen pilots like the Coastal Transition Accelerator programme that show what can be achieved, but those programmes are time limited. We cannot keep piloting solutions without ever embedding them. This report calls for a long term national strategy for relocation and financial support, one that builds on what we already know and gives communities certainty about their future. We also need to stop creating future problems through the planning system. Shoreline management plans provide a long term view of coastal change, but they are not consistently used in local planning decisions.

That means development is still being approved in areas that we may, we know may not be protected in the future. That is not sustainable and is not fair on future residents. We are recommending these plans are properly embedded into the planning system. And finally, we must address how we fund coastal protection and how we value our coastline. Too often, the current system does not capture the true value of coastal communities, their economies, their heritage, their role in our national infrastructure, and the real human cost.

When things go wrong in Suffolk coastal, in Suffolk coastal, our coastline is our economic powerhouse, driving energy, tourism and of course our port. But we do not place economic capital on it or value it sufficiently. Madam Deputy Speaker Underlying all of this is a simple question that people ask me time and again. Why does support so often fail to reach us? This report sets out practical, achievable steps to change that, to recognise the human cost and fix what is not working, and to put in place a more joined up, longer term plan.

Coastal communities deserve more than sympathy. They deserve action, support and long term funding. The committee has listened. We've pulled together our report and we're now asking the government to do the same. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I commend this report to the House?
13:43
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:48
Layla Moran Portrait Layla Moran MP (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
You, Madam Deputy. Social Care Select Committee, it's a pleasure to present to this House our sixth report on palliative care. This is indeed our second report in as many weeks that we're presenting to the House, because we are a committee in a hurry to play our part, to fix the NHS and social care in especially shine a light on those areas that feel more intractable and historically get less attention. And this is clearly true for the area of palliative and end of life care.

We welcome the more recent renewed focus on the issue. The very sensitive issue of death. It will happen to us all. And yet, too often as a nation, we leave it far too late to talk about it. And it's perhaps for this reason that despite the fact it will be a universal experience, it doesn't often receive the political attention that it deserves. We began by asking our independent expert panel to look at the heart of this system. This panel is made up of health and care experts from a range of disciplines the clinicians, lawyers, health economists, as well as temporary members with expertise in palliative care, ably led by Doctor Jane Dacre.

And I'm grateful to their work. Their report drew on available evidence, the government's own standards and the lived experience of patients, their families and professionals. And they found a sector in critical condition, fragmented, failing and forgotten. Our report took their findings and combined this with the session where we quizzed the Minister and I thank him for being in his place today and his officials and our 22 conclusions and recommendations span six main areas. The modern service framework, commissioning, data, workforce bereavement and of course, hospices.

Now, nowhere is the failure of this sector more acute than in the care of babies, children and young people. The expert panel identified serious inadequacies for this vulnerable and underserved group. One clinician told us that children are just an add on, and another said that there's a severe lack of 24 over seven coverage in the community for children's nursing and no investment in it either. So we are concerned that the Minister was unable to commit to providing clear and specific standards and guidance for babies, children and young people, and we strongly recommend that standards for this and also the transition between children and adult services is made a priority.

We also need pan ICB guidance on commissioning for this group because there are too few of them, and so we need to pool resourcing. The expert panel's report also revealed a distressing and deep seated postcode lottery for all in palliative care. Our lived experience witness said. I went there and he was screaming, clearly dying in absolute agony and very, very distressed. It took for me to ring so many different people to get someone to actually listen to me say, I don't care if he had pain relief two hours ago.

He needs some more now and he needs something different. He died early the next morning and I know this would not have happened in my local area, so that made it an even more distressing experience, this heart wrenching story, and there were many others were so common in these reports, and we found that many icbs lacked sufficient understanding of their local needs to commission effectively. Competing financial pressures mean that palliative care is so often pushed to the bottom of the pile, and the culture of understanding needs to come right from the top.

Structural and geographic inequalities persist, and deprived and marginalised communities face significant unmet need to fix. This will require high standards and accountability across the country, which is why the forthcoming modern service framework is so important and we welcome it. The Minister told the committee that making palliative and end of life care was one of. As one of the first five msf's was a, quote, bat signal to the system. Well, we welcome that, if not possibly the mental image of him as the Caped Crusader.

But we approach this also with a healthy dose of skepticism because we ask what is fundamentally different this time? Because there have been frameworks before, most notably the palliative and end of life ambitions framework and the NHS National Standards for palliative and End of life care. This time, we need more than well-intentioned ambition. We need action and accountability and assurance. So the committee recommends that Icbs and the department are held accountable, with clear consequences for failing to meet standards.

We must ensure that Icbs have the support, tools and resources required to implement these high standards, and we cannot allow this to be another framework allowed to gather dust on a shelf. Because the thing is, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not meeting the guidance that already exists. Let's take 24 over seven advice lines now. These could offer guidance, reassurance, support for care at home, potentially reducing A&E admissions, and at present just 43% of Icbs offer them properly. This is despite the fact that 24 over seven telephone advice lines have been recommended as a minimum service requirement by Nice and indeed the Department.

For over two decades. The role of pharmacies is also critical, but they too need support to deliver this. And while the Minister has committed to 100% of telephone line coverage by 2027, we push him further. The MSF must mandate Icbs to deliver not just them, but also access to all services, including symptomatic medication and in-person care. Unfortunately, death does not wait until 8 a.m. on a Monday morning, a further concern that was highlighted was the effects of shift to the community.

We worry that funding restraints, workforce and skill shortages will make this transition difficult. But in the same breath as saying they want this shift, the government's forthcoming NHS reorganisation Bill is proposing to remove local authority representation from ICB boards. Now. Local authorities, of course, are the ones responsible for social care. Social care workers are the backbone of end of life care, with 22% of deaths occurring in care homes. It is nonsensical that if we want to strategically commission end of life and palliative care, that we remove their voices from the top table for that strategic role right from the off.

And so we urge the government to reconsider their position. We also urge them to fix the areas in data sharing. One clinician told us if there was more willingness to link data and allow Icbs to have a better view of it and work with their partners at hospices and the third sector, they could better understand the need and actively address health inequalities. 1% of our population dies each year, yet only around half of those end up on the palliative care register.

And that's despite a financial incentives for GPS to put them there. Now the government has a welcome stretch target of 90%, but they've also removed the financial incentives for GPS to maintain the registers. So we are concerned that this will result in a decrease, not an increase, in those who are registered. We recommend that the department reports progress on the 90% target annually, and we also welcome the single patient record to drive integration. But we want to understand better how that data will be shared with not just the NHS, but all partners involved in end of life care.

And we can't deliver this change, of course, without our workforce. The people vacant posts in this area are mounting and only 30 to 40% 30 to 40 new consultants qualify each year. We are awaiting this ten year workforce plan with bated breath, but we hope that it also includes specific workforce to address children's palliative care staffing and not just the specialists, but also the generalists should get better training in this area. At the moment, too many nurses in the community might, for example, send a patient to acute care because they can't adequately manage that risk confidence.

If they knew what to do in that moment, they may decide not to call 999 and instead have better care where that patient is. That is clearly better for everyone involved and far less distressing. And finally, we must come to hospices. For so many, the recipients of marathon runs and bake sales. But it strikes us as nonsensical that this important part of the sector is funded primarily funded primarily through charity. Now, we welcome multiyear settlements that have been made more recently and the recent money into capital.

But we make the point that if they are to help lead the way out of this crisis, they need much better support in a much longer term way. So in conclusion, the government's modern service framework must be more than just the press release. It must be a pledge to every citizen that when their time comes, they will be supported, not stranded. We owe it to the thousands of people facing their final days today, and to the families who will remember their care forever to finally get this right this time.
13:58
13:59
14:00
14:01
14:02
14:02
Ruth Cadbury Portrait Ruth Cadbury MP (Brentford and Isleworth, Labour)
-
-
backbench Business Committee for scheduling today's debate. The Transport Committee's report. Access denied rights versus reality and Disabled People's Access to Transport was published a year ago and reported to this House on the and reported to this House on the 10th of June, and the government response on the 1st of July last year. And the timing of this debate year. And the timing of this debate enables me to provide a timely update on work achieved by the government and transport sectors over the last year, and covers areas where more needs to be done.

I'm going to cover strategy, infrastructure and enforcement, and I'll conclude with a few questions for the Minister. Our report follows an in-depth inquiry which started in 2023 under the leadership of my predecessor in the chair, Iain Stewart. We travelled with people with disabilities to understand their experiences and the challenges they face, and we heard from a wide variety of people and organisations whose knowledge was invaluable. The report has also informed much of the committee's other work. Other work since over the last year or so across buses, taxis and the street environment areas where poor design and maintenance and frankly, lack of priority on the issue continue to inhabit, inhibit transport access unnecessarily.

In the years since the report was published, several important steps have been taken and I thank the government and others for these. The Accessible Railways Roadmap was published alongside the Railways Bill in November last year, and includes actions ahead of the formation of Great British Railways, such as minor work such as a minor works Budget and improved lift information. GBR will later set out its own plans through the long term rail Investment Strategy, the Bus Services Act 2025 requires accessible transport plans, accessible network plans, streamlines disability awareness training and supports more accessible bus stop design.

The Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group was established to deliver improvements in air travel for disabled passengers following the earlier task and finish group recommendations on rail cards. Eligibility has been extended to blue badge holders and and will soon expand further to cover a wider range of visible and invisible disabilities on pavement parking. Five years of waiting, most of that under the last government, the government has finally announced its next steps and we await legislation. And for taxi licensing standards.

We welcome the amendments in the devolution bill, including new national minimum standards that will include robust accessibility requirements and on the Railways Bill, it introduces a duty on the Secretary of State and GBR to consider disabled passengers needs and ensures GBR is covered by the Public Sector Equality duty. We also welcome the publication of the Equality Impact Assessment and we will scrutinise it closely. So let me now cover three strands which are essential essential if we are to embed and deliver lasting change.

First of all, there needs to be a practical, ambitious, integrated transport strategy. The last government's 2018 Inclusive Transport Strategy, aimed for equal access for disabled people by 2030. But when we gathered evidence for our report, it was clear that ambition was not being met. Much of the strategy focused on considering, exploring or consulting rather than delivering substantive change. Our report called for a new inclusive transport strategy. Instead, the department said accessibility would be embedded as a golden thread within the forthcoming Integrated National Transport Strategy.

That may be positive, but we still haven't seen the the strategy originally expected by the end of 2025. We cannot judge whether accessibility will truly be prioritised until this is published. The department says the strategy will include clear actions and milestones for accessibility, so I do hope that Ministers will ensure that those actions are ambitious, properly funded and capable of delivering inclusive transport not just in principle but in practice. After a decade of best practice sharing and awareness raising, disabled people do not need warm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words. They need a practical pathway to full accessibility. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And on infrastructure and avoiding embedded barriers. When avoiding embedded barriers. When people think about accessibility, they usually picture lifts, ramps, level boarding, tactile surfaces, surfaces, accessible bus stops, hearing loops and reliable audio, visual, audible and visual announcements. And rightly so. These are basic enablers, and inaccessible infrastructure is one of the most stubborn barriers for people with disabilities to access our transport system. Transport assets are long term investments. Mistakes become embedded for generations.

The built environment can be enabling or deeply disabling as many people, as many disabled people tell us, people are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled. Too often it's the environment that disables them. Just on that point. Well my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just on that point. Well my friend, give way. She and can I just congratulate her on her opening speech? But she she talks opening speech? But she she talks about it's not. Does she agree with me that it's actually not the individual, but it's the societal disabling barriers that are preventing disabled people from preventing disabled people from being able to have accessible transport. And until we kind of the government and others really understand that we have to change the infrastructure, that is how we are going to fully create an network.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and she is a passionate advocate, not just in transport, but across not just in transport, but across the piece on the needs and rights of disabled people and to some of disabled people and to some extent, to a large extent, our our frustration in this issue in transport is a subset of the transport is a subset of the societal challenge that she so rightly raised. These barriers that rightly raised. These barriers that I've described prevent access to employment, to education, to services, and to people having social lives following long delays.

Eight access for all station upgrades have been confirmed, with 23 more moving to detailed design and around another round may be funded in the next spending review. These upgrades are welcome, but feel like a drop in the ocean. At current investment rates, the rail network will not be fully step free for a century, according to Dip tax estimate in 2022. And as Emma Vogelmann, formerly of transport for all, has said, accessibility must be delivered as standard across the whole network, not rationed by station by station over generations.

And judging by transport questions this morning, but every other one. Previously, I've sat through colleagues who've been waiting for station improvements in their constituencies clearly feel the same way. Now we also await the government's new rolling stock strategy, which must set out a clear approach to level boarding on holiday in France and Italy. Last summer I saw clear ambition lift access being built, if not already installed, across a range of a number of rural stations, demonstrating that clear ambition, and I hope GBR will inject that missing ambition into the UK rail system on electric vehicles.

Transport focus recently found that not a single charger on the strategic road network met voluntary accessibility standards, so we risk building new barriers into our future infrastructure barriers that will be expensive to fix later. It's not just about hardware. We must embed accessibility into decision making. Witnesses to our recent inquiry into the Railways Bill expressed concern that under the bill, GBR must balance the interests of disabled people with costs. Now, of course, cost is always relevant, but we have repeatedly seen accessibility lose out, so we've recommended that GBR be required not just to consider, but to deliver tangible improvements to accessibility and on enforcement, ensuring that rights are real.

One of the most striking findings of our inquiry was that disabled people often have rights on paper that do not translate into real experiences. The reason is simple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforcement is too weak and it. I'm very grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the hon. Lady and I apologise for not being able to contribute substantively to this debate, owing to a commitment to lead another debate in Westminster Hall shortly. But in Westminster Hall shortly. But in relation to bus passes which are relation to bus passes which are hugely valued by the disabled community, there is a frustration along the lines that she has just hinted at, which is that some people cannot make use of their bus passes without a companion.

And yet the inclusion of a companion bus pass in the entitlement to have a bus pass is discretionary and not mandatory. And would she agree with me that there's not much good in giving a bus pass to a disabled person? If the does not cover the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

companion that they need to have with them in order to make use of it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't know if I get any extra time in this. No. OK. He makes a very good point. And it's it's a good example of a of a systemic policy issue that that can well be addressed. So currently I'll go back to enforcement. Enforcement relies on individual passengers pursuing complaints or court cases. This is unrealistic, expensive and often ineffective. Ineffective. Many people don't know who to complain to. Court processes are costly and unpredictable, and even successful judgments don't always lead to improved practice.

As a result, many people just give up travelling because what's the point? For example, earlier this month, the Office of Road and Rail secured commitments from Northern Trains to improve disability training and passenger assistance, which is welcome. But the concerns dated back to 2019, with formal action only emerging years later. These delays mean that disabled passengers continue to be failed daily. A system that relies on individuals is unfair and on the enforcement gap, we concluded that regulators need more powers, more resources, a clearer mandate to intervene earlier and across modal approach.

The government did not, unfortunately, accept these recommendations. There's still no clear plan to to close the enforcement gap. We appreciate the department's commitment to explore collective action on accountability, but we do ask the Minister for an update. And when we raised enforcement with the Secretary of State and Correspondence, which is listed on the Order Paper today, and when she last appeared before us in November, she told us that she wanted operators simply to comply with the law rather than relying on enforcement.

We agree that compliance is ideal, but robust enforcement is a necessary part of achieving that compliance. Disabled people should not be expected to force the system to uphold their own rights, but we do very much welcome one aspect of the government's response to our report a commitment to review the overly complex and fragmented legal framework governing transport accessibility, and the department has agreed to take this work forward with the Law Commission, and I was delighted to see this week that the Commission launched their review long overdue and could bring long term benefits.

We appreciate the Minister's engagement on the long term on the planned Accessibility Charter, but it must be more than a restatement of existing duties. It needs to tackle areas including street environments, the public sector, equality, duty enforcement and clearer expectation on transport operators and must be genuinely co-produced with disabled people and. And we. The final question on that is how will the charter be enforced on the Railways Bill? The new statutory duties created under the bill, enforcement routes need to follow, and the new passenger watchdog is intended to be powerful but currently lacks enforcement powers and we believe those are needed.

So, in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, accessibility is not a nice to have. It's a fundamental right and a precondition for equality. From taxis to railways, aviation to the street environment, enforcement should be at the heart of a strategy for accessibility. So in conclusion, I ask the Minister, does the government agree that there is an enforcement gap, and if so, what steps will they take to deliver stronger, earlier, more effective enforcement across all modes of transport? How a disabled people directly shaping the Integrated National Transport Strategy and the Accessibility Charter.

What member. What measures will give the charter real teeth so that operators and local authorities are held accountable? And finally, I'd like to thank all the disabled people and disabled people's organisations who contributed to our inquiry and who shared their experience since, and who continue to advise us. We will keep drawing on their expertise as we scrutinise the government's progress over all of the modes of transport. Thank you. The question is, as on.
14:16
Wendy Chamberlain Portrait Wendy Chamberlain MP (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The Order Paper, and we'll start with an immediate six minute time limit. Wendy Chamberlain, thank you limit. Wendy Chamberlain, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker And can I congratulate the chair of the Transport Select Committee for Transport Select Committee for securing this debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk. I am conscious that transport is devolved, but what I have heard in the debate tells me that there is a lot of similar themes. My constituency, North East Fife, is quite a rural one and I have spent a couple of days in recent weeks travelling around my constituency on the bus with those who use wheelchairs to understand better the challenges that they face, and part of the reason why they are using public transport is because other options are limited.

There is a distinct lack of accessible taxis in north east Fife and beyond. That is a licensing and economic issue. But what we find is that a lot of these taxis are used for school contracts, which means that if a member of the public wants to utilise them, they can access them. And that's a real challenge. But as the hon. Member pointed out, getting to the bus stop in the first place is a challenge. Pavements, dropped curbs and street furniture. When I was out with a constituent the other week, we actually had to move road signs from the internal roadworks that we've had in Guardbridge in order for her to get to the bus stop in the first instance.

And then there's just the fact that getting onto the bus, you only have space in most cases for one wheelchair. So if somebody is a wheelchair user who's friends with somebody else who uses a wheelchair, you can't go to things together. And so there is already a real impact on people's lives in that regard, as well as that different types of buses. And we experienced them all in our days in North East Fife. It means that for some, you have to give two hours notice that you want to have a wheelchair and you want to use a bus so that the bus provider can ensure that the bus that you can use is provided, which I just find bizarre that we're in that situation.

But also the modes of buses mean in some cases, a wheelchair user can literally have people leaning across them in order to pay their, their, their fare. That's such an invasion of their privacy. And the other challenge in a rural constituency where we have had on going changes and reductions in bus services, is that there are multiple buses sometimes required to get between population centres. I had a constituent who lived in Guardbridge, worked in Cupar, but now has to go to Saint Andrews and then to Cupar so that she can get to her place of employment.

That does not feel like a real choice for wheelchair users. And finally, and I'm sure we've all been aware of this through our casework and what is required for wheelchair users in particular to use public transport, is that the access to allow them to get onto the buses actually works. And I had that exact experience with a constituent last week where the ramp did not work. The bus was therefore put out of order. Everybody that was on the bus had to get off, and nobody who was looking to get on the bus beyond my constituent could get on.

That is highly embarrassing for that individual as well, that she feels a responsibility for the inconvenience to other passengers too, and it is simply not good enough. I also want to talk about something that is reserved and that is access for all. As the hon. Member has also highlighted. Lukas is the nearest railway station to Saint Andrews, which is hopefully known to all of you because I've mentioned it here in the chamber lots. But if you like golf, you'll know Saint Andrews well, and we've been trying to get funding for a new bridge for six years now.

There is no lift access. And my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues and Fife Council have been trying for even longer. The gradient of the ramp up to the bridge is 1 to 12, and that is just over an 8% gradient. And for a ramp of over ten metres, the BSI recommends a gradient of no more of 1 to 20, a 5% gradient, and that is simply not the case at Leuchars at all. It is not a short ramp, it is many meters and it is a real challenge for those using wheelchairs, prams, but also for visitors coming to Saint Andrews at the first thing they have to do is Humph! Their case up a ramp and down again, rather than being able to access a lift.

And it is completely unfair on local people. Madam Deputy Speaker because they are often excluded from using public transport, and they tell me that they do not use the train as an option as a result. Now, last year, ScotRail and Network Rail ScotRail hosted a roundtable on the future of train services in Fife and listed Leuchars as being lower priority, and I cannot get my head around that classification. I am waiting for a meeting accordingly. But in terms of access for all, this is where devolved and reserved don't work together very well, much like the infamous Spider-Man meme.

The answers to my queries five years ago involved the UK government pointing to the Scottish Government who pointed right back at them. And I know I am not the only member of this House to be extremely frustrated by the scheme, effectively slowing to a halt. In a written statement in January, the government downgraded and halted some proposed works on projects under access for all, and I would be interested in the Minister setting out how this squares. With reporting by Disability Rights UK in 2024.

The access for all had been underspending prior to that. The statement would on to say that there might be some funding available in the next spending review, but that means we aren't expecting any announcements for another three years just as we head into general election. Are we seriously saying that there will be no access for all spending rounds in the remainder of this Parliament? Finally, less about funding, but directly relevant to our constituents. Expect. I would like to hear whether they are going to be publishing any outcomes from the review into design standards for accessible railway stations.

Using public transport should not be a luxury. It is something we should be trying to encourage our constituents to do at every opportunity. And for those putting disabled considerations to one side, if we are talking about economic inactivity, how do we get people to work and how we get people accessing work and indeed those with disabilities into work? This should be an absolute priority for our public services.
14:22
Marsha De Cordova Portrait Marsha De Cordova MP (Battersea, Labour)
-
-
Marsha de Cordova. >> Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by congratulating my hon. Friend for her sterling work hon. Friend for her sterling work as chair of the Transport Select Committee, but also to the Backbench Business Committee for providing this time for us to debate what I think is a very important issue, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's no secret I have been a lifelong campaigner for the rights, inclusion and equality of disabled people, not least due to my own lived experience.

But I have been calling for and pushing for all modes of transport to be fully accessible and inclusive, as it is essential that disabled people should have equal participation in in society at all times. And I genuinely believe that having a access to transport is a human right. We should really look at it in the context of it being a human rights issue. Yet we all too often see and hear the stories of the many barriers that disabled people face when they are travelling.

We have all heard of the stories of many disabled people being left on planes for hours on end, or people turning up to a train station, and their assistance isn't there for them. Indeed, when I travel myself, I worry if I've booked assistance, whether that assistance will be there, and that should never be someone's experience in in daily life. And we know the issues around pavement parking. Indeed, I brought my own bill to ban pavement parking 18 months ago because having obstacles on the road, especially those awful e-scooters.

Again, everyone knows my views on those create many problems for people, not just disabled people, but for families with young children pushing a buggy and so forth. And then there are buses. Now, we all know that buses are probably one of the most best forms of inclusive transport for disabled people to use. However, there are times when the ramps aren't working or the allocated space on the bus is not available and so forth. So we also have to ensure that we tackle that, that issue.

But also I should well, it would be wrong of me, not to mention floating bus stops, because I hate those as well, because they are a huge problem. So I might as well tie it into this transport debate or so. So it's really important. All new infrastructure really when it comes to floating bus stops, they should be they should be banned because they prevent disabled people from being able to, to travel freely. However, in my own constituency, I am really proud of the work that we have done over the past nearly nine years.

I have been campaigning for to ensure that all of our modes of transport that go through Battersea is going to be inclusive. Indeed, Clapham Junction station, which is one of the busiest interchange stations in Europe. It is partially accessible. I was proud that we secured funding for Wandsworth Town Railway Station to be made step free as well. It's just a shame that it no longer sits in my constituency after the last boundary review, but I will claim that with Madam Deputy Speaker, I think, I think I should, but then we all remember the the fight that we all had to go through to ensure that we kept ticket offices open.

Right? Because under the last government, they wanted to close them. And that was a battle worth fighting for because me, myself, I can't use ticket machines and there are many others that can't use them as well. So it's again, that is vital piece of infrastructure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we. Yes, of course. Like the honourable. Gentleman from New Forest East, I'm trying to be engaged represent I'm trying to be engaged represent constituents in for debates today. So it's there was a Catholic, Spanish Catholic priest, Padre Pio, who was made a saint because of the miracle of being in two places at miracle of being in two places at once. So I haven't mastered that yet. Can I just raise my hon. yet. Can I just raise my hon.

Friend? I refer to my register of interests with regards to chairing the parliamentary group, one of the key issues that she campaigned on before, which we campaigned on together, was ensuring adequate staffing levels, both in terms of ticket offices, where she succeeded with us, but also in terms of platform staff and actually on the trains themselves because the safety and security. Does she agree with me that in the on the GB rail now, we need a very strong plan for the workforce so that we have adequate, adequate staffing at all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

levels in all facilities. And I think I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he's absolutely spot on. We because he's absolutely spot on. We can have all the infrastructure in the world, but if we don't have the workforce to actually manage to workforce to actually manage to manage that, then it's not going to work. And we have to ensure we have to value the workforce, because I rely on that workforce when I rely on that workforce when I travel and I know many, many, many others do.

So we successfully kept others do. So we successfully kept our offices open, which is a good thing. And so I'm really proud of some of those changes that we have made in my constituency. And, you know, I but I suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, it really brings me back to the point is, why is it in 2025, disabled people are still fighting for an inclusive and accessible transport network? I mean, it just it cannot be right for many. They cannot engage with travel.

And we know that for some, the report highlights this brilliant report that the Select Committee produced a year ago highlighted that 67% of disabled people experience problems when they are travelling, which is just staggering. And you know that from there not being enough priority seating to poor quality of pavement for active travel, lack of step free access and so forth, and we talk about step free access. And I know in my own constituency again, so I keep referring back to it. But you know, we had Battersea Power Station station, it's an underground station, but it's step free.

It's so important because we should be able to use all modes of transport. We shouldn't just be restricted or limited to taxis, private hire or just buses in accessible travel can be a factor that locks disabled people out of so many aspects, whether it's being able to just participate in life, whether it's about being able to go to work or to study, or just being able to attend health appointments. These are the things that are inaccessible. Infrastructure and Travel Network has on disabled people, and we have to do better to move things forward.

So I say to my hon. Friend who will be responding on, on behalf of behalf of of the government, I do not want to hear we are going to work towards or we are going to look into. I genuinely believe we need to see proper action when it comes to creating an inclusive and accessible transport network. Frankly, as I said earlier, it is a crying shame that in 2026, disabled people still cannot travel independently. We have to have a strategy which we're going to have.

We need we need to thank you again. This place isn't accessible because I need someone to tell me my time is running out, but we will work on that as well. But we need to have a solid infrastructure that, if backed up with the right investment and the workforce to deliver it, we need to tighten up enforcement because without the proper enforcement, the onus should not be on disabled people. There needs to be enforcement. And actually, if we focus on what is called the UN convention on the Rights of Disabled People transport, having an inclusive transport network is a key pillar for that.

And as disabled people say, it should be nothing about us without us. Thank you.
14:30
Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And I will be calling the next speaker, and then there'll be an immediate five minute time limit after this. Speaker. Steph. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to the backbench Business Committee for granting Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. Linked, of course, to the report, which we on the Transport Select Committee produced about access to public transport for disabled people. I'm a passionate advocate for public transport and I'm deputy speaker. In all my years of campaigning, I've been pushing for more buses and more trains and getting more people riding them to make people's lives easier and more affordable, and to take action on climate change and boost our local economy.

Increasing ridership, though, has to include increasing that amongst all groups for too many people, as our committee found, accessibility barriers mean they either have a far worse experience when using public transport or simply cannot use it at all. Disabled people use public transport 28% less than those without disabilities. Public transport is a more affordable mode than the private car or taxi, so poor accessibility is another financial burden being placed on a group who already have significant premiums due to their disabilities.

But in many rural areas like North Norfolk and North East Fife, we have a taxi service which may be patchy at best due to the nature of rurality. If a disabled person cannot or does not drive and cannot access a taxi, they will be isolated from employment opportunities, from visiting family and friends as easily as others. A two tier system in rural north Norfolk is unacceptable, and that's why it's so important for the government and local councils to take steps to deliver greater accessibility in the transport system.

For many dealing with accessibility barriers in their local area, the fight to get these fixed can be long and drawn out. I want the House to cast its mind back to the 2019 general election, where I was a candidate in Mid Norfolk. I visited Wyndham Station with a group of local campaigners to see the issue they face, with the station having no southbound step free access. Since then, they've seen four prime Ministers, five transport secretaries, ten junior transport Ministers and even seven Norwich City managers and still no step free access.

I'm very glad that in recent months, following years of campaigning from local Liberal Democrat councillors like Suzanne Nixon and now well supported, she and others tell me by my constituency colleague, the hon. Member for South Norfolk. The government will be bringing forward plans for these improvements by the autumn, but that will have been a long seven years since I got involved, even longer for many local residents without equitable access to their own town's railway station. We're a country that demands equality for our citizens, making disabled people feel like they're a second class and forced to wait so long for improvements really is shameful.

I'm very glad that much of North Norfolk's rail infrastructure is step free and accessible. However, the same can't be said of our rural bus network, such is the nature of bus travel in rural areas, that many stops are little more than a sign placed at the side of a road, in a verge, or maybe just based on local understanding that the bus might stop in a certain place. That might be good enough for some. But for those with access needs, this is far from a usable service.

People need higher quality, accessible bus infrastructure to allow them to utilize public transport. With that in mind, I hope the government might also be able to learn lessons from the buses connecting communities report about new models for rural public transport transport hubs, creating quality bus infrastructure, which is linked into a strong network across rural areas, can benefit all of us in many ways, but for disabled people and those with access needs, it can give them the reassurance that they can be picked up and dropped off from an accessible stop.

Like so many of the reforms we need to public transport a more holistic view, assessing the issues we face in the round can actually deliver for groups across society. After all, better transport accessibility doesn't just benefit the people for whom it's essential. It makes choosing public transport easier and more convenient for everyone, and the sorts of work needed on assessing the experiences of disabled transport users, for instance, could flush out opportunities to improve the user experience for all current and would be public transport patrons.

So whether it's clearer signage or better bus shelters, ramps or real time information, it's in all our interests for the barriers to accessibility in public transport to be reduced and removed. I remain hopeful that the government will take up what our committee found, and I know that members across the House look forward to working with them to make those recommendations a reality.
14:34
Elsie Blundell Portrait Mrs Elsie Blundell MP (Heywood and Middleton North, Labour)
-
-
And with a five minute time limit. Elsie Blundell. >> Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend, the chair of the Select Committee, for her leadership on this crucial issue leadership on this crucial issue and securing this debate on the important matter of transport accessibility for disabled people. Since being elected to this place, I have reiterated that transport is one of the most crucial drivers of opportunity. Reliable, suitable and adaptable public transport for all should be a right, not a privilege.

I would like to begin by touching on the precarious landscape facing disabled users of public transport at present. In a report published by transport for all, it was made clear that 56% of disabled people report being unhappy or extremely unhappy making journeys. Indeed, the select committee's report reinforced this. Over a third of disabled respondents asserted that they avoid making journeys more than once a week because they believe it will be too complicated. And when things go wrong on journeys, it can feel as though disabled passengers and transport users stand entirely alone.

Without recourse or representation. They are left with the burden of taking action against operators and transport authorities that fail in their duties. Looking to the rail network specifically, we have all been on a train where it is apparent that there is no available space for wheelchair users within any of the available carriages, with some operators doing absolutely nothing to make the necessary improvements. And we have also seen the appalling media reports where disabled passengers have been left to alight from carriages with no support whatsoever.

We need to seize every legislative opportunity to improve this dire landscape. Indeed, one of the crucial elements of the Railways Bill is the introduction of a passenger's council. But as the bill stands after Committee stage clause 36 on the general duties of the Council only stipulates that the Council must have particular regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers. This bill needs to go further in enshrining the voices of disabled passengers within the council itself, and also give the council a role as an enforcer, not just as an advisor.

This passenger watchdog will only have a tangible impact on the experiences of disabled passengers. If we codify within legislation what we need to achieve. The Railways Bill represents a significant moment of reform for the rail system. We must not miss the opportunity to embed strong, enforceable, long term protections for disabled passengers. To achieve this, duties should be explicit and binding, and I do hope the Minister can speak to this issue specifically when concluding the debate, as the committee's report also highlights and as the.

My hon. Friend, the chair of the Transport Committee, mentioned in her remarks, pavement parking is another widespread problem, especially for people with mobility or visual restrictions. Constituents rightly tell me that this is an issue of safety. When people who park their cars leave no space on the pavement, those who use wheelchairs, walking frames, guide dogs or canes, for example, there is no way that the wellbeing of that individual individual can be assured. This selfish behaviour makes it really difficult for disabled individuals and people pushing buggies alike.

I understand that rather than impose a blanket ban on pavement parking like we see in London, government first intends to introduce secondary legislation to ensure that local authorities can act against serious cases of obstruction caused by pavement parking. How does the Minister envisage that this will be meaningfully enforced by local authorities? Will additional funding be provided to enable local authorities to act? I would welcome answers to those points from the Minister. In closing. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to reiterate my thanks to the chair of the Select Committee, our clerks and my colleagues for their work in producing this crucial report and for their advocacy on this important issue.

I fully welcome the steps currently being taken at this moment that will advance the rights and protections of disabled passengers. These include the Law Commission's review into Transport Accessibility Law, a direct result of one of our committee's recommendations, as well as the publication of Guiding Principles for Accessible Transport and an Equalities Impact Assessment for the Railways Bill. Something else that we have all saw as a committee called for. With that being said, however, I would conclude by saying that however significant reviews, principles and assessments are, we need to ultimately ensure that they lead to effective enforcement accountability and the empowerment of regulators to challenge the operational orthodoxy that has left disabled passengers denied the access that they deserve.

With the landmark changes coming to national and regional transport policy in the coming years, we need to ensure that everyone is part of the journey and in terms of both legislation and practice, that we finally ensure that no one is left behind. Thank you Mahendra.
14:39
Gagan Mohindra Portrait Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first start by congratulating the Member for Brentford and Isleworth for securing this very Isleworth for securing this very important debate? Many of my constituents in south west Hertfordshire have raised with me the challenges faced by disabled people in accessing tube services. Last May, I conducted a survey on the Met line. Only 6% of respondents think TfL is doing enough to improve reliability and accessibility. It is evident that people who rely on this essential service feel let down, and this is simply not good enough.

I have previously written to TfL and the Mayor of London regarding this issue. While I have been informed of the mayor's target of making 50% of tube stations step free by 2030, none of the proposed stations fall within my constituency. So understandably, residents of south west Hertfordshire feel left behind. TfL stated that through the Step Free Access programme, they aim to promote a more accessible and inclusive transport network. This is not possible if this is not extended to all users of the service.

Take the case of one of my constituents in Rickmansworth who uses a wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury he sustained just over a year ago, despite having used Rickmansworth Station for the last 17 years as a local resident. Now he is unable to do so as stairs offer the only route to exit the station. Consequently, he is no longer able to travel into London as frequently as they as he used to. This place is significant limitations on his independence, an issue which could be fixed with the simple installation of an exit ramp.

Further to this, the 2021 census shows that 30% of Rickmansworth residents are retired, compared to the 22 compared to the national average of 21.7%. As such, this is especially problematic when areas like Rickmansworth, which have an ageing population, would particularly benefit from step free access. I know that many other constituencies are impacted by this as well. Over two thirds of the London Underground network is still without step free access. This prevents thousands of disabled people from accessing vital transport network, another hurdle restricting accessibility to transport services in my constituency, which I have repeatedly highlighted in this chamber before, is the lack of concessions available to residents of south west Hertfordshire.

TfL has also stated that through concessions, they aim to promote a more accessible, inclusive transport network. Again, this is not possible if concessions are not extended to people who frequently use the service. This includes zip oyster cards for students under 18. The 60 plus oyster card discounts available for veterans and disabled users of TfL services. If you live inside the Greater London boundary as a disabled person, you are eligible for a Freedom Pass which enables the use of TfL services free of charge.

This is not extended to my constituents. An overwhelming 96% of 96% of respondents in my Met Line survey agreed that residents here should have the same concession fares as Londoners. This highlights a failure to create an inclusive and accessible transport system for everyone. How is it fair that despite relying on these essential services to commute every day, my constituents are not eligible for the same concessionary fares as those who in some cases live literally hundreds of meters away.

In accessibility to transport services simply is not as simple as just being able to get to the tube. Others have spoken about the bus system, the state of pavements, pavement parking and street furniture in accessibility to transport services means disabled people are restricted in their independence and ability to participate in life. This is important. The Department of Transport must equip transport authorities to increase accessibility to everyone. Thank you very much.
14:43
Daniel Francis Portrait Daniel Francis MP (Bexleyheath and Crayford, Labour)
-
-
Daniel Francis. >> Great speaker. And can I thank my hon. Friend for for securing the debate and placed on record that I debate and placed on record that I am chair of the all party group for wheelchair users. And of course, as the parent of a child who has a mobility Motability vehicle, I drive on her behalf and with a blue badge. Those issues, and I'll refer to them while I speak. Firstly, I'll welcome the committee's report and the government's response. And there are some issues there in access that I will, as I say, talk about firsthand.

I was the Cabinet member for transport in my borough in Bexley 20 years ago, and then latterly on the Board of London Travelwatch so had a long interest in these issues. But it's only when you become, as I have, the parent of somebody who has a very complex set of disabilities, who's a wheelchair user and needs that constant care and support, that you understand some of the complexities of travel. Now, firstly, I will turn to toilets. The response from the government and the committee report does look at changing places, and there has been a great sea change in the availability of changing places toilets, both in motorway service stations and at railway hubs in the last ten years or so.

And that is warmly, warmly welcomed. I know if I'm doing a drive via motorway we have to plan that. But there has been a sea change and at service and at train stations, as I say, and hopefully one more at Charing Cross in the very near future. But there does need more to do and I accept this is a cross-departmental responsibility, but we do need to push for more funding again for changing places because we've seen a great expansion, but there is a great deal more to be done there.

On aviation accessibility. On the task of finish Group, I had my private member's bill on on that matter, which sits in a very long queue. And clearly we've seen the outcome that report. But the first anniversary will be this summer, and I would welcome the government bringing forward some findings on that first anniversary and how we may need forward and whether there are remain issues that will require legislation, because at the moment, it is the case that for the Civil Aviation Authority, they most probably don't have enough powers, though those issues around the level of compensation, I think it's around £1,500.

Many people's wheelchairs are worth far more than that, and if they were damaged, they cannot have the level of compensation required to replace their wheelchairs. Like my hon. Friend from Brentford and Isleworth, I welcome the issues about the inclusive transport strategy, and I'd like to see the government bring that forward and I support my hon. Friend from Battersea. What she says absolutely about floating bus stops, but also sometimes experience on the bus in my own constituency, a passenger banged their shopping trolley against my leg for the entire journey because they were so angry that my daughter's wheelchair had taken up the space that she wanted her shopping trolley to be in.

So there remains a great deal of education

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out there that we need to continue to highlight. Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and he speaks a great deal of experience on this issue. Now, Marilyn, in my constituency is a blind lady, and she's faced the a blind lady, and she's faced the issues of floating bus stops. And during the design process for these floating bus stops and the implementation, her voice really wasn't listened to, and the view of blind people wasn't incorporated into that process. So what more into that process. So what more could be done to educate and actually make sure those people are at the table when these processes are happening?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, and I welcome your comments. And again, I will continue to press the government, like my friend from Battersea, to ensure some of that process is there. I can take you to bus stops very close to here, which I think very close to here, which I think are a risk for blind passengers, but also for wheelchair passengers. I think there continues to be more I think there continues to be more that we need to do there on Motability. What I will say is I, I, I'm not objecting to what was in the Finance Bill, but I think there is ignorance in this in this place actually from some members, many of which aren't here today on the issues around Motability and how that continues to need to be supported, particularly for wheelchair users, that the scheme on regulation enforcement.

Again, there's training and a lot of great practice. My my own passenger service at southeastern. There's some great practice on support for disabled people, but that needs to be expanded. I can I have had two horror stories at central London stations with toilets, with with staff telling me my daughter cannot use the changing places toilet when she needs a changing bench, she needs to go in the standard disabled toilet and refusing access to it. So there continues to be that level of training required.

And I completely support Great British Railways. But there will be issues where there are shared services with TfL, Abbey wood very close to my constituency. TfL will manage the station even though it has both services, and Denmark Hill, which will be a GBR station, and how that will integrate and between the two. On micro mobility. I welcome the consultation. Clearly, there remains the issue that if your wheelchair is over 200 kilos, you have to write it in the road. You're not allowed to write it on the pavement.

That's hugely discriminatory. It means a child cannot use their wheelchair if it's over 200kg. It means if you've lost your driving licence for medical reasons such as epilepsy, you cannot use your wheelchair and the remainders issues. And I hope that comes out in the consultation that we can resolve that on compliance processes. I've been involved with that, as I say in travel, and I hope the watchdog has the necessary powers. And we need to look again, as I've said at the Civil Aviation Authority, what I would say on TfL, TfL leads the way in my mind on accessibility information on TfL go app.

It shows you where you can use level access, where the station is accessible, and it shows you now where a lift may be out of order and GBR needs to follow that. And we do need that national transport accessibility app that leads on that. And whether a disabled toilets and changing places toilets. So as I say, a TfL in my mind across Europe, of all the places I've travelled to in my daughter leads the way in supplying that information and I hope we can look at that going forward.

So I welcome the debate. The only other thing I would say is on ticketing. Clearly there still needs to be more to be done. There's still issues about that level of information that's available for blind passengers and wheelchair users. It's a great scheme, but there needs to be more to be done to highlight that. As I say, I welcome debate and I look forward to the minister's comments later. Thank you, Madam Chair.
14:50
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
Yeah. Sian Berry. Chair sincerely for the Access Denied report, which painted a bleak picture of legislative loopholes and lacklustre political will from consecutive governments when it comes to addressing the huge list of barriers faced by disabled people when accessing public transport. And in terms of step free access on the railways on which I'm going to focus my speech, it isn't just the the barriers faced by disabled people that we need to talk about. These barriers also apply to older people, people traveling with children, people with luggage, work equipment, and many other travellers too.

And we must never, ever forget that improving access for disabled people, enabling their access, fixing the environment, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth said earlier on, it actually fixes access for all in an inclusive, socially just way. So 16 years on from the Equality Act 2010 coming into force one issue repeatedly coming up in my Brighton Pavilion constituency remains the long term problem of step free station access. Multiple train stations in Brighton, including Moulsecoomb and London Road, have compromised access, and the problem is most keenly felt at Preston Park Station, which has a very large number of passengers needing to use it.

It is a station rooted in the heart of the community, which sees thousands of people use it to access direct trains to London Gatwick, Bedford, Cambridge, as well as west along the coast towards Littlehampton for visitors travelling to fabulous events hosted at the nearby park like the Foodies Festival in May. The concert, due to be held in July from adopted local rock god Nick cave and the Bad Seeds Preston Park Station should be the obvious get off point. Yet for decades it is a station that has been overlooked when it comes to funding bids to address accessibility issues.

It is a category C station with no step free access and is simply inaccessible. Currently, there is no lift stairs to every platform and as the railway is a barrier for travel across the constituency, this lack also impedes active travel more generally. Without step free access. My local residents are required to travel two miles to Brighton Main Line station to board trains there, and this can be in addition to calling ahead to pre-book the use of a ramp at that station.

This is all an unreasonable adjustment. And yet, despite all these problems and the potential benefits of fixing them, in May 24th, in the dying days of the last government, Preston Park station did not make the 50 station shortlist for access for all funding. In January, we're making an announcement to cull the Conservatives 50 station list to eight definites and 19 maybes. Lord Hendy, accused in the other place, accused the previous government of raising significant stakeholder expectations about the station accessibility funding and said the government is committed to a rigorous approach and only making commitments we believe are affordable and would represent value for money to passengers and taxpayers.

This example, which is so frustrating to my constituents, shows that positive aspirations in terms of the railways are not enough on their own. They need to be backed up with concrete funding and real commitment. Step free access is not a convenient thing to have. In an ideal world, step free access to platforms is a necessity and an equalities issue. It enables participation in work, education, healthcare and social life. And I'm not convinced that I'm not filled with confidence. The government is committed to the funding needed and the urgency that it is needed within, but there are huge opportunities for the government to reform their approach.

With Great British Railways, and I'm really hoping to hear something from the Minister on this later on. What has been communicated to date by Ministers does fall short. They must take steps to commit to the funding and resource needed to rapidly remove barriers, end the discrimination disabled people face when trying to navigate public transport networks. And finally, I would also like to invite the Minister to visit Preston Park Station to meet with my dedicated local campaigners. See the multiple issues faced not just by disabled passengers and those with access needs, but by the general public as well at that station and to see these problems first hand.

Thank you.
14:54
Samantha Dixon Portrait Samantha Dixon MP (Chester North and Neston, Labour)
-
-
Anna Dixon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to add my thanks to the my hon. Friend for my thanks to the my hon. Friend for the Member for Brentford and Isleworth for securing this debate, but also for her fantastic leadership of the Transport Select Committee. I'd also like to commend my hon. Friend for Battersea to no longer in her seat, but for her campaign, particularly around pavement parking, which is a real bane of many of my constituents life. And I'm really pleased the government are giving powers to Bradford Council and other councils across the country to be able to look at introducing selective pavement parking bans, and I've spent much of my career dedicated to campaigning to improve things for disabled and older people in particular.

And as part of the work I did at the centre for Ageing Better on age friendly Communities, we saw accessible transport as a key part of an age friendly community. It's an essential part of everyday life. It allows us to get to vital appointments, it allows us to get to work. It allows us to see friends and family. It's a bridge. It connects us to different aspects of our lives and keeps us from feeling isolated. And yet, as we've heard in this debate and know from our own experiences and those of our constituents, for many with disabilities, public transport is not bridge.

It's a barrier. In my own constituency, the lack of accessibility at Menston station has been a really persistent issue. However, thanks to the combined efforts of a very doughty councillor, Chris Steele, West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Network Rail and funding from the Department for transport. We've just completed a £7.8 million modernisation program, delighted to cut the ribbon and ride in the new lifts just last month and I would pay tribute, particularly to Chris Steele, for his ongoing campaign because it's all very well having an accessible station, but at the moment the actual train isn't accessible, so he wants to get what's called a Harrington hump.

And I suggest that if colleagues haven't heard of a Harrington hump, you look it up. But basically it would give a raised section of the platform so that disabled people could actually access the train without ramps. But progress at medicine is just one example, and I really would be keen to hear from the Minister about plans for ensuring that councils and combined authorities have the support they need to increase further accessibility at stations, move on just briefly to accessibility of buses.

It really is vital that the government takes steps to ensure buses to are accessible. I'm really proud of what the government's doing to make it easier for local authorities and mayors to bring back buses into public ownership, and I was delighted to hear that Bradford's just been awarded over £14 million. I'm sure Madam Deputy Speaker is to to help with the rollout of electric buses across our district. Special thanks there to councillor leader Susan Hinchcliffe, who's lobbied hard on this particular issue.

But these buses must be designed with accessibility in mind. That means visual and audio displays a step which drops to the curb. And of course, as we've heard again in this debate, drivers receiving the necessary training and awareness so they know how to accommodate disabled passengers. So I would like reassurance from the Minister that any new transport infrastructure, like buses, will meet high design standards for accessibility. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to touch on affordability. Not only must disabled people be able to physically access, but they must be able to afford it.

And as we know, our Tracy Brabin, our fantastic mayor of West Yorkshire only a couple of weeks ago, has announced that once the Weaver Network, that franchised bus network rolls out across West Yorkshire, disabled people will be entitled to use their bus pass before 9:30 a.m. helping disabled workers to get to work. So again, I really urge places to look at what we're doing in West Yorkshire and encourage the Minister to work with colleagues at DWP so that NEETs and others who may face additional barriers to getting into work and make sure that public transport is accessible to all citizens.

So in conclusion, I would just say I think there's lots of really positive things the government is doing, but I am keen to make sure that we, the government, takes further action to improve the lives of disabled people. And I'm sure the Minister will agree there's more to be done if we're to guarantee this as a right that most of us take for granted that right to access public transport. Thank you very much.
14:58
Alex Mayer Portrait Alex Mayer MP (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, Labour)
-
-
Alex. May I. and I'm always pleased to speak in debates about transport. I want to paint a picture for the Minister of Leighton Buzzard Station. He is, of course, welcome to visit too. There are two lifts, which is fantastic and at the moment, and I don't knock those lifts at all because I know many people want them. So at the moment you can walk in from the ticket entrance side, get into one of the lifts, go up, go across, go down again, and then you hit a slight problem because then you have to walk all the way along the platform, past the locked gate, whereupon there are a few steps to go up and a few steps to go down to get out of the station onto the other side where many people want to go.

It's a place called Linslade and as I said, there's a locked gate on that route. Were that gate to be opened, you would have entirely step free access to get to the outside world. Now, I know it's not entirely as simple as that, because I've had a lot of conversations with people about this. There is some greenery in the way. There are some cables, there are some issues about public rights of way, but it really doesn't seem impossible. Now. My last discussions were with Network Rail and they said that they were talking to London Northwestern.

Now, given that they are both now in public hands, doesn't seem that there's many people to pass the book between. So I wondered if the Minister might be able to suggest how we can make best progress on that local issue. Moving on, I'd like to talk briefly about a couple of points in the Transport Select Committee's report. Access denied. The first is recommendation 105 on a unified complaint system, and I'm absolutely in favour of unification and standardization. And I do think that Great British Railways offers a real chance to do that in many ways, not least also on Lost Property, which I spoke about in the Second Reading of the Railways Bill.

When that was happening last time. I also think that as we establish more and more regional transport brands has been discussed, we've a brand, for example, that that is going to be what customers think of as the kind of portal gateway to many, many different types of transport. So it seems to me that that may well be the place that where people ought to be pointed towards if they're going to make a complaint or actually if they're going to give somebody a compliment as well, because it's not not always bad news.

I also wanted to highlight paragraph 25 of the report, which focuses on neurodiversity, and it mentioned various different issues, including ambiguous signage, which absolutely nobody wants. I mean, I personally think that the Thameslink board's at Blackfriars are particularly confusing. I never know which side the train is coming in on, but I think we can do in great British Railways offers us an opportunity. Perhaps a once in a generation opportunity is to create familiarity and consistency right across the network.

There are some reports from Tokyo as well on their metro, the Ginza line, where they've introduced color zoned boarding areas, and it's been cited as an example of neurodiverse friendly design. But it's also a design that has improved passenger circulation overall and meant far fewer last minute dashes by everybody to the platform, because that is, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned as well. The good thing about accessible design improved signage can help tourists or commuters rushing to make a connection.

Banishing steps also helps anybody with a suitcase or a pram. For society to thrive, we need to make use of the talents of everybody. But if we do this right, we don't just remove barriers, we raise the standard of travel for everyone. Yeah. Thank you sir. Adam Thompson.
15:02
Adam Thompson Portrait Adam Thompson MP (Erewash, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker Can I first thank the chair of the Transport Select Committee for her efforts in securing this debate and indeed, the backbench Business Committee for granting it to us. Madam Deputy Speaker at Long Eaton train Station in my constituency, the two platforms are very well above ground level. They're both accessed by narrow ramps and on both sides of the train line there's a steep upward incline. And these these ramps are guarded at each end by rails, which prevent people cycling up and down them.

But the sharpness of that gradient means that if a traveller has any kind of mobility issues, their journey at the platform might be rather difficult. The barriers, of course, make it effectively impossible for anybody who requires a wheelchair to make it up, and some old tarmac on the ramp often sees people with no mobility issues at all. Hit the deck every time there's a freeze. From personal experience on my parliamentary commute, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can confirm not fun. Two lifts were thankfully installed, though, at Long Eaton train station in 2012.

It was part of the Network Rail's Access for all program launched by the last Labour government in 2006, and it continues to this day. This installation was, I think, great progress towards improving disabled access to the platforms, but the actual operation of the lifts, I think, leaves something quite extensive to be desired. Travellers can only actually use the lifts when somebody is on duty at the ticket office, which is normal, 9 to 5 hours now. Thankfully, despite the previous conservative government's best efforts in 2023, that does remain open.

But it's severely limiting for travellers. It's not staffed all the time. Meaning of an evening of a weekend. The lifts can't be used and disabled members of my community can't access the platforms on that, though. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to pay tribute to my local to my local councillor, Dave Doyle. Dave is a very good friend of mine and indeed sorely. Parish Council chair Alan Turing's. Dave and Alan do great work and have done great work going back many years and raising the alarm on accessibility failures at Long Eaton train station.

Indeed, when Dave Allen and myself campaigned against the proposed ticket office closure a few years ago, disabled access, disabled people's access was very much the thing that we were focused on at that time and great, great, great thanks to Dave and Alan for their efforts over the years. I've met previously with Midlands Connect and Network Rail and spoken about persistent issues at Long Eaton Station, struggles with accessibility result from its relative lack of modernisation. But the problems don't stop there. Madam Deputy Speaker.

The platform is also unusually short. There is a special announcement every time I get on my train back home, meaning basically the long intercity trains can't open all their doors because you can't access them from the whole platform. It leans leads to misconceptions and confusion for travellers all across the board. Additionally, the railway bridge right next to the station across Tamworth Road is 200 years old and it's now so low and so narrow that it chokes all traffic. Going under what is a very, very important thoroughfare between Long Eaton and the M1.

The road under the bridge also regularly floods, which means that people have to take a 15 minute diversion. The infrastructure just isn't there that we need. Now, in summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, we need proper investment to ensure that the station is accessible every day at all times long. Eaton is a commuter town. Ultimately, it's at the heart of the East Midlands, with regular trains running to Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, and it's less than two hours door to door to the House of Commons, which is very convenient, but I think it needs to be modernised and any project that does that needs to recognize disabled people's rights to accessibility, so everyone can use the station to get where they need to go.
15:06
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. Gideon Amos. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, And it's appropriate to address And it's appropriate to address this debate on National Epilepsy Day. And I'm very grateful to the and congratulate the chair of the Transport Committee in securing this debate and for her expertise in this area. And I thank all the colleagues across the House who have spoken in this debate, including my hon. Friends for North East Fife and North North Norfolk, who are admirably increasing the pressure for accessibility improvements in their constituencies.

What the debate has shown, I think, Madam Speaker, and what disabled people, of course, have known for a very long time, is that accessibility is still too often treated as a checkbox late in the process, rather than being built in from the very start, with the result that people are left trying to navigate a system that may function on paper but too often breaks down in practice. That's why this cannot be approached piecemeal, with one part of the system considered an isolation.

Each body concerned only with its own narrow responsibilities. Because what matters in real life is whether the whole journey works from beginning to end. So the proper test for the government is therefore practical. One can someone get from home to work, college to college to hospital to the high street to see friends, family safely and reliably with the same basic confidence as anyone else? And for too many disabled people, the answer is still no. The wider picture makes that clear. Only 31% of British stations had full step free access.

As of November 25th, 57% of the working age population in England live in areas with low public transport. Access to jobs and bus journeys have fallen by more than a billion since 2015. Those are not separate problems. They're a sign of a transport system, Madam Deputy Speaker, in which accessibility has not been given. The place should have been given in decisions about infrastructure, service levels, procurement and oversight. Access to healthcare is also harder where public transport is lacking, 66% of elderly people are unable to reach hospital within 30 minutes by public transport, and waits for driving.

Tests remain stubbornly high, which of course are particularly concerning if you're disabled and rely on driving as your only means of getting around. So the issue is not simply whether their accessibility duties in law, it's whether accessibility is shaping decisions early enough to prevent exclusion from being built in from the beginning. Failure to get the design right at the outset produces more costs on people and more inconvenience and less independence later down the system. A constituent of mine raised the situation at the bus stop by the former Three Cups in Wellington, where parked cars prevent the bus from pulling in so disabled passengers and others can't then board safely and ramp sometimes can't be put out.

Street design, parking enforcement, vehicle operation and passenger assistance all need to work together to solve these problems. I've also heard from resident Creech Creech Heathfield, who spent months trying to get response from bus companies about wheelchair accessibility with no meaningful reply. That, too, is part of accessibility, a system that doesn't respond when disabled people raise barriers is a system that is failing them, and the same pattern can happen in taxi provision. With the shortage or scarcity of accessible cabs, often bookings falling through and unsuitable vehicles arriving instead.

If policy makers treat accessibility as marginal or something that can be covered, something to be covered by special arrangements later on, what develops instead is a patchwork of uncertainty in which disabled people are expected to plan around failure. That's not good enough for disabled for disabled people, rail matters, buses matter, taxis matter. Driving sport matters, and links between them are all matter as well. Liberal Democrats have therefore played their part and I'm pleased to have played my part as the hon. Member for Battersea mentioned, the ticket office campaign in my constituency to ensure they were retained.

We've also proposed amendments on bills, for example, on accessible information and representation for passengers with access requirements, on bus accessibility and reporting, and more support for disabled people and the Rail Passengers Charter. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the government how they will embed transport planning from the outset in future projects so that key decisions are made at the right stage and how the government will bring together rail, buses, taxis and driving support into a more coherent strategy for disabled people.

And if I may just finish with a note, a positive note, which I know is sometimes unusual in this place. But having looking back on the experience, I have a confession. I was a pusher, Madam Deputy Speaker, from my childhood to later in my life. My mum was a wheelchair user and before the days of many of them, before the days of electric wheelchairs. And so perhaps I identified with the experience of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Sidcup for accompanying people on, on, on public transport.

In the days when I relied, we relied on her being an indomitable character who would press gang any available member of the public family, Porter's taxi drivers to get her across the country before there was accessibility on public transport that involved planks of wood to ramp across the steps from our house into the taxi. That involved being lifted into the goods van and rattling around with the mailbags from one end of the railway line to the other. As the voices of disabled people were.

It was less like being a helper and more like being an extra in around the world in 80 days. Some of those journeys. But those days have passed, things have improved, and as the voices of disabled people have been heard more, we have seen improvements in accessibility for people using public transport, and that that accessibility should not depend on luck, persistence, or whether somebody remembered accessibility late in the process. Accessibility

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs to be part of the plan from the start. Thank you, madam. Shadow Secretary of State Richard Holden. Thank you very much indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, over the last few decades, there has been a consensus in politics that disability should not prevent disability should not prevent people from living fulfilling successful lives. However, I recognise that despite some strong recognise that despite some strong standards and implementing new measures from governments of all stripes over previous decades, the stripes over previous decades, the aims set out by governments of both parties to improve accessibility for disabled people have not always
15:13
Richard Holden Portrait Rt Hon Richard Holden MP (Basildon and Billericay, Conservative)
-
-
met the standards. Disabled people understandably expect, therefore ensuring that our transport system works for disabled people should always be something that government always be something that government strives for. As last year's Transport Select Committee report on accessibility recognised, this on accessibility recognised, this is not a simple issue with disabled people using very different methods of transport. The report rightly of transport. The report rightly points out that, quote, the support that people need to make journeys successfully and confidently varies greatly, and it's been great to hear today from members across the House, particularly those with personal experience.

And I remember in recent years taking when I lived with one of my grandmothers for quite a long period of time, taking her around when she was much less mobile in later years and hearing from hon. Members some of the the varieties of challenges faced is is really important because it's those it's those experiences that can inform our debate. And it's particularly great to hear from the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about changing places. We've had. I've been campaigning just recently got one going in in Basildon as well.

They are really important for people to access our town centres and giving people the confidence actually just to get out and about is really important for the high street, as well as actually for disabled people themselves. It was also a fantastic to hear from the Member for South West Hertfordshire and the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard as well, about those issues around design from the start and how those things can actually make an important and real difference. And to hear from the members for Exmouth and Exeter East and for Battersea about floating bus stops, an issue I shall return to later in my speech.

I believe that the variation in types of transport used by disabled people, Madam Deputy Speaker shows that we need to view the issue of accessibility in the wider sense. Accessibility for disabled people is not as simple as ensuring just technical specifications are up to standard and having enough staff. While these obviously matter and are of critical and are critical to the experience of disabled people travelling, we must ensure that we consider the broader question about how government policies can impact on them as well.

And that is why I want to focus on one of the areas that is critical to travel for disabled people, and which can often be overlooked in discussions on accessibility, the importance of cars. We know that cars are integral to the lives of disabled people. In fact, in 2024, the National Travel Survey showed that amongst disabled people, 78% of miles travelled were owned private cars, either as a passenger or a driver. This is actually higher than for non-disabled people and as noted by the Select Committee, people with disabilities also travel in taxis far, far more often than disabled people.

When considering this fact, it is also important to recognise that amongst disabled people, a far greater proportion of journeys are made for shopping, personal business and visiting friends as well. These journeys are a clear indicator that accessible transport is not some abstract quality, but rather integral to people's lives. Without these journeys, people will be cut off from work, but but also very, very importantly, from essential activities and social engagements. The indicators of a fulfilling life

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for anyone. I'll happily give way. The hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he recognise that for way. Does he recognise that for many disabled people, they simply don't have a choice because public transport is either not available transport is either not available if you live in rural areas or is not accessible, and so much of the reason that they have to resort to reason that they have to resort to relying on cars and taxis is because of the failure to have invested in a public transport system that's accessible.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

system that's accessible. I think the hon. Lady makes an important point. I would also say, though, often for disabled people it'll be a choice to use a car if available, because it's the most convenient means of getting around. It means people can travel at times that suit them. I totally agree that we want to ensure that all of our public transport is as accessible as possible, but I also do not want to go down to a system which restricts the ability of disabled people to move around by using car either.

And as such, I would implore the Minister and his colleagues to to really speak to the Treasury at the moment about this issue around fuel duty. With 6,878% of disabled people's miles traveled by car, seeing increases in the price of the pump will inevitably deter journeys and harm both the personal and professional lives of those who rely on cars more than anybody else. We all know that this is a tax on transport. When people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around, and it is a further tax imposed by by the by this government, who who does who does often feel treat both drivers and passengers in many cases as a as a cash cow to fund other parts and other decisions that they're making.

I hope this debate sharpens the minister's focus and reminds Ministers in the Treasury, who rather shamefully dismissed our concerns on this issue last week, that vehicles are not merely something to extract money and taxation from the public forum. There are actually a lifeline for everyone, but particularly those with mobility issues, given that they are so much more dependent on these vehicles than the population

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as a whole. Unfortunately, I will give way to the hon. Member. Can I start by thanking the hon. Member about his remarks about what I've said in the debate? But, however, all the statistics show however, all the statistics show that users of Motability vehicles, the people that need them most, are the poorest, but B people who live the poorest, but B people who live in rural areas. And the Conservative Party's policy on this matter will damage those people the matter will damage those people the most, quite frankly, by taking away those vehicles.

So will he commit to going away to his colleagues and undertaking to look at that policy that will damage people, disabled people who live in rural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities more than anybody else? I think I think the hon. Member should reflect on the fact that should reflect on the fact that he's voted for last week, a policy which absolutely hammers not in some theoretical time in the future, but actually hammers from September this year and increasing in December, and then in March next December, and then in March next year, those rural transport users more than anywhere else, not not policies which may or may not happen in the future, but policies happen in the future, but policies which he has voted for actually are really hurting disabled people from this year.

And I would actually I think he should reflect on that and on and on the impact that that will have and speak to people. On his frontbench about how those impacts are going to play through right across the system. Unfortunately, the ability of disabled people to travel is not only constrained by the cost of driving, but also by prohibitive motoring policies to. Now, while we acknowledge that governments have made both made progress on matters such as creating a more accessible railway network, including with the railway roadmap, and I welcome some of the announcements made by Ministers over recent months, which rightly feature rightly focus on policies that people across this House will also support.

It's also right that some of the. And it's also great to see that some of the access for all projects are also being progressed. It is disappointing that many disabled people will remain worried about their ability to access stations, given that the projects set out by the last government will not be. As some of them have been, stalled or paused. And now facing a question mark over them are not being pursued. I mentioned these points as I do not doubt that the Minister strongly believes in improving access for disabled people.

My concern is that the government is comfortable using the language of accessibility, but when faced with decisions that directly impact on them, whether that's accessible, making stations more accessible or actually making car driving a car more expensive. Actually, they're not on the wrong. They're not on the right side. Time and again, Ministers have also been made aware of the issues of some of the physical impediments to disabled people in our towns and cities, particularly this issue of floating bus stops. Now, during the passage of the Bus Services Act, the government said that it intended that the guidance for floating bus stops would support authorities to provide infrastructure, that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use.

The acceptance of Lord Blunkett's amendments in the House of peers gave the impression that we might see real improvements in floating bus stops that would allow blind people to access bus stops without fear of getting going across these paths and being struck by bikes. And it's been great to see in, in some parts of the country, actually floating bus stops being removed from scheme designs. And I had a recent exchange with about my own county council, Essex County Council, who are now removing them from a large new property development.

Yet despite the promises to this House and of those and to those representing blind and partially sighted people, the proposals that this government put forward in January were pitiful, and you don't need to take my word for it. Madam Deputy Speaker, a spokesperson for the Royal National Institute for Blind People said that the new guidance just simply does not address the problem. Meanwhile, the Street Access campaign co-ordinator at the National Federation of the blind in the UK said it does not address the concerns that blind and visually impaired people have.

And it's totally insulting to think that we will just simply accept what is being offered by the government. These people, these concerns are clearly reflected in the data. According to the rniB, nearly 40% of blind and partially sighted people avoid using these bus stop bypasses and instead go to other bus stops or do not travel at all, increasing the length of their journey time, or indeed, meaning that they don't take the journey at all. Separately, the Mayor of London has also supported this policy, using all sorts of strange figures which he's had to row back on.

And I recently was down in Hounslow with councillors Joanna Biddulph and councillors Gabriella Giles on Chiswick High Road. Looking at some of the most egregious examples of these floating bus stops, the next decade will offer an opportunity. As I come to the end of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, for advances in accessibility, new technologies such as autonomous vehicles could transform opportunities for disabled people. Demand responsive transport could also provide additional services that are not currently available if the government uses the powers available to it, such as those in the Autonomous Vehicles Act passed by the last government, we could see really significant improvements in accessibility options for disabled people.

As noted at the start and by members of the House, there are no simple solutions to the challenges faced by the disabled. It is a multi-modal problem accessing both public and private forms of transport, with those with disabled people facing specific challenges, in addition to those faced by everyone else, where people are unable to get there by train or plane, they understandably feel ostracized from the travelling experience that non-disabled people experience, experience, experience. This cannot be solved overnight and, as members have suggested, requires an approach that is applied to all forms of transport.

To achieve this, we need to listen to the experiences of disabled people. And when we do promise change, like on floating bus stops, we've got to deliver it. Excluding disabled people by increasing their costs is also not acceptable. Transport should be there to improve people's lives, not to raise revenue or increase the cost of living. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you Minister. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by Deputy Speaker. May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend, the chair of the Transport Select Committee for securing this incredibly for securing this incredibly important debate on transport accessibility. I also want to thank everyone who has spoken today for their thoughtful and powerful their thoughtful and powerful contributions, often from personal lived experience, though it doesn't fall to me. To sum up the debate,
15:24
Keir Mather Portrait Keir Mather MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Selby, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a couple of specific questions that were raised as part of it that I would like to address. One from the chair of the Transport Select Committee, who asked how the Accessible Travel Charter will be enforced. On this point, I would, as well as the benchmark principles which are contained within the charter, to inform improvement and to target improvement. I believe that it would be beneficial for my hon. Friend to see this piece of work happening and informing the Law Commission's view to see where enforcement gaps exist.

She also asked me how disabled people have taken part in the Imts and the Accessible Travel Charter. I'm pleased to confirm to her that disabled people and organizations have been at the heart of this process. They've participated at our regional roadshows and people's panels events and have worked closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, who have been fundamental in developing these strategies. The hon. Lady, the Member for North East Fife, asked me when design standards for accessible rail stations will be published.

I can confirm to her that this will be done ahead of the stand up of Great British Rail, so that the organisation can begin to rationalise stations under the same core principles of accessibility. The hon. Lady, the Member for Heywood and Middleton, asked me about rail services and how the Railways Bill will ensure that the rights of disabled people are enshrined. Well, not only will the public Sector Equality Duty apply to GBR across its public facing functions, but the Bill also sets out an explicit passenger and accessibility duty within the legislation.

Regarding the passenger watchdog, the watchdog will have the power to set consumer standards relating to accessibility, which all passenger service operators must follow as part of their licence conditions. It will ensure operators compliance through regulatory regular monitoring, requesting improvement plans where necessary and and this is important through the lens of enforcement, escalating serious and persistent issues to the RR for enforcement when that is necessary. The hon. Member my friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who made many powerful points on this matter during the Committee stage of the Railways Bill, once again shared his powerful testimony but also spoke about the important issue of the Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group and their recommendations.

I'm pleased to say that I met with the group on Tuesday to reaffirm that Air Passenger rights remain a priority for the department. We'll continue to consider opportunities to ensure air passengers have the highest level of protection possible. But I would also just say to him that the group reaffirmed to me that they believe there are lots of industry led proposals, which could lead to tangible improvements for passengers with disabilities, and I stand by them and will support them as they do so.

The hon. Member for Leighton Buzzard raised the case of the locked gate at the train station, which sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel, but is in fact very serious. I'm afraid I don't know the exact details of the case that she raises, but I'll be sure to take the pertinent details away and raise them with the Rail Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, Transport accessibility determines whether people can get to work, to education, to healthcare, to family and importantly, to access community life. Access to transport determines whether people people can participate fully and equally in our society.

That is why it is important that we reflect on progress, acknowledge the challenges that remain, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider what more we We must do to create a transport system that works for everyone. Now, system that works for everyone. Now, I do not believe that accessibility is a destination that can simply be reached or completed. It is an ongoing journey that requires constant focus, particularly in a world where transport, technology and patterns of travel are evolving rapidly. But let me be clear from the. It is unacceptable for anyone to be prevented from travelling or to find it difficult to do so because of accessibility barriers across our transport system.

Too often, disabled people have been expected to plan to negotiate, to explain and to adapt, rather than the system. Doing that work for them as any other passenger would expect. Accessibility has too often been an afterthought. Rather than being designed into transport strategy from the start, and that is precisely why this government is taking action to correct this with a firm commitment to improving transport so that disabled people can travel safely, confidently and with dignity. Now the government welcomed the Transport Select Committee's findings and their reports, and accepted their conclusion that more must be done to ensure that transport is truly accessible to all.

That is why the government is delivering a comprehensive programme of reform to improve the accessibility of our transport system today. In the time I have, I want to set out how that work is progressing and how it will deliver lasting change. And I'll begin with rail, where we know that change has been urgently needed and is now firmly underway. Our Railways Bill and the creation of GBR is our opportunity to fix what isn't working for passengers on our railways. It will ensure that the interests of all passengers, in particular those facing barriers to access, will be at the heart of decision making.

The bill will also establish a passenger watchdog, which will protect the rights of disabled passengers by monitoring service delivery, investigating issues, setting minimum consumer standards, including on accessibility and advocating for improvements. But we are not sitting back and waiting for the passage of this bill. We are acting. In November, we published the department's roadmap to an Accessible railway alongside the bill, setting out what we are doing now to improve the day to day travelling experience for disabled passengers ahead of the creation of GBR.

We also continue to implement the access for all programme, which has already transformed access at many stations and will continue to do so. Step free access, intuitive layouts and accessible facilities must all be part of the everyday experience of the railway. Moving to local transport. The heart of an inclusive and accessible transport system with journeys by bus, taxis and private hire vehicles is central to disabled people's daily travel. Now our Bus Services Act 2025 does mark a major step forward. It introduces a package of measures to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of local transport.

Through this act, we are helping local authorities design safer, more accessible bus stations and stops, and this measure complements existing requirements for the physical accessibility of vehicles. The conduct of drivers and passengers, and the information provided on board. Ensuring that people can board the bus, receive the support they need and travel to their destination with dignity. We are also mandating streamlined disability awareness and assistance training requirements for bus drivers and for frontline staff. And for the first time, every local transport authority will be required to regularly review the accessibility of their bus networks and publish a bus network accessibility plan.

The Accessible Information Regulations are being implemented, improving buses, audible and visible information, and the department also recently published statutory guidance on floating bus stops. These schemes were often introduced with good intentions, particularly to improve safety for cyclists in congested urban environments. However, as has been highlighted many times, they have in some cases created new barriers and we know that more needs to be done to make them accessible to all. Our guidance will enable designers to provide safer cycling facilities that also meet the needs of bus passengers, as well as people walking, wheeling or using mobility aids.

Now on taxis and private hire vehicles, we are seeking a new power to set national standards as part of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. This will allow us to set robust standards that prioritise and focus on passenger safety and other standards, such as accessibility. We intend to use the standards to mandate disability equality training for drivers, as we consider wider reform to the overall sector. Increasing the provision of wheelchair accessible vehicles will be a key priority and an area of focus in our planned engagement this spring.

We are also making sure that local transport planning considers accessibility holistically by developing new guidance on the production of local transport plans, which will set clear expectations that accessible and inclusive transport should be at their core. I'd like to turn next to integration, which is a matter that the Lib Dem spokesman spoke about very powerfully. Accessibility depends on integration and planning, and too often decisions on transport infrastructure have been made in silos, with accessibility considered too late or not at all.

Journeys must be joined up and people should be able to leave their front door and reach their destination without facing barriers along the way. Our forthcoming integrated National Transport Strategy will set out this government's people focused vision for domestic transport across England. It sets out how we will create a transport network that works well for people and that is safe, affordable and accessible so that everyone can get on in life and make the journeys that they need to easily. Accessibility will be a core priority in the strategy, and I look forward to talking more about our ambitions and the policy covered in the strategy once it is published.

I have also heard the concerns across the chamber about enforcement and the burden of responsibility, and I am clear that the burden of securing accessibility should not rest disproportionately on disabled people themselves. For too long, disabled passengers have been expected to research, plan, explain and challenge simply to exercise rights that already exists. And that's why we are developing a new accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local authorities. In sum, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope I've demonstrated today that this government is taking clear, concrete and coordinated steps, realising our shared ambition for a truly accessible and inclusive transport system.

I am grateful to members across the House for their continued engagement and challenge, and I look forward to working with hon. Members, with disabled people and with the transport sector to ensure that this progress continues.
15:34
Ruth Cadbury Portrait Ruth Cadbury MP (Brentford and Isleworth, Labour)
-
-
I call Ruth to very quickly wind up. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the members for their contributions the members for their contributions in this debate and also for the committee team, for the contribution they've made on our contribution they've made on our work in this important area. I welcome the commitment and ambition from the Minister and his list of government initiatives in this area. On terms of my questions, I'm glad to see that the Law Commission is going to be involved in bringing this to the charter.

I just need to be. I hope later he'll in due course, he'll clarify with me whether disabled people will be involved in shaping the Integrated National Strategy Transport strategy. And I hope he. Ministers will, in due course, address my questions on the enforcement gap. A fully accessible transport system benefits us all, but we have to remember that, as others have said, disabled people often don't have the choice that many of us have in terms of which mode of travel is available and accessible for them and their specific needs.

Thank you. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. And we will now come to the next backbench debate. And the next backbench debate is on support for Gurkha veterans. And I call Cameron Thomas, who will speak for up to 15 minutes. Cameron Thomas.
15:36
None Portrait Backbench Business: General Debate on support for Gurkha veterans
-

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that this House is considered support for Gurkha veterans and their dependents. As I speak, Gyanendra Limbu is in hospital where for two weeks he has helped me to put together this story in a manner that I hope will be befitting. Before I begin, I hope that the House will join me in wishing him a swift and full recovery. Yeah, Nepal is a country smaller than the UK, bordered by global giants China to the north and India to its south.

Its highest point is Mount Everest, and it is from Nepal that for over 200 years, the UK has drawn some of its most resilient, courageous and loyal soldiers. Ganendra was born in the mountainous village of Kamalan, with its population of 900. On the 27th of January 1960. Like many across Nepal, he grew up in poverty despite both parents working long hours as farmers. The ambition to one day join the Gurkhas and serve alongside the British army, as did some of Ganendra uncles and cousins, was a route out of poverty and into a life of expedition.

But it was an ambition shared by hundreds of thousands of young Nepalese at school. Ganendra was excelled in football and basketball, but his English was also exceptional, which would soon prove pivotal to his future. Ganendra travelled to the recruiting centre near Kathmandu and applied to join the Gurkhas in 1977. The recruitment process was robust and highly contested by tens of thousands of applicants to join the brigade. Only 8000 strong Ganendra was the only member of his village to pass selection.

His parents were immensely proud of their son, but his success also meant that he would soon leave his family behind to travel to Hong Kong to begin 11 months of training in Hong Kong. Ganendra, with his rural background, learned how to survive in conflict and operate various weapon systems, including the Nepali kukri in hand to hand combat. His field engineer training then took him to Kitchener Barracks in Kent, where he trained as a driver and field engineer. Throughout this period of training, Ganendra and his fellow Gurkhas were vaguely aware of the increasing tensions between Argentina and the UK over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

On completion of training, he was assigned to the Queen's Gurkha Engineers, which provided the British Army with builders, plumbers and electricians. Ganendra was selected to train as an electrician, but before he could begin his specialist training on the 2nd of April 1982, Argentina seized the Falkland Islands, 10,000 miles from the pole and which Ganendra recalls, he could barely identify on a map. Britain declared war and Andreea's platoon commander immediately reassigned him to begin pre-deployment training.

On the 12th of May 1982. Eight days after HMS Sheffield had been sunk with the loss of 20 personnel, British Ocean liner QE2 embarked for the South Atlantic, carrying Gurkhas, Scots Guards and Welsh Guards. 21162121 Sapa. Limbu and his fellow engineers later boarded at Ascension Island and he recalls being ordered to prepare to fight immediately on arrival into theatre. But most have never travelled by sea and were constantly sick. Over the next 11 days, over the course of the war, to the 14th of June, throughout which Britain lost six ships.

Ganendra and his engineers remained aboard the QE2, knowing day and night that they too could be attacked. They remained aboard long after the war ended to clear ordnance which littered battlefields across the islands. But Ganendra, he states, was never trained in minefield clearance. On the 1st of December 1982, he was attached to 49 EOD Squadron Royal Engineers and deployed by helicopter to two sisters. Hill members of 49 EOD located an unexploded Russian anti-aircraft rocket and began to initiate a cordon.

Ganendra was closest to that rocket when it detonated. He regained consciousness several hours after evacuation at Port Stanley Hospital, where he was told by a doctor that he would lose his eye and that his hands and legs were badly injured. He was told that he'd be returned back to the UK for treatment before he passed out. He was first moved to Ascension Island on the 4th of December, where he received further treatment, and he remembers being unable to pass urine. He remembers being given another injection before again regaining consciousness at Queens Hospital in Woolwich.

He was blind in both eyes for two weeks, during which he was operated on by Colonel Youngson, who told him he was lucky to have survived at all. Following six months of treatment. Ganendra lost one of his eyes but retained sight in the other, and he kept limited use of his hands and legs throughout these six months. Ganendra cried day and night, his hopes of a long Army career as an electrician were over at 22, the magician, as described by his teammates on the battalion
15:41
Cameron Thomas Portrait Cameron Thomas MP (Tewkesbury, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
basketball team, would never play again, and his days on the right wing of a football pitch were over wing of a football pitch were over two. After his discharge from hospital, Ganendra returned to Kitchener Barracks wanting to seek Kitchener Barracks wanting to seek legal advice, but was ordered not to leave camp in 1983. He was told he was no longer fit for the army and flown back to Hong Kong. He was physically and psychologically physically and psychologically broken and would have nothing to offer.

Back in Nepal, he was offered a partial pension by the UK government amounting to 40%. It was worth 500 less than £2.50 in today's money. The UK sent this man who travelled 10,000 miles to serve the UK in the Falkland Islands, back to Nepal with one eye, a walking stick and £2.50 a month. Shame on us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend and friend the Member for Tewkesbury, and he's making an excellent speech and he's making an excellent speech because the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans must never be of Gurkha veterans must never be understated or sidelined. However, the treatment in in particular of Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans with regards to their pensions has been deplorable. The UK government has rightly recognised the veterans has rightly recognised the veterans bravery and their achievements, but that must be translated with respect to their treatment and pensions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK government must now work at pace with the new Prime Minister of Nepal to work collaboratively to to resolve these long standing issues of long suffering veterans?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his well-timed contribution. I fully agree with him, and I'll further state that the Gurkha veterans, indeed all the Gurkha veterans, indeed all veterans and members of our armed forces, are lucky to have him as the chair of the Defence Select

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the chair of the Defence Select Committee. Yeah, I'd love to. Deputy Speaker First of all, can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker First of all, can I commend the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for bringing this forward in the time he's been in forward in the time he's been in this House, his his contribution on on Army, Navy and RAF issues has been significant and we thank him for that. When I was a wee boy, that wasn't yesterday. We used to have exploits of the Gurkhas and we used to. We. And when I read the magazines or the. Or the exploits in the paper, you're always moved by their bravery, and I'd always struck me.

I never, ever met. One time I was on an exercise with the Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme, and I met some of the Gurkhas. They weren't that big, but my goodness, they were strong. They were courageous. So does the. The Gurkhas have given their all for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often a great personal cost, as he's outlined. Is it only right that we ensure every veteran, regardless of when they served, receive the dignity, the pension equality and the welfare support that they earned on the on the battlefield? And does the hon.

Member not agree that words of thanks are just not enough, and that what is needed is practical support and that has to be demonstrated by our government in this debate. Today is the first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage and not that battle to make that happen. OK. Cameron Thomas. I thank him, as always, for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him, as always, for his meaningful contributions and I agree with him fully. It also gives agree with him fully. It also gives me an opportunity to to recognize the boost to morale of all of our the boost to morale of all of our UK Armed forces for the service of the Gurkhas. You know, my prevailing memories of serving with prevailing memories of serving with the Gurkhas were just constantly smiling people. That always lifted the morale of everybody else they worked with.

In 2004, Andrew's first application to return to the UK was rejected because he had retired prior to 1997, but the Gurkha Justice campaign continued to fight for equal settlement rights for all Gurkha soldiers. On the 29th of April 2009, a Liberal Democrat motion to deliver equal rights to settle for all Gurkha veterans delivered Gordon Brown's government a shock defeat. Within one month, the Home Secretary announced that all Gurkhas who had served for at least four years would settle. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, it should never have taken such a prolonged and public campaign, with the backing of opposition MPs and Labour rebels and only one year out from a general election to deliver this piece of justice to our veterans, Gyanendra was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2012 and he moved to Aldershot.

He's now 66 years old, totally disabled and clearly unable to work. He survives through food bank donations and the support of Farnborough Church members. Notwithstanding the fact that but for a parliamentary anomaly, this country would have kept him hidden away in Nepal. This is a shameful injustice. Ganendra is tired, he's desperate and ill. He told me that he wishes he could have his time back, that he could be 22 again, with use of both of his eyes and his body.

I can't give him that, but I am honoured to be able to speak for him today. This week I met with several other Gurkha veterans in portcullis House and all feel a continuing sense of injustice, a sense of injustice that I share. 21154152 For Sherpa, a retired Warrant officer, two of the 10th Royal Gurkha Rifles told me that he served this country for 20 years and 119 days, and yet in his accrued pension, the years he served in Asia prior to 1997 were not factored.

21167476 Bhimraj Tambahan, a retired infantryman in the Second Royal Gurkha Rifles, told me that 18 years of his National Insurance contributions collected by Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas is not recognised by HMRC. His pension does not factor in that contribution. His fellow veterans report the same anomaly. It was further reported to me that headquarters brigade of Gurkhas sidestepped pension contributions by paying Gurkhas through local overseas allowance, whilst based in Brunei and Belize. Since 2006, Gurkha pensions have been aligned with their Comparative armed Forces pension schemes oh five and 15 as they always should have been.

But service prior to 2005 returned a paltry figure. Bhimraj retired after 18 years in 2003, before the alignment and the lump sum his pension accrued amounted to only £3,000. He receives less than £400 a month. The lump sum, which was issued to those on Armed Forces Pension Scheme 75 for comparative service, which included Bim's brother, a retired staff sergeant, was £78,000. His brother receives £1,200 as a monthly pension payment. My Gurkha friends recounted this week at the conclusion of the Borneo confrontation in 1966, thousands of Gurkhas who had fought and served the UK's interests found themselves superfluous and were discharged from the brigade of Gurkhas.

They left ineligible for a pension. Those who had served over nine years at discharge were issued a single payment of £360. Those who had served for less than nine years £250. Today there are thousands of the descendants of these warriors living in the rural regions of Nepal because they cannot afford even to live in the Nepalese cities. The dependents and descendants of our veterans, who left with barely even a historical footnote. I was told by my Gurkha friends that the Home Office, under this government, almost exclusively refuses visitor visas for relatives of Gurkha veterans living in the UK.

I was told that since 2019, the Department for Work and Pensions rules state that those receiving benefits may only leave the UK for a maximum of 28 days continuously. This timeline is especially prohibitive for Gurkha veterans wanting to visit their families in rural Nepal. It can take over a week to reach these regions, which, having transited the Airbridge to a major settlement, then demands journeys of hundreds of miles over mountainous terrain by road and foot. I have some questions for the Minister.

I'll put those forward afterwards because I'm conscious of time. I wanted, in closing, to recognise the dedication of the Gurkhas that I have observed on the part of the Member for Aldershot, chair of the APPG for Nepal, who apologized that she could not be here this afternoon, I know otherwise she would have contributed with a genuine and heartfelt contribution. I thank her for organizing and marking a marking of remembrance at the memorial to the Brigade of Gurkhas in November 2025. She offered me the honour of laying the wreath at that service, which I proudly accepted.

When I placed that wreath, I took a moment to read the inscription beneath the feet of that Gurkha soldier. It read bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you. I want to believe that comment is genuine, and I want to believe the reasons for the injustices are that they are so numerous, so complex, and so historic that they persist not through lack of will, but through lack of understanding. I want to believe that the relationship between the UK and the Gurkhas is one of friendship and not one of exploitation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Very good. The question is, as on the Order Paper and with an immediate five Paper and with an immediate five minute time limit to start with. Lauren Edwards. Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker And I'd like to thank the Speaker And I'd like to thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and the backbench Business Committee for facilitating this really important facilitating this really important debate here today. My constituency of Rochester and Strood has a long
15:51
Lauren Edwards Portrait Lauren Edwards MP (Rochester and Strood, Labour)
-
-
of Rochester and Strood has a long and proud history and association with the Gurkha community and Nepal. There are over a hundred Gurkhas living in the Medway towns, representing a sizeable community of former military personnel who have served this country, along with a significant wider community of Nepalese heritage, along with many other members here. Today, I've written to the Minister for veterans and people in particular on behalf of the Gurkha Nepalese community in Medway and Kent, and I'd like to thank her in particular for her responses and her engagement.

Given time constraints. I won't repeat the points about the case. The Gurkha veterans, who retired before 1997, have for justice in their pension arrangements. I think they are generally well known to this House. I understand the government's position shared by previous governments that they are unable to make retrospective changes to such pension arrangements for this cohort of veterans, and while the legal position is clear, the reality is that it was not anticipated that so many who were in receipt of pre 1997 pension arrangements would be living in this country.

It is widely understood that the pensions of those who. Service ended before the 1st of July 1997 are not adequate to sustain a decent standard of living in the UK. Many veterans living in this country receive around one third of the pensions paid to a British soldier of equivalent rank and as my constituents. Amanda Rye has told me, he feels this division is profoundly unjust and that it institutionalizes inequality among soldiers who wore the same uniform, followed the same orders and risked their lives in the same conflicts.

So if it's not possible to provide enough lift for their pensions, I strongly urge Ministers today to work with their colleagues in the Treasury to consider the introduction of a fund from which this relatively small cohort of veterans experiencing hardship can access additional financial support. The cost to the government would likely not be significant given the numbers, but the impact that such a fund could have for the quality of life for these veterans would be huge. And I think it would also be very beneficial to bilateral relations between the UK and Nepal.

And while I appreciate the steps that have been taken to work with the government of Nepal to increase support for veterans living there, it is right for the government to also look to alleviate poverty and hardship of those who have served this country and now live here in the UK, and I would, of course, appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Ministers to discuss this further, as I'm sure other colleagues would. So to conclude, supporting our Gurkha veterans who are currently experiencing hardship is about preserving a partnership that has been built over centuries.

It is a relationship founded on trust, mutual respect and shared sacrifice, and it's important that we acknowledge the loyalty that the Gurkhas have shown to this country and do our best to ensure that they do not experience poverty and hardship in their well-earned retirement.
15:54
Rachel Gilmour Portrait Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call Rachel Gilmour. Thank you, >> I call Rachel Gilmour. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury for bringing forward Tewkesbury for bringing forward this debate and indeed, for his wonderful, kind introduction to so many of his Gurkha friends. So it would be easy for my remarks to simply be an ode to the Gurkhas, to shower them with honeyed words, because that is what they deserve. But this debate is really about burning injustices, injustices faced by those who have served our nation with distinction.

I've had the privilege to meet Gurkha soldiers on many occasions. They are a wonderful people, tough, brave and humble qualities I am sure shaped by the by the stunning but harsh Himalayan environment. After all, they do hail from the roof of the world. For over 200 years they have served this country with honour in conflict theatres in all corners of the globe through the World wars, perhaps most famously in the campaign against Imperial Japan, the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wherever a British flag has been raised, you will so often find loyal Gurkhas there to. And every time they have demonstrated themselves to be among the finest soldiers to don a British uniform. Indeed, a reputation that truly precedes them. Yet despite this long and storied collection, we are now facing a moment where the Nepalese government has made overtures suggesting that Gurkha recruitment could be halted if this issue, these injustices are not addressed. I say to this government and to the Minister for whom I have a lot of time and respect because he is a good Minister, if not a Secretary of State.

Yeah, it's I say to this government the noble principle of reciprocity, which has come to characterise this most special relationship over two centuries, must not be allowed to fall into disrepute. It would be a stain on our nation. This is an old and legendary bond forged in blood and sacrifice and in the fires of war. And it requires a renewal fit for 21st century Britain. The pre 1997 settlement based on Indian army rates, does not reflect the financial reality of living in Britain in 2026, with much higher associated costs and diminished purchasing power.

And so, frankly, the tripartite agreement of 1947, the year of India's independence, is now an outmoded covenant. British and Indian regiments are now separate, so for India to remain under this arrangement is a choice, because the fact is that we have Gurkha veterans today who are victims of the legacy of a system which is no longer fit for purpose. How can it be that men who served our country in uniform are still not entitled to the same pension settlement because of a technicality rooted in the date 1997, that their service concluded.

And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, an ode to the Gurkhas is richly desired and deserved. But justice for the Gurkhas is required now.
15:58
Sally Jameson Portrait Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )
-
-
Jameson. >> Deputy Speaker. >> And I also want to thank the hon. Member for bringing this important debate to the chamber important debate to the chamber today. And for over two centuries, Gurkha soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with British troops in conflicts across the globe. Their bravery, loyalty and sacrifice has been unwavering. They have fought in wars, upheld our values and in many cases laid down their lives in service to this country. I am proud, as the Member for Doncaster Central to represent a large Gurkha population.

And not only am I proud because of the service that they've given this country, but because of the contribution that they make to our city today. They are a valued member of the Doncaster community and we are richer for their contribution. And that is why I'm here today, to ensure that their voice is heard, as the Minister will already be aware, from speeches by other hon. Members in the chamber today, there are many in the Gurkha community who feel that their pension provision has not been fairly applied and some are living in real hardship as a result of that.

This particularly relates to those who enlisted before 93 and the loss of the pre 1997 service value. And let me illustrate a personal example of this from a Gurkha veteran in my constituency who served 28.5 years. Yet for pension purposes, only 16 years of that service is recognised. That represents a loss of around £10,000 per year, simply due to excluded service. And whilst I understand the position of the government on this, and indeed of previous governments, I do ask on behalf of my constituents and many more like him, that there's continued dialogue with the government to try and remedy what feels like an injustice to them.

So will the Minister continue to work with those Gurkhas on the areas which they feel are still outstanding, not least because my constituents have told me that they feel the Gurkha transfer offer failed to clearly explain the loss of the pre 97 service value and the option to to split pre and post 97 service for pension purposes. Furthermore, will the Minister also consider working with the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that Gurkhas who have served this country are entitled, particularly for a long period of time, like 28.5 years, that they're entitled to get the full State Pension.

And I think that only matches the level of service that they've given this country. And so I want to thank the Member for Tewkesbury once again, and I look forward to hearing the minister's answer, because this is an important debate to have in the House today, not just to highlight the issues that Gurkhas are facing all across this country, but also as a chance to celebrate their their contributions both to my city and to the nation.
16:01
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
Here on McDonnell. >> Here on McDonnell. >> The hon. Member for Tewkesbury, prompted me to start reminiscing prompted me to start reminiscing about April the 29th, 2009, if I can. There's a moral message here can. There's a moral message here for. Lesson for hon. Members on my side. Don't want to be patronising, but on that debate, the majority was 21. To ensure that there was settlement given to the Gurkhas. There were 27 of us on this side that voted in favour of that recall.

We were called rebels for that. But actually sometimes you have to make a moral judgement and actually say to the whips, I believe this is the right thing to do. And it was a huge success and it was a fantastic campaign. Much, much publicity was given to Joanna Lumley and she did a terrific campaign. But the lawyers behind that, one of them was Martin Howe and his team with Mark Collins and others. And there was a a momentum built up because people just were outraged about the discrimination that the Gurkhas were suffering.

It was as simple as that. And I have to say, the the points that members have raised today demonstrates that the discrimination continues. On the issue with regard to to pensions, although the argument is always put by government, you can't legislate or operate retrospectively. Yes, you can, and successive governments have done that. We shouldn't allow the discriminatory nature in the way that pensions, pensioners, Gurkha pensioners have been treated in this way and as a result of, as others have said, as a result of that, because all their service has not been taken into account, the mythical date of 1997 is has been used against them.

As a result of that, there are Gurkhas living in in poverty here and there are Gurkhas living in poverty back in Nepal, despite all their services, which we've congratulated them for today. And in addition to that, there are issues in our own community about Gurkhas who are suffering homelessness and financial, I think, financial distress. So one of the things I'd welcome the government doing now is to stand back and produce for us a strategy for the Gurkhas that have served this country, looking comprehensively at their current situation, and also trying to look at the measures that we can do to address that issue of poverty.

And I think that does mean I actually do think it just means a fair pension settlement once and for all, so that we can get this issue resolved. But can I also say there are issues with regard to housing, as I've said, but I think also there are issues with regard to health. We've always extolled the Gurkhas for their bravery, and different surveys have demonstrated that they could suffer less PTSD than other service people. I think that's a bit of a myth.

I actually do think there are issues there with regard to the their experiences and the impact it's having on has had on them. And as they get older, as a result of this sort of myth, they may not be getting the support and treatment that they should rightfully access. So I think we just need a Gurkha strategy. That's what I'd like to see coming from this government. I mean, my own community, literally, I think it's only about 25, 30 years ago, there must have been only about five Gurkha families.

We now have a sizeable community. I think there's at least 500, 600 families themselves who have set up the local Gurkha association, and one of the things that have been successful on is that they wanted a part of the local cemetery dedicated to Gurkha Gurkhas themselves. So we now have part of that ceremony. We do our commemoration services every year there, and they contribute widely to the community itself. And just as they served in the in the military so well, they also serve within our community so well as well.

So therefore, I think we do owe them a debt of honour to resolve some of these issues, particularly the issue of pensions, but also going hon. Member for Tewkesbury raised the issues about. Yes, we've established a right of settlement, but there are issues with regard to visas and other matters which are flying in the face of the practice of their family life, their cultural life as well, that need resolving. So I'd like I'd just welcome the government to stand back, look at what's whether we can develop a comprehensive strategy report back to the House, how we can then do a checklist of actions that we can then all support on across party to address these particular concerns of people that we've all admired so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a privilege to be able to speak in today's debate, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent work in securing today's excellent work in securing today's debate, and many of my remarks will echo comments made by colleagues from across the House. I want to, first of all, pay my own tribute to first of all, pay my own tribute to the Gurkhas and their incredible service to this country. Mention some local residents in reading who
16:06
Matt Rodda Portrait Matt Rodda MP (Reading Central, Labour)
-
-
some local residents in reading who I would like to really get on record their contribution to our country, and also to point out some of this very severe cost of living crisis issues. And I do hope the Minister will respond in his speech. So, first of all, just to be absolutely clear, I think we owe a debt of honour as a country to our Gurkhas. For 200 years, they've served this country and in every war that Britain has been involved in, they have played some part and they have been involved in some of the most difficult and demanding engagements in British military history, including particularly the defence of India in World War Two, when Gurkha soldiers were involved in hand to hand fighting to stop the Japanese advance on India in 1944, they were involved in the Falklands War and also in Afghanistan.

And I have to say, I read the book by Kailash Limbu about his own service in Afghanistan, which is incredibly powerful and moving, and I'd recommend that to colleagues from across the House. These are the bravest of the brave, as we've said earlier, and in my own community, they make an enormous contribution. We have several thousand Gurkhas and Nepalese residents living in reading, and that's a common experience for communities across Berkshire and out of London. And I would like to pay tribute to 1 or 2 individuals, if I may, very briefly, before touching on the issue of the importance of dealing with the cost of living crisis, particularly for the pre 1997 pensioners.

So just very, very briefly, I would like to mention Chandra Booker, who has played an incredible role in developing the forgotten British Gurkha charity in reading, which provides support across a whole range of areas to veterans and their families. And it's worth considering that many family members and older Gurkhas themselves, particularly their wives. But some other relatives don't often have a very high level of English when they were serving in the army, often orders and instructions were conveyed in Nepali, and it's important to remember that there are some very practical barriers to life in Britain, and Chandra was instrumental in developing this very important charity for our community.

Other notable Gurkhas who I or Nepalese residents who I know. I'd like to very briefly mention, community worker Ram Gilani, who's a former Gurkha, very notable member of our community, Pratiksha Gurung, who's a nurse whose father was a Gurkha in the Indian Army, not in the British Army, and also, most of all, Dhanraj Rai, who's a notable campaigner who many of you may have heard of, who's raised the issue of the Gurkha pensions for many years? The practical issues that our residents face, which are significant.

It's worth briefly touching on those. My experience of the P97 Gurkhas, who have campaigned for since 2013, is that many live in poor quality housing, live on very, very small incomes in the south east of England around London, and are really struggling. And indeed, many of the high cost parts of the country as well. They are really struggling because of very tight finances. So to give you an idea, the pensions we're talking about can be as little as £300 a month added to Pension Credit.

That maybe brings in income for a couple of £1,600 to rent a terraced house. In reading that would take your entire income. So these are people who are really struggling, who have given us incredible service, often living in poor quality accommodation. They're incredibly proud, incredibly hard working, making an enormous contribution to Britain and to local communities across the country. And I do hope that the Minister will listen to today's debate very carefully. I know he's a great supporter of our armed forces families and has done a huge amount to support them, and we'll think about the issues facing this very particular group of veterans and their families.

If I could also just add some practical, some other practical points in a request for him to work with the transport department, there are other issues in relation to benefits travel backwards and forwards to Nepal. And one particular one which was mentioned to me today, is the lack of a direct flight from Britain to Nepal, which means that elderly veterans and their wives are often in transit in the Gulf. In normal times, I should say this dramatically extends travel times, and it means that for residents who don't have any English, it's extremely difficult.

And I've heard stories of cousins, nephews, other relatives having to accompany elderly pensioners to try and get them through practicalities at airports like customs, finding the right gate and so on. So if the Minister can also have a word with the transport department about the need for a direct flight and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pick up on other issues raised by colleagues, I think that would be much appreciated. I look forward to his response later. Can you just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can you just. Thank you. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm privileged to have seen the service and sacrifice of the Gurkhas for and sacrifice of the Gurkhas for the British Army firsthand. During my visit to Brunei last year, where I had the honour of being hosted by the first Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles as part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. The scheme. I know the Minister is a firm know the Minister is a firm supporter of the headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas is also located at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, which I'm proud to represent, though I should clarify that the headquarters itself falls just outside of my constituency, and Bracknell Forest is also home to a thriving Nepalese community
16:11
Peter Swallow Portrait Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)
-
-
focused mostly around Sandhurst and in fact, Nepalese is the second most commonly spoken language in most commonly spoken language in our borough after English. Madam Deputy Speaker, every Gurkha I meet, every time I visit our armed forces every time I visit our armed forces and see how integral the Gurkhas are to our global reputation and our capabilities, I am reminded of our capabilities, I am reminded of the words inscribed on the Gurkha Soldier Memorial, not 500 yards Soldier Memorial, not 500 yards from this chamber, and I thank the Member for Tewkesbury, the hon.

Member for Tewkesbury, for reminding us of these important words. Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you. As today's debate has already demonstrated, there is rightly deep respect for Gurkhas across this House, and today is an important opportunity to recognise and pay tribute to all Gurkha veterans have done to defend this country's interests and security. That's why it is only right that we respect their sacrifice and contributions in kind, and I was proud to recently put my name alongside a number of colleagues to a letter to the Veterans Minister by my hon.

Friend the Member for Aldershot and Farnborough, who is an ardent champion for the Gurkhas and her ardent work on this has already been rightly highlighted today in this debate. This letter welcomed the election of a new government in Nepal and recognised the importance of continued constructive engagement on Gurkha welfare with Nepal. And I know the government is committed to putting the delays of previous governments behind us and making progress where others failed to do so, and I look forward to supporting their work to achieve a fairer deal for Gurkha veterans.

When I particularly like to highlight is the government pick up our conversations with the new government in Nepal. Is the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. I know this is an issue the government has raised previously, so can I take this opportunity to ask for the minister's assurances that they will continue to pursue this with the new Nepalese government? Madam Deputy Speaker, can I emphasise the will I know exists in this place to work collaboratively with Nepal on this issue? I want to welcome the opportunity to continue the dialogue with the new government and reinstate my support for efforts to find a resolution which properly recognises the enormous contributions made by Gurkhas to our country.

Only then can we ever hope to begin to repay the huge debt of gratitude we owe to our Gurkha veterans to be as faithful friends to them as they have been and continue to be to us.
16:14
Jodie Gosling Portrait Jodie Gosling MP (Nuneaton, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. and I would like to thank the hon. Member from Tewkesbury for securing this debate in the backbench Committee for allowing it. I would also like to recognise the work of also like to recognise the work of my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend from Aldershot and all the work that they've done in this area and know that they would be here today if they weren't busy on other duties. As the MP for Nuneaton, I'm incredibly fortunate and proud to represent a large Gurkha population.

Their contribution to our town is valued and woven into the fabric of Nuneaton. From Gurkha corner bars to the crooked Kukris and their amazing curries. And I highly recommend to every member of this household and we're sure we can arrange a very wonderful visit should you wish to. Their support and advocacy is provided through the British Gurkha Veteran Association and the Gurkha Monument. The first of its kind is in Riversley Park in the centre of Nuneaton. Nuneaton is deeply proud of its long standing connections with with Gurkha veterans and serving soldiers at the Queen's Gurkha Signals.

Based in Gamecock Barracks in neighbouring rugby, the British Gurkha Association provides so much support in our communities, offering English language support, support for families to ensure better engagement with their neighbours communities. They arrange for health checks. And host visits around the country, including one to Parliament, where I had the absolute honour of hosting over 50 Gurkha families in Parliament for a tour, and I know that they are excited by the opportunities presented by valor and gratefully welcomed in our communities to build on this work.

The recent elections in Nepal provide an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between Nepal and the UK, and my community recognised the importance of this relationship and have faith that the UK government will be able to engage in talks to end some of the historic injustices against the Gurkha populations. I would like to thank. Minister, I would like to thank the Minister for the work that he has done in this area to support our communities and strengthen that partnership and urge him to please positively engage with these talks as they progress and with the APPG for Nepal, chaired by my hon.

Friend, the man from Aldershot. As we have heard many recounts of Gurkha soldiers serving our nation for generations, and they have fought alongside British troops with their renowned ferocity and bravery, and they have paid a heavy cost. We owe them and all of our service personnel are great debt. And yet the long standing concerns around pensions and access to services for veterans, their wives and widows has failed to be resolved for too long. While I understand the challenges around retroactively addressing pensions, much more needs to be done to ensure that those who have served have access to healthcare, financial support and especially for those who've paid in National Insurance contributions and not seen the returns.

I would also like to echo what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has said about the pre 1997 veterans who were injured in service and do not qualify for medical pensions and I had the pleasure of meeting Andrew Limbu and had the absolute privilege of hosting him in Nuneaton, and enlighten us to many of the veterans. He's quite a character. His passion, his enthusiasm and his dedication to the fight was an absolute pleasure. The visit only made more memorable by his party trick of popping out his eye at inappropriate moments.

His life, as for so many, has changed irreversibly because of the consequences of his bravery and service in the Falklands. Decisions around the resolution have been deferred for too long. It is a debt that needs to be settled in more than platitudes. Through my involvement with the Armed Forces Scheme, I have heard the wider impact of Gurkha soldiers and it's very welcomed here that whereas we struggle to recruit in other areas, Gurkha regiments are already oversubscribed. I wish to pay homage to a few of the veterans in my community, including Gurung and Padam Bahadur Gurung, who are freemen of my borough, and to our mayor, Bhim Saru, who currently serves our community.

Still, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is practically impossible to look at support within Nuneaton that does not, in one way or another, touch on the work and the generosity of our Gurkha communities that continue to serve after their duties are done. It is therefore more important than ever for this government to continue to work at pace to show the respect and truly honour the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gurkha veterans that have made such a sacrifice for our country. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Contribution. Sergeant Joseph. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. It is crucial that we continue to crucial that we continue to recognize the invaluable contributions of the Gurkhas, both militarily and within our militarily and within our communities, and I thank the hon. Member of Tewkesbury for securing this debate and eloquently explaining the issues that the Gurkha community facing, and we need to continue this conversation about this important role they play
16:19
Sojan Joseph Portrait Sojan Joseph MP (Ashford, Labour)
-
-
in our society. The Gurkhas, in my constituency of Ashford and Hawkins have been a model of dedication and contribution to the wider community. I could not be prouder to have a I could not be prouder to have a thriving community in my constituency. Many of them are veterans and their families, many veterans and their families, many of whom own businesses that contribute to local growth on our high street and hence our local high street and hence our local culture through Nepalese food festivals and celebrations.

Organised charity events such as litter picking and walks around the parks in my constituency. And often veterans take lead to provide help to restore their communities and these organisations which bind us closer together at a time when we risk becoming more fractured than ever before. The shared history we hold with Gurkhas is demonstrated most clearly by their 200 years of distinguished service as part of the British Army, including their bravery and sacrifices in both world wars, most notably during the North African and Burmese campaigns in the Second World War, where they earned 12 Victoria Crosses, as well as their service against the Ottomans in the First World War, among many other campaigns.

And of course, the Gurkhas have continued to serve in modern peacekeeping operations such Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and they still bravely, bravely serve to this day. And as my colleagues mentioned, I have seen this firsthand when I participated in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme across various visits, I know their dedication to service is recognised by all members across this House and by this labor government, and part of this recognition is ensuring the dignity of Gurkha veterans. This is why I wrote to my hon.

Friend, the Minister for Veterans and People, to ask what measures would be taken to explore the welfare needs and long standing pension issues of Gurkha veterans. I was pleased that in her letter, the Minister outlined the veterans commitment to explore measures to address the welfare needs of Gurkha veterans both in the UK and Nepal, and the fact that officials from the Ministry of Defence have been instructed to continue those discussions with Gurkha veterans representatives. So I would urge the Minister to to clarify or give some more explanation on how this is progressing, and I would like to hear from the Minister.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Monica Harding. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. In my constituency of eastern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my constituency of eastern Wharton, one of the most favoured spots on a Friday evening is the ferry in Thames Ditton and ferry in Thames Ditton and wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by CP, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurants are pictures of VC's, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country bravely, without hesitation and loyally in some of the most dangerous theatres of war. And so, with thanks to my hon.

Friend the Member for Tewkesbury for bringing this debate to the chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas
16:22
Monica Harding Portrait 7 Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers from the trenches of the First World War through to the jungles of the second, to the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. They have fought with the courage and loyalty that should the courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force. They are an integral part of the British army. integral part of the British army. And yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at That is the uncomfortable truth at the center of this debate.

And let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha Pension Scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they received pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences, they are life defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces.

Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes. Some are making impossible choices between basic necessities. And the argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose, and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds. And here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. And this was a landmark moment.

But it created a new reality, one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. You cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world, and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable and it is not defensible. And this is not a new complaint. It has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, by vets themselves, by members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, we have seen protests outside this building and we have seen legal challenges.

But the fundamental injustice persists. And that should trouble every one of us, because when people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool is protest or starvation to be heard, something has gone very badly wrong. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an opposition day to force this House to confront the issue of settlement rights, and that vote sent a clear message, and the government of the day was forced into a U-turn.

And it showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. And the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, my friend, has written to the Minister for veterans demanding action. We are not raising this for the first time. We are raising it because it remains unresolved and there are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many Asian veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements they should be
16:25
Monica Harding Portrait Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
receiving. Many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with reunite with loved ones. So this is not only about pensions, it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much. And we must also confront the deeper issue here. The current system is rooted in a colonial era arrangement. The 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India.

At the time, that agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself has recently called for a review of this arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously. The Armed Forces Covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect.

It is a promise of no disadvantage. And yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it, because fairness before the state should not depend on where you were born. It should depend on what you have given. So where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but what is required is political will.

First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review, one that seriously examines how we can move towards parity. For Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Second, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Third, we need a targeted support package for Asian veterans, ensuring that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. And these are not radical demands. They are reasonable steps towards fairness because at the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? And if the answer is yes and it must be, then the current situation cannot continue.

The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation, and they have done so with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain. So let us act. Let us match their service with fairness. Let us match their sacrifice with justice, and let us ensure that the values we so often speak about honour, duty and equality are reflected not just in our words but in our actions.

Because if we cannot do right by those who fought for us, then the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hollow. And that is something this House should never accept. I now call the Shadow Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now call the Shadow Minister, Mark Francois. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, as former officer Deputy Speaker, as former officer Cadet Francois 24663730 and Cadet Francois 24663730 and latterly Lieutenant Francois, five, fifth Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, volunteers. I'm proud to Regiment, volunteers. I'm proud to be asked to sum up for His Majesty's Opposition in today's important debate about Gurkhas and
16:29
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
their welfare. I'd like to begin by congratulating the honourable and gallant member for Tewkesbury, not gallant member for Tewkesbury, not just for securing this important debate, but for introducing it, if I may say so. So very, very ably. As some members of the House may know, I am something of a military history buff, and therefore I have at least some appreciation of the noble and valiant service that the noble and valiant service that the Gurkhas have provided for the British Crown for over 200 years.

We've also had a number of important backbench speeches this afternoon, including from the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood, Tiverton and Minehead, Doncaster Central, Hayes and Harlington, Reading Central, Bracknell, Nuneaton, Ashford and latterly Esher and Walton. The Member for or the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made the point that in an important debate on this subject, 27 backbench rebels made the difference on the day and he cited that as an example of where backbenchers can affect the future.

I can remember in 2019, when 28 Tory MPs changed the future on meaningful vote. Three although we were nicknamed by the media, the Spartans and not the Gurkhas for our trouble, the Gurkhas celebrated their 200th anniversary in British service in 2015, when a very striking memorial was unveiled in Horseguards Avenue, just across the road from the Ministry of Defence. As a number of hon. Members have mentioned today, the inscription that memorial reads and it bears repetition in this context, bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.

The Gurkhas entered British service in 1815, when a battalion of Gurkha troops were formed under the auspices of the East India Company. They continued in British service and during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side and became part of the British Indian Army. On its formation they remained in British. In the British Indian Army, and fought valiantly in both the First and Second World Wars. One of the Gurkhas most famous officers, Field Marshal Viscount the Lord slim, in his brilliant book Defeat into Victory, written after the end of the Second World War and which I believe is arguably one of the greatest works ever written on the subject of generalship, fondly recalled his association with the Gurkhas in the following terms, and I quote from defeat into victory, I was able to visit my old battalion, the first six Gurkha Rifles, in which I had served for many happy years.

It was good to see them again, and to be told by the Divisional Commander that they had done well in the bridgehead fighting. I spoke to Gurkha officers who I had first known 20 odd years before when I was adjutant, and they were chubby recruits straight from the from the Nepal hills. Now they were superstars, commanding companies and platoons on a hard fought field. Real soldiers and real leaders. What a marvellous tribute to the Gurkhas from an absolutely exceptional leader.

Bill slim. The Gurkhas continued to fight valiantly in British service, including in the Malayan Emergency and also during the Falklands War, when a battalion of Gurkhas were part of the British task force that liberated the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation in 1982. And the Member for Tewkesbury rightfully paid tribute to Andrew Limbu, who was part of that successful campaign. We thank them, all of them who have served proudly in the Gurkhas for their service, but they still form a fundamental part of the British Army today.

Madam Deputy Speaker, serving in what is now known as the Brigade of Gurkhas, which is a collective term that refers to all serving Gurkha units. It includes three infantry battalions, one of which is based in Brunei, the second in the United Kingdom, and now a third smaller specialist infantry battalion based at Aldershot, as part of what is known as the Specialised Infantry Group. In addition, the Gurkhas also have a number of other units, including signals engineer and logistics regiments. Plus, interestingly, from 2025 onwards, the new Gurkha Artillery, who were based at Larkhill despite some disputes over welfare issues, which I will come onto in a moment.

Recruiting from the Gurkhas ancestral homeland in Nepal is still very healthy to this day. The several hundred Gurkhas that we recruit every year see the applications for those places massively oversubscribed. Many young men from Nepal still strive to emulate their forebears and join one Gurkha regiment or another to serve the crown. And long may that continue. However, in the post-war period, the basis of Gurkhas service was the 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, the United Kingdom and India, which established terms and conditions of service for Gurkhas within the British Armed Forces.

Under this arrangement, Gurkhas served in the British Army and distinct terms and conditions. They also had access to a Gurkha pension scheme, first introduced in 1948, which in essence followed the Indian Army model and provided Gurkha soldiers with an immediate pension after 15 years service. But as has already been pointed out at equivalent Indian Army rates, in 2007, the Labour government introduced the Gurkha offer to transfer or got as it was sometimes referred to, offering. Gurkhas who served after July 1997, the option to transfer their eligible service into the United Kingdom's Armed Forces Pension Scheme or AF.

PS and when I was a Minister, I can remember much debate about the A, F, s and the different benefits provided by the different generations of the scheme, whether f s 75, oh five or indeed 15. And I see the Minister is nodding in acknowledgement, but significantly in this context, following the hanmi of Hong Kong in 1997, the Gurkhas transferred their main base from that former colony back to the United Kingdom, where they are now mainly deployed today.

After 2009 and a sustained, sustained campaign led, among others, by Joanna Lumley, herself the daughter of a former Gurkha officer. The then government amended the Immigration Rules, in essence, to allow those who had served in the brigade of Gurkhas for four years or more to settle themselves in their immediate families in the United Kingdom. And that effectively remains the position today. As a result, there are now a number of clusters of Gurkhas and their families, mainly living in current or former garrison areas in the United Kingdom, but with some who are dispersed further afield.

There has been, as we've heard for some time, a campaign to amend the pensions for Gurkha veterans to the equivalent AFP rate, rather than that based on the old compatibility with the Indian Army. For those who served many years ago and still draw a pension, the traditional argument is that because most Gurkhas had returned to Nepal at the conclusion of their service, where costs were lower, it was appropriate to pay them under the old arrangements. However, after the end of their basing in Hong Kong and the switch of the brigade to the United Kingdom, and indeed, given that many Gurkhas do now avail themselves of the option to settle in the UK with their immediate families following their period of service, the question then arises as to whether the pension arrangements should be altered, including for older Gurkha veterans, and I commend the hon.

Member for Tewkesbury for advancing their arguments in the way that he has done this afternoon. He's been a strong advocate for their case. I'm afraid that I cannot stand here at the despatch box this afternoon and make an immediate spending commitment to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on behalf of my party, although I hear calls from behind, senior calls from behind me to do so. But I can nevertheless perhaps provide at least some additional context to this debate. What I mean by that is that for many years all Western armies, be they American, Canadian, Australian, German or otherwise, have struggled to recruit and retain sufficient regular and reserve personnel.

I'd argue that there have been particular problems in Britain because of an extremely poor recruitment contract with capita or forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as they were nicknamed by Private Eye and despite my best efforts to persuade conservative Ministers to take the contract off them in that regard, I proved spectacularly unsuccessful. Nevertheless, as I intimated earlier, at a time when all Western armies have struggled to recruit and retain the Gurkhas have provided a constant source of willing soldiers for the British Army, with a number of recruitment slots each year.

As I intimated earlier, still very healthily oversubscribed. There's no. This is no doubt one reason why the new Labour government decided to form an entirely new artillery regiment, the Gurkha Artillery, last year. In addition, there are still large numbers of Gurkhas who've left regular service but are living in the United Kingdom. Under the immigration changes I referred to, who might perhaps be persuaded to form reserve battalions of what is now the Army Reserve, I believe such units would have an equally strong ethos to their regular counterparts, and there should be a ready pool of already trained Ex-regular troops to hopefully sign up.

If this idea were to be further pursued. I mention all of this because of the Conservative Party's recent announcement that due to the worsening international situation, an incoming conservative government would add back to the army to create a regular army of a minimum of 80,000 troops and an army reserve expanded from some 26,000 at present to at least 40,000 soldiers, making for an army on mobilisation of 120,000 plus, with potential further augmentation short of forced conscription from the strategic reserve of nearly another 100,000, which we hope to debate in more detail shortly.

In the Armed Forces Bill committee after we return from Easter recess. So to conclude, it seems to me, therefore, that if we were to expand the British army, both regular and reserve, there may well be merit in seeking to use that willing pool of additional Gurkha recruits to at least achieve part, if probably not all, of the desired expansion, in which case, if we are to ask the Gurkhas to form a proportionally slightly larger element of the British Army in the future, then that might in turn make for a stronger case to improve their terms of service accordingly, including for those who served many years ago.

I hope the the House can follow my argument here. I table that suggestion for discussion. In effect, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that's a positive contribution in the debate. So to finish, I'd like to pay tribute to the extremely loyal and valiant service to the Crown the Gurkhas have provided for over two centuries, during which 26 Victoria Crosses have been awarded to those serving in Gurkha regiments and many hundreds, indeed, thousands of other gallantry medals besides the Gurkhas have been great friends to Britain over many decades, indeed centuries, and we thank them most heartily for that record as they have a fearsome reputation on the battlefield, we should be wary of upsetting them, if at all possible, and therefore I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say and whether or not he is able to provide any comfort to the Member for Tewkesbury or, indeed, to the House more broadly on this admittedly rather complicated subject, which affects some of the bravest and most dedicated soldiers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the British Army has ever seen. I now call the Minister, Minister Luke Pollard. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And can I, first of all, thank the Member for Tewkesbury for the way he Tewkesbury for the way he introduced this debate. And I think in particular, I think the whole House is grateful for the way that he described in such detail the very gallant service of Ganendra
16:42
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page