Westminster Hall
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 18 hours, 24 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:29
09:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. McVeigh. And it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I'd also like to thank the backbench committee for allowing me to bring this debate forward. Each generation is judged by one question. Will we leave the next one better off? Will they have the greater opportunity, more security, and the same hope that we had? Around 1 million young people across the UK are needs. That's 1 in 8 of those, 6 in 10 have never had a job. And without action, the Interim Milburn Review warns that it will be 1 in 6 within five years.
If we do not act with the magnitude, imagination and substance at this moment demands, we risk failing. And that generational question how did we get here? Or better phrased, how do we allow our young people to end up in this position? The system set up in the shadow of the Second World War to support and enable a good life for everyone in this country, regardless of postcode or wealth, are at the very core of meeting this challenge. But we must also ask if they are working in the way they should. Why does our welfare system spend £25 on benefits for young people for every £1 it spends helping them into work?
Why are young people who could work with the right support, being signed off and left there with no route back? Why do 67% of Neet young people tell us the curriculum do not prepare them for work or life? The stark reality is that the institutional infrastructure that accompanies this system has been hollowed out without anything to take its place. The youth clubs and community spaces where young people learn to work together, build relationships and find their place in the world. The Saturday job where they develop those vital soft skills, learn the value of responsibility, and discover what it means to be part of a team.
Too often, politics often runs on short term decisions. Whatever the party, whatever the colour of the government. I will very.
If we do not act with the magnitude, imagination and substance at this moment demands, we risk failing. And that generational question how did we get here? Or better phrased, how do we allow our young people to end up in this position? The system set up in the shadow of the Second World War to support and enable a good life for everyone in this country, regardless of postcode or wealth, are at the very core of meeting this challenge. But we must also ask if they are working in the way they should. Why does our welfare system spend £25 on benefits for young people for every £1 it spends helping them into work?
Why are young people who could work with the right support, being signed off and left there with no route back? Why do 67% of Neet young people tell us the curriculum do not prepare them for work or life? The stark reality is that the institutional infrastructure that accompanies this system has been hollowed out without anything to take its place. The youth clubs and community spaces where young people learn to work together, build relationships and find their place in the world. The Saturday job where they develop those vital soft skills, learn the value of responsibility, and discover what it means to be part of a team.
Too often, politics often runs on short term decisions. Whatever the party, whatever the colour of the government. I will very.
09:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Grateful to him for giving way and thank him very much for securing this important debate. Supported internships are an incredibly useful way of supporting young people who've had an Ahrc plan along the pathway to work. They cost more. They require significant investment, but they are very, very cheap in comparison to seeing that young person living a life on benefit. Does he agree with me that we should be doing all we can to support more supported internships, because that investment will make a long term difference to getting people off of unemployment into work.
09:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and yes, I do totally agree, and I will come on to that a bit later in my in my speech. As I say in politics, too often runs on short term decisions, regardless of party or government. And on this issue, short termism will not do. The young people affected will not accept it, and nor should we. Picture a young person in my constituency of Wrexham. Let's call them James. Talented but schooled, never worked for them, moved on to further education. That is the wrong fit. That does not work out and before long they are signed off and written off.
And what does this all come back to? It comes back to a moral mission that touches every postcode. It cannot be left to the state alone. To solve this, it needs businesses, third sector organisations, community groups, every one of us. It takes a village to raise a child. And on this it's going to take a nation. Six years ago, we asked young people to carry an extraordinary burden to protect older and vulnerable, vulnerable people from a pandemic. They did it without question. They sacrificed the experiences, the milestones, the opportunities the rest of us took for granted.
And this sacrifice is not without its aftershocks, many of which we are seeing come to prominence in the last few years, particularly around health and educational outcomes. Yes, I will.
And what does this all come back to? It comes back to a moral mission that touches every postcode. It cannot be left to the state alone. To solve this, it needs businesses, third sector organisations, community groups, every one of us. It takes a village to raise a child. And on this it's going to take a nation. Six years ago, we asked young people to carry an extraordinary burden to protect older and vulnerable, vulnerable people from a pandemic. They did it without question. They sacrificed the experiences, the milestones, the opportunities the rest of us took for granted.
And this sacrifice is not without its aftershocks, many of which we are seeing come to prominence in the last few years, particularly around health and educational outcomes. Yes, I will.
09:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. I thank the honourable member for giving way and indeed for all the work he's doing in this area. I visited my local employability service work in Denbighshire last week and they run an amazing programme called Barad, which means ready in Welsh and they do the employability work if you like. They work on confidence, social and communication skills and the things that really start young people on that pathway. Does the honourable member agree with me that it's this sort of service we should be providing to all of our young people across the UK?
09:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and yes, I totally agree. Another thing I will come on to a bit later in my speech. Thank you. And it's now our turn to repay that debt that we owe them. There are many players that are going to help us solve this crisis, and one of them is our businesses, local and national. And to those businesses, I want to recognise those who are already meeting the challenge. Examples from my own constituency constituency include Moneypenny, for example. And on the national level, the likes of Sainsbury's and Greene King, among others, are giving 100,000 much needed opportunities to young people.
These are vitally important, but I ask all businesses to give young people opportunities they may not necessarily have on their CV the skills on on paper, but they are undoubtedly talented and will pay that chance you give them. You spend that extra time doing an in-person interview with an applicant who will gain much more than they would have talking to an AI chatbot. Look past the gaps in the CV and see the potential behind it. That of course I will.
These are vitally important, but I ask all businesses to give young people opportunities they may not necessarily have on their CV the skills on on paper, but they are undoubtedly talented and will pay that chance you give them. You spend that extra time doing an in-person interview with an applicant who will gain much more than they would have talking to an AI chatbot. Look past the gaps in the CV and see the potential behind it. That of course I will.
09:35
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Young gentleman, for giving way and for securing this debate. I'm sure he'll be aware that in the Milburn's interim review, it found that 23% of young carers are not in employment, education or training and 40% of those are over 18 months out of employment, education and training. And yet they have amazing resilience and experience to bring to a job. So does he agree with me that in the review's final report, we must outline a package of support for young carers and encourage businesses to take a chance on those young carers and give them an opportunity.
09:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She makes an excellent point and I think that's a really good ask of the final review. So yeah, we must look past the gaps in the CV to see the potential behind it. That faith will be repaid many times over. Turning to the education sector, Milburn reported 2 in 3 NEETs, so the curriculum did not prepare them for work careers. Education often arrives too late at a time when decisions about the future are already being made. Research by education and employers show children's ideas about what they can achieve are being formed by the age of seven, and these are already being narrowed by gender background and who they see around them.
So careers education must start earlier. By seven, every child should be meeting people from the world of work and seeing where their learning could take them not to choose a career at that stage, but to open those doors before they are closed. In the Netherlands, fewer than 1 in 20 young people are Neet. Work based learning is built into vocational education, and employers and colleges plan placements together through a national body that brings them to the same table. Work experience is not an add on. It is part of the course and to the third sector organisations who are doing remarkable work across the country, some of whom join us in the gallery today.
I say thank you for all the work you're doing. Keep going and be loud about it. You are our partners in this mission, and we have a great deal to learn from what you are achieving in Wrexham. We man the gap six month programme is doing exactly that. Getting young people back into work is an honourable friend from Clwyd Northside also helping them build those soft skills, that confidence, that resilience and to government we must share the risk with employers. Support must not stop the day a young person starts work because a job landed is not a job done.
The mentoring and coaching that got them through the door must carry on through those first months when too many placements fall apart. Let's work with those third sector organisations that support them to to deliver this. Strip away the paperwork. Too many employers who want to help are put off before they even begin. Every form that stands between a willing business and a young person is an opportunity lost. Also, we need to open up the data. Information exists, but it is not joined up and no one is accountable for the whole of it. This is resulting in a hidden cohort of around 314,000 young people who are Neet, claiming no benefits and are invisible to the very systems meant to help them.
If we cannot see them, we cannot help them. But the answer cannot be designed entirely in Whitehall. Every place knows its own picture best. You know which employers are hiring, which schools are struggling, which young people have dropped off the radar and why. In my own constituency and many others, it's going to be the local authorities, the schools, the further education providers, the employers and the organisations like we man the gap who know the young people behind the numbers. We need a whole society approach to tackling this crisis. It takes more than all the individual elements acting alone.
It requires families, communities, businesses, educators and public services working together, united by a shared responsibility to give every young person the opportunity to thrive, a system to mine the gaps if we achieve the above. Back in Wrexham, James is getting the support he deserves on a work placement with a local business backed by a mentor and a coach every step of the way and slowly but surely getting back on his feet. The question I will finish with and ask colleagues in this chamber today is where we want this generation to be in the next 10 to 20 years time.
Do we want Neet rates to still be going? Because the big decisions, some not easy, were pushed down the track and never delivered? Or do we want the phrase Neet to be a historic term, something that was not something that is. Alan Milburn's final report would be the moment of truth, not just for us here, but for businesses, those third sector organisations, the schools and colleges. It will ask whether we are willing to be partners in the great challenge of our time. One national moral mission, one team. Again, I would like to thank all the wonderful organisations and individuals who have contributed to making today's date possible, and for everything that you are doing to support young people across the country.
I also want to thank Alan Milburn and his team, including Peter Hyman, for their visit to Wrexham to meet our incredible young people. As part of the wider work on this report, we've had a massive impact already, and the impact on our future of our country is going to be substantial. And as I finish, as I must in Wrexham ten years from now, where is James? He's insecure, long term, work , happy and has built a life that he is proud of and fulfilled with, which is all we should want for every young person. Thank you.
So careers education must start earlier. By seven, every child should be meeting people from the world of work and seeing where their learning could take them not to choose a career at that stage, but to open those doors before they are closed. In the Netherlands, fewer than 1 in 20 young people are Neet. Work based learning is built into vocational education, and employers and colleges plan placements together through a national body that brings them to the same table. Work experience is not an add on. It is part of the course and to the third sector organisations who are doing remarkable work across the country, some of whom join us in the gallery today.
I say thank you for all the work you're doing. Keep going and be loud about it. You are our partners in this mission, and we have a great deal to learn from what you are achieving in Wrexham. We man the gap six month programme is doing exactly that. Getting young people back into work is an honourable friend from Clwyd Northside also helping them build those soft skills, that confidence, that resilience and to government we must share the risk with employers. Support must not stop the day a young person starts work because a job landed is not a job done.
The mentoring and coaching that got them through the door must carry on through those first months when too many placements fall apart. Let's work with those third sector organisations that support them to to deliver this. Strip away the paperwork. Too many employers who want to help are put off before they even begin. Every form that stands between a willing business and a young person is an opportunity lost. Also, we need to open up the data. Information exists, but it is not joined up and no one is accountable for the whole of it. This is resulting in a hidden cohort of around 314,000 young people who are Neet, claiming no benefits and are invisible to the very systems meant to help them.
If we cannot see them, we cannot help them. But the answer cannot be designed entirely in Whitehall. Every place knows its own picture best. You know which employers are hiring, which schools are struggling, which young people have dropped off the radar and why. In my own constituency and many others, it's going to be the local authorities, the schools, the further education providers, the employers and the organisations like we man the gap who know the young people behind the numbers. We need a whole society approach to tackling this crisis. It takes more than all the individual elements acting alone.
It requires families, communities, businesses, educators and public services working together, united by a shared responsibility to give every young person the opportunity to thrive, a system to mine the gaps if we achieve the above. Back in Wrexham, James is getting the support he deserves on a work placement with a local business backed by a mentor and a coach every step of the way and slowly but surely getting back on his feet. The question I will finish with and ask colleagues in this chamber today is where we want this generation to be in the next 10 to 20 years time.
Do we want Neet rates to still be going? Because the big decisions, some not easy, were pushed down the track and never delivered? Or do we want the phrase Neet to be a historic term, something that was not something that is. Alan Milburn's final report would be the moment of truth, not just for us here, but for businesses, those third sector organisations, the schools and colleges. It will ask whether we are willing to be partners in the great challenge of our time. One national moral mission, one team. Again, I would like to thank all the wonderful organisations and individuals who have contributed to making today's date possible, and for everything that you are doing to support young people across the country.
I also want to thank Alan Milburn and his team, including Peter Hyman, for their visit to Wrexham to meet our incredible young people. As part of the wider work on this report, we've had a massive impact already, and the impact on our future of our country is going to be substantial. And as I finish, as I must in Wrexham ten years from now, where is James? He's insecure, long term, work , happy and has built a life that he is proud of and fulfilled with, which is all we should want for every young person. Thank you.
09:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I remind members that they should Bob if they wish to be called in today's debate, and because of the number of people who have indicated their wish to speak, there will be a strict time deadline, two minutes for speeches in order that we can get through everybody. Okay. The question is that this House has considered the findings of the Milburn Review into Young People and Work interim report published on the 28th of May 2026. And Davis.
09:41
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Let me start by saying that I don't like the phrase neat. I much prefer neat because most young people are looking for employment and education and training, and it just the neat phrase makes people feel as if they're not trying hard enough. And that's. That couldn't be further from the truth. I know young people are hard working and passionate, and they want to contribute to their skills to the workforce, but the system we have doesn't give, doesn't set them up for their success, and many have not yet found the opportunities or the pathways that allows them the space to figure out and to find their niche.
I know that everyone is good at something, but too many young people are not being afforded the opportunity to figure out what that may be. The most recent data shows that 14.6% of young people aged 16 to 24 in Wales are not in education, employment or training to the year ending June 26th, and that's an unacceptable figure. Nearly one sixth of our talented young people in Wales have not been given the opportunity to thrive and to find their place. And one thing that stood out for me in the Milburn's interim report was the impact on place on levels of young people not in education, employment or training.
And in rural Wales, the access to barrier to not having a driving licence or access to a car makes this a very a very visible problem. And we also know that young people are facing financial constraints, are more likely to struggle from these barriers. And if we're serious about widening opportunity, tackling child poverty must be a priority. And with that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether the Welsh canal payment will be disregarded for benefit purposes? Since becoming a member of. And I've met so many fabulous young people and I'm really proud to be their MP.
So today I'm asking the minister what steps the government is taking to ensure that every young person, no matter what their postcode or financial background, has the same chance to succeed.
I know that everyone is good at something, but too many young people are not being afforded the opportunity to figure out what that may be. The most recent data shows that 14.6% of young people aged 16 to 24 in Wales are not in education, employment or training to the year ending June 26th, and that's an unacceptable figure. Nearly one sixth of our talented young people in Wales have not been given the opportunity to thrive and to find their place. And one thing that stood out for me in the Milburn's interim report was the impact on place on levels of young people not in education, employment or training.
And in rural Wales, the access to barrier to not having a driving licence or access to a car makes this a very a very visible problem. And we also know that young people are facing financial constraints, are more likely to struggle from these barriers. And if we're serious about widening opportunity, tackling child poverty must be a priority. And with that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether the Welsh canal payment will be disregarded for benefit purposes? Since becoming a member of. And I've met so many fabulous young people and I'm really proud to be their MP.
So today I'm asking the minister what steps the government is taking to ensure that every young person, no matter what their postcode or financial background, has the same chance to succeed.
09:43
09:43
09:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Securing this important debate. Alan Milburn's interim report is stark. Nearly 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are not in employment, education or training, and in Gloucester, around 2500 young people are in that position. And when I speak with them, I hear the same thing time and again. They have worked hard, but the opportunities that were meant to be there for them have turned out to be closed doors. They are not lazy. 84% of young people who are out of work or training say that they want a job or to be in education. The interim report is clear that this needs a whole of society effort, and I welcome the Prime Minister's leadership on this.
But it must be matched by local leadership across the country. That is why I have made it my mission to ensure that no young person in Gloucester is left behind. At the end of this month, I am hosting the Gloucestershire Future Summit at Kingsholm Stadium with Gloucestershire County Council bringing schools and colleges, employers, health services, local government and the voluntary sector into one room. Gloucester's young people have talent in abundance, supported by fantastic schools, local colleges and training providers. What they need are open doors and clear pathways, and I am hopeful that our upcoming summit will help build the consensus needed to deliver them.
I am delighted that the Skills Minister will join us for the summit. One of the big things that I hear from young people is how demoralizing it is to apply for hundreds of jobs, only to be ghosted and not receive a reply from employers. But small businesses in Gloucester tell me they receive hundreds of applications for a single role. They want to do their bit, they want to give feedback and support young people, but they need help to do it. I am pleased that this government is acting. The £3,000 Youth Jobs grant supports any employer that takes on a young person who has been out of work for six months, and the new partnership with hospitality businesses aims to create 100,000 jobs for young people.
But what more can the government do to help smaller businesses with practical recruitment support, as well as grants to play their part in tackling this crisis? Gloucester's young people have talent in abundance. I believe it is our moral mission in Gloucestershire to support them. What they need are open doors and I look forward to Alan Milburn's final report helping us to open them. Thank you.
But it must be matched by local leadership across the country. That is why I have made it my mission to ensure that no young person in Gloucester is left behind. At the end of this month, I am hosting the Gloucestershire Future Summit at Kingsholm Stadium with Gloucestershire County Council bringing schools and colleges, employers, health services, local government and the voluntary sector into one room. Gloucester's young people have talent in abundance, supported by fantastic schools, local colleges and training providers. What they need are open doors and clear pathways, and I am hopeful that our upcoming summit will help build the consensus needed to deliver them.
I am delighted that the Skills Minister will join us for the summit. One of the big things that I hear from young people is how demoralizing it is to apply for hundreds of jobs, only to be ghosted and not receive a reply from employers. But small businesses in Gloucester tell me they receive hundreds of applications for a single role. They want to do their bit, they want to give feedback and support young people, but they need help to do it. I am pleased that this government is acting. The £3,000 Youth Jobs grant supports any employer that takes on a young person who has been out of work for six months, and the new partnership with hospitality businesses aims to create 100,000 jobs for young people.
But what more can the government do to help smaller businesses with practical recruitment support, as well as grants to play their part in tackling this crisis? Gloucester's young people have talent in abundance. I believe it is our moral mission in Gloucestershire to support them. What they need are open doors and I look forward to Alan Milburn's final report helping us to open them. Thank you.
09:45
09:45
09:45
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
When the government commissioned a review, people often just roll their eyes because we all know there is no better way to kick an issue down the road than an independent review. And there are few issues that have been as kicked down the road as much as this, doing something about 1 in 8 young people not in employment, education and training, but from what has been published so far and the conversations I have had, I genuinely hopeful that the Milburn Review will give us a real shot at change. Now, I could talk all day about this, but given the time, I obviously can't.
But there are two special areas of the report I would like to focus on reality, reality and Sen. The review has already highlighted what is obvious to everyone from South Somerset. Transport is a huge barrier to work for future education. Nothing else. The young people or the system does matter. The review highlights that journeys on buses in rural England have declined sharply. We have seen this with the number 11 and 54 bus routes in the Oval. Even if there is a bus, some young people still face 3 to 4 hours delays. So what we urgently need is action on improving rural transport networks and access to affordable driving lessons and tests.
The £2 bus fare gap is a good start, but we need to get a new bus fleet in Somerset and we need to start looking at more innovation ideas like smarter booking for our most isolated communities. Equally, the Milburn Report paints a clear picture of the challenges faced by young people . With Send, we are 8% 80% more likely to be a neat and as I have been saying for ages, it is the lack of early intervention that is largely the driver of this. The report backs that. As highlighted, that children who fall behind are at five years old are, on average still behind at 16.
I was incredibly happy to hear from The Advocate. The Universal classroom got more government funding. We have been calling for to develop three profile building screener for key learning strengths and weaknesses. Madam. Madam chair, I understand that in the final recommendations, Alan Milburn will look to present solutions radical enough to address the scales of crisis. I can only hope that the government does something about this. Thank you.
But there are two special areas of the report I would like to focus on reality, reality and Sen. The review has already highlighted what is obvious to everyone from South Somerset. Transport is a huge barrier to work for future education. Nothing else. The young people or the system does matter. The review highlights that journeys on buses in rural England have declined sharply. We have seen this with the number 11 and 54 bus routes in the Oval. Even if there is a bus, some young people still face 3 to 4 hours delays. So what we urgently need is action on improving rural transport networks and access to affordable driving lessons and tests.
The £2 bus fare gap is a good start, but we need to get a new bus fleet in Somerset and we need to start looking at more innovation ideas like smarter booking for our most isolated communities. Equally, the Milburn Report paints a clear picture of the challenges faced by young people . With Send, we are 8% 80% more likely to be a neat and as I have been saying for ages, it is the lack of early intervention that is largely the driver of this. The report backs that. As highlighted, that children who fall behind are at five years old are, on average still behind at 16.
I was incredibly happy to hear from The Advocate. The Universal classroom got more government funding. We have been calling for to develop three profile building screener for key learning strengths and weaknesses. Madam. Madam chair, I understand that in the final recommendations, Alan Milburn will look to present solutions radical enough to address the scales of crisis. I can only hope that the government does something about this. Thank you.
09:47
09:47
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. Pleasure to serve under you today, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate forward. It is clear that we face an urgent national crisis and one with devastating consequences, and this is a challenge facing every part of our country. I am pleased to say that NEETs in the east of England has fallen since 2024, from 14.2% to 11.7%. However, that is still much to a high figure. And behind that figure, our young people are unable to move forward into the next stage of their lives. People should be building skills, gaining confidence and learning how to stand on their two feet, but instead they are struggling to take those important first steps into adult life.
And Alan Milburn is right to warn against the emergence of a lost generation. This is more about youth unemployment, though, as well. It's being disconnected from the education system, the labour market. But the opportunities, confidence and independence that good work can provide. And so there is a cost here, a cost to their confidence, their health and their future earnings too. And obviously the moral crisis is all too clear. We are at risk abandoning a generation of talented, ambitious people to worklessness poor health and poverty too. I just want to highlight a few things that we are doing in Ipswich and Suffolk to turn the tide here, whether that's the new youth hub funded by the Government in Ipswich, bringing together employers, training providers, careers advice, mental health support and housing support under one roof, that is incredibly welcome.
Of course, Sizewell C, a project that's transformation for our energy security, but also what it represents to our young people. And I was delighted as an MP to secure 500 jobs from them as a guarantee for Ipswich as well, and also ctec who deliver employability support. And I would just ask the Minister that we make sure as a government, we ensure that there is no gap in support between the restart scheme, which has been incredibly successful, and the future employment support programme as well. So when there is apprenticeship to apply for skills training to access and a career to build for ambition has somewhere to go.
But what they do need is the ambition and the potential to meet the opportunity all at the same time. So behind every headline figure is young person who wants to contribute, but our responsibility is to make sure that chance is there.
And Alan Milburn is right to warn against the emergence of a lost generation. This is more about youth unemployment, though, as well. It's being disconnected from the education system, the labour market. But the opportunities, confidence and independence that good work can provide. And so there is a cost here, a cost to their confidence, their health and their future earnings too. And obviously the moral crisis is all too clear. We are at risk abandoning a generation of talented, ambitious people to worklessness poor health and poverty too. I just want to highlight a few things that we are doing in Ipswich and Suffolk to turn the tide here, whether that's the new youth hub funded by the Government in Ipswich, bringing together employers, training providers, careers advice, mental health support and housing support under one roof, that is incredibly welcome.
Of course, Sizewell C, a project that's transformation for our energy security, but also what it represents to our young people. And I was delighted as an MP to secure 500 jobs from them as a guarantee for Ipswich as well, and also ctec who deliver employability support. And I would just ask the Minister that we make sure as a government, we ensure that there is no gap in support between the restart scheme, which has been incredibly successful, and the future employment support programme as well. So when there is apprenticeship to apply for skills training to access and a career to build for ambition has somewhere to go.
But what they do need is the ambition and the potential to meet the opportunity all at the same time. So behind every headline figure is young person who wants to contribute, but our responsibility is to make sure that chance is there.
09:51
09:51
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Last week I went back to hideout, a youth club in Gorton that opens its doors to hundreds of young people every week. And I asked some of the kids I met about their future hopes and dreams, and they all scrambled to tell me about who they thought they could be, and you could genuinely feel the hope in the air. But if you ask anyone slightly older, a teenager or a young adult, and you'll hear a clear, bleak understanding of the ways that the world is already letting them down, their hope has faded away. Almost a million young people are growing up, finding themselves not in education, employment or training.
And every week I meet young people across the constituency who want to work hard and build a good life for themselves, but find the system is stopping them. I've heard from a 25 year old care leaver with no family, no network and no safety net, who told me that he tries so hard every day to stop himself becoming homeless and who, despite being a university graduate, cannot find secure, well-paid work. And this is not equal. The risk of being not in education, employment or training doubles if someone comes from a disadvantaged background and has low qualification levels, and it is far worse in Greater Manchester and the North than in London and the South east, opportunity should not be a postcode lottery where it's those who need a hand most who are being left behind, left behind by the government's sustained real terms funding cuts for schools and colleges, despite ever increasing demand left behind because small and medium sized businesses are unfairly being asked to train up the next generation of workers without the money and support needed to make this a success.
Young people don't need cuts to universal credit health, which will just harm those who can't work. Cutting cash benefits does nothing to improve employment outcomes. What they need is an approach from this government, which acknowledges that investment now will save money in the long run. What they need is change to the very structure of our economy and education system, more flexible and inclusive, post 16 pathways and putting green skills at the forefront, the Milburn Review is clear that urgent action is needed. The question is not whether young people in Gorton and Denton and across the country have ambition, but whether this government is willing to match it.
And every week I meet young people across the constituency who want to work hard and build a good life for themselves, but find the system is stopping them. I've heard from a 25 year old care leaver with no family, no network and no safety net, who told me that he tries so hard every day to stop himself becoming homeless and who, despite being a university graduate, cannot find secure, well-paid work. And this is not equal. The risk of being not in education, employment or training doubles if someone comes from a disadvantaged background and has low qualification levels, and it is far worse in Greater Manchester and the North than in London and the South east, opportunity should not be a postcode lottery where it's those who need a hand most who are being left behind, left behind by the government's sustained real terms funding cuts for schools and colleges, despite ever increasing demand left behind because small and medium sized businesses are unfairly being asked to train up the next generation of workers without the money and support needed to make this a success.
Young people don't need cuts to universal credit health, which will just harm those who can't work. Cutting cash benefits does nothing to improve employment outcomes. What they need is an approach from this government, which acknowledges that investment now will save money in the long run. What they need is change to the very structure of our economy and education system, more flexible and inclusive, post 16 pathways and putting green skills at the forefront, the Milburn Review is clear that urgent action is needed. The question is not whether young people in Gorton and Denton and across the country have ambition, but whether this government is willing to match it.
09:56
09:56
09:56
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Milburn Review interim report was clear that in order to be fit to provide the support young people need to enter the workplace today, we need to fundamentally rewire not just the welfare system, but our health system and our education system to education has a critical role to play in preparing young people for the workforce and for life. What we hear again and again from employers is that young people, even in entry level roles, have not been able to develop the skills that are essential in any workplace and indeed for life skills like communication, problem solving and critical thinking.
This is not just about the Neet crisis we are facing today. Painful though it is already for so many. It's not also about just bringing down the welfare bill, although that is vital too. It's about taking the opportunity now to grasp the even greater Neet crisis that may be coming down the track as we face the reality of an economy being fundamentally reshaped by AI, it's clear that AI is the defining technology of our time. In just a few years, we have seen it power breakthroughs in fields as wide ranging and important as medical diagnostics and research, agriculture and mathematics.
And that's why it's so fundamental that young people develop not only the skills they need to use AI critically and thoughtfully, but also to exist in a world where things we have always relied on humans for are increasingly being automated. I've long argued that an education system rich in the humanities must be at the heart of preparing young people for the age of AI. This is not just because the content you learn, but because of the skills the humanities encourage you to develop. As part of their research into the future of the labour market, the National Foundation for Educational Research found that it was skills such as collaboration, communication, problem solving and information literacy, which will be most needed by employers in 2035.
And that is why it is so important that we develop an education system that provides young people with just these skills.
This is not just about the Neet crisis we are facing today. Painful though it is already for so many. It's not also about just bringing down the welfare bill, although that is vital too. It's about taking the opportunity now to grasp the even greater Neet crisis that may be coming down the track as we face the reality of an economy being fundamentally reshaped by AI, it's clear that AI is the defining technology of our time. In just a few years, we have seen it power breakthroughs in fields as wide ranging and important as medical diagnostics and research, agriculture and mathematics.
And that's why it's so fundamental that young people develop not only the skills they need to use AI critically and thoughtfully, but also to exist in a world where things we have always relied on humans for are increasingly being automated. I've long argued that an education system rich in the humanities must be at the heart of preparing young people for the age of AI. This is not just because the content you learn, but because of the skills the humanities encourage you to develop. As part of their research into the future of the labour market, the National Foundation for Educational Research found that it was skills such as collaboration, communication, problem solving and information literacy, which will be most needed by employers in 2035.
And that is why it is so important that we develop an education system that provides young people with just these skills.
10:00
10:00
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
A real pleasure to serve on your chair. A big thank you to the honourable gentleman for setting the scene in Rob and Alan Milburn's report. A hilltop emerged as stark and uncomfortable reality in the United Kingdom. 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are currently classified as not in education. The. The. It also reveals a staggering 84% of these young people actively want to work, learn or train and the work ethic is very clearly there. They referred to a system failure across health, education and welfare, a 70. A devastating 70% increase in the number of young people struggling with work.
Limited health and mental health conditions and disability. Its rate from 21% to 44%. So my question to the minister, what's been done specifically to help those with mental health issues and depression? The the failure costs our economy a massive 125 billion annually. And Northern Ireland, we are seeing the exact same structural failure when we cut funding to local youth work and training programs. We strip away the last line of defence for vulnerable young people, especially care leavers and those from rural communities.
I'm very happy to give way. Yeah.
Limited health and mental health conditions and disability. Its rate from 21% to 44%. So my question to the minister, what's been done specifically to help those with mental health issues and depression? The the failure costs our economy a massive 125 billion annually. And Northern Ireland, we are seeing the exact same structural failure when we cut funding to local youth work and training programs. We strip away the last line of defence for vulnerable young people, especially care leavers and those from rural communities.
I'm very happy to give way. Yeah.
10:02
10:02
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Yeah, well, we certainly do. And I thank my honourable friend for that. It's important that this is not specific to the UK mainland. It affects us back home in Northern Ireland to a great degree as well. Instead, we need a complete shift from a passive welfare state to an active working state. We need to see powers and funding handed down to local authorities and devolved executives who actually understand the job markets in their areas. We have to bring about seeing the mental health system work hand in hand with employment hubs, so that getting better and getting into work are part of the same journey.
It's so important that we marry those two together. And perhaps more importantly, we need to see delivery of the promise of the youth guarantee by providing clear pathways into work, education or apprenticeships, alongside a massive expansion of meaningful work experience placements. It's so important I recognise that government and the Labour government has a plan for young people and to do that, I continued with this, Madam Chair. We if we continue to allow a million young lives to remain on hold, we are writing about the future of our workforce and fracturing the social fabric of our communities.
It is time to treat youth detachment as a national emergency that it is. Break down the silos between our departments and give the next generation the genuine opportunities they deserve. Thank you very much.
It's so important that we marry those two together. And perhaps more importantly, we need to see delivery of the promise of the youth guarantee by providing clear pathways into work, education or apprenticeships, alongside a massive expansion of meaningful work experience placements. It's so important I recognise that government and the Labour government has a plan for young people and to do that, I continued with this, Madam Chair. We if we continue to allow a million young lives to remain on hold, we are writing about the future of our workforce and fracturing the social fabric of our communities.
It is time to treat youth detachment as a national emergency that it is. Break down the silos between our departments and give the next generation the genuine opportunities they deserve. Thank you very much.
10:04
10:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank the honourable member for Wrexham for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. Unsurprisingly, in his interim report, Alan Milburn laid out the current system as failing a generation. I had the opportunity to host a meeting with Alan and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to launch opening shift alongside the British Retail Consortium, who have worked with the DWP and retailers to offer more than 11,000 work placements for young people with a view to get to 100,000 jobs by the end of the parliament. Opening up that very first rung of the ladder in 2012, the coalition government scrapped compulsory work experience despite major rejections from employers, with a 220 15 poll by British Chamber of Commerce found that 82% of bosses said pupils under 16 should be offered work placements.
I also believe that in order for employers to feel confident in taking risk and employing anybody, let alone a young person with limited experience, they also need to have the experience to see young people grow and develop in the workplace. The role of work placement should never have been downplayed, and critically, it's a first step into the world of work. In my early career, I was lucky enough to work alongside the Leicestershire Education Business Company, an independent local charity set up to support employers, and it was inspirational. They still organise and support young people and employers with work experience locally.
Today, data from other comparable countries state that more when more 14 to 16 year olds have had employment, experience employment, experience less young people are Neet. The review sets out on almost every conversation with young people and they found an interest, a passion, a talent. Despite all the barriers holding them back. It was the same experience on the Work and Pensions Select committee. Young people are inspired to work. We just need to give them that inspiration.
I also believe that in order for employers to feel confident in taking risk and employing anybody, let alone a young person with limited experience, they also need to have the experience to see young people grow and develop in the workplace. The role of work placement should never have been downplayed, and critically, it's a first step into the world of work. In my early career, I was lucky enough to work alongside the Leicestershire Education Business Company, an independent local charity set up to support employers, and it was inspirational. They still organise and support young people and employers with work experience locally.
Today, data from other comparable countries state that more when more 14 to 16 year olds have had employment, experience employment, experience less young people are Neet. The review sets out on almost every conversation with young people and they found an interest, a passion, a talent. Despite all the barriers holding them back. It was the same experience on the Work and Pensions Select committee. Young people are inspired to work. We just need to give them that inspiration.
10:09
10:09
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
The first installment of The Melbourne Review, has been well received on all sides, and as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, we had the chance to ask him about it a few months ago. One of the things he said, which got a lot of press but which has been misunderstood, is his observation that we spend £25 on benefits for every pound we spend on helping a young person into work, contrary to what some on the right have assumed, this emphatically does not mean that slashing benefits is actually the way to cure youth unemployment.
For years, under the conservatives, we operated job centres under a sanctions based culture. It failed. Job hunting is a difficult challenge, totally demoralising people by distrusting their every move is not the way to coach them. Through their first interviews. In evidence to the committee, young people describe being made to feel like a leech. How does that help anyone? The demand for people to demonstrate large numbers of job applications, like notches on a belt, has been completely destructive. Local employers have disengaged in my constituency of Horsham because they've been spammed with poorly targeted applications. We shouldn't be so hasty to write off the current generation as a bunch of snowflakes, and we rather we should remember that the current level of nearly 1 million NEETs is actually less than the peak.
Back in 2011, when we had 1.25 million. The remarkable fact is that 44% of NEETs aren't claiming any kind of benefit at all. Surely even the most zealous right winger can see this challenges the cliche of an out of control benefits culture. Success stems from intervention at an early age when kids stop attending school. That's a powerful indicator of their likelihood to become NEETs later. In that context, the government's Youth Guarantee scheme won't do the trick. It only kicks in after 18 months unemployment when the damage is done and it's not available to kids on benefits.
This, Madam Chair, will not be a quick fix, but actions today will bring huge long term rewards for the people who matter most our children.
For years, under the conservatives, we operated job centres under a sanctions based culture. It failed. Job hunting is a difficult challenge, totally demoralising people by distrusting their every move is not the way to coach them. Through their first interviews. In evidence to the committee, young people describe being made to feel like a leech. How does that help anyone? The demand for people to demonstrate large numbers of job applications, like notches on a belt, has been completely destructive. Local employers have disengaged in my constituency of Horsham because they've been spammed with poorly targeted applications. We shouldn't be so hasty to write off the current generation as a bunch of snowflakes, and we rather we should remember that the current level of nearly 1 million NEETs is actually less than the peak.
Back in 2011, when we had 1.25 million. The remarkable fact is that 44% of NEETs aren't claiming any kind of benefit at all. Surely even the most zealous right winger can see this challenges the cliche of an out of control benefits culture. Success stems from intervention at an early age when kids stop attending school. That's a powerful indicator of their likelihood to become NEETs later. In that context, the government's Youth Guarantee scheme won't do the trick. It only kicks in after 18 months unemployment when the damage is done and it's not available to kids on benefits.
This, Madam Chair, will not be a quick fix, but actions today will bring huge long term rewards for the people who matter most our children.
10:13
10:13
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Is a pleasure to have you chair and my friend from Wrexham for introducing this debate. Now the Melbourne Review gets a lot right. It's right to say that the Neet rate is so high because of decades of structural dysfunction in education, health, welfare and employment support. It is right when it states that poverty shapes early childhood and is a contributing factor to how children grow up. It is also right in saying that care experienced young people are particularly at risk of disengagement, and clearly a reason for this is because of support, and stability falls away when they are most needed.
And 84% of the surveyed Neet young people want to find a job, education or training that shows that young people do have a desire for work. Contrary to the stereotyping that we see from some politicians and some in the media. And crucially, the report highlights that there are fewer entry level roles in apprenticeships available, down over 40% in the past decade. Now the government must take an early interventionist approach and provide intensive employment support and work with organisations, bodies and charities that have comprehensive experience in this area. However, the Melbourne report is weak on the role of incentives in the social security system.
It suggests that the system's design encourages young people to claim and remain on health related benefits rather than participate in work and training. But that narrow framing is wrong and does not take into account individuals with complex needs. Having to negotiate a difficult system. Claiming the UC health element of Pip is no easy process. The government must end a degrading manner of this system and correct it often regular result of people being wrongly denied support for so many, the act of claiming is an undignified and demeaning endurance test that is a stain on the state.
Reform of the system is needed, but it must be achieved with care, compassion and investment.
And 84% of the surveyed Neet young people want to find a job, education or training that shows that young people do have a desire for work. Contrary to the stereotyping that we see from some politicians and some in the media. And crucially, the report highlights that there are fewer entry level roles in apprenticeships available, down over 40% in the past decade. Now the government must take an early interventionist approach and provide intensive employment support and work with organisations, bodies and charities that have comprehensive experience in this area. However, the Melbourne report is weak on the role of incentives in the social security system.
It suggests that the system's design encourages young people to claim and remain on health related benefits rather than participate in work and training. But that narrow framing is wrong and does not take into account individuals with complex needs. Having to negotiate a difficult system. Claiming the UC health element of Pip is no easy process. The government must end a degrading manner of this system and correct it often regular result of people being wrongly denied support for so many, the act of claiming is an undignified and demeaning endurance test that is a stain on the state.
Reform of the system is needed, but it must be achieved with care, compassion and investment.
10:17
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Madam Chair, sir. Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this very popular and important debate. And the Melbourne report shows that we have to change how we talk about young people out of work and out of education, as has just been cited. 84% of those we call NEETs do not want to be out of work. They don't lack potential or desire. What they lack is opportunity. So that's the problem . This has to fix. The report also shows that disconnection begins long before 16 in school, and I see that sadly, in Southampton, where persistent absence has been creeping up year on year.
So I very much welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review's push to make school more engaging, to broaden the curriculum so that there are more hooks, including, as my honourable friend has said, in the humanities, if we allow children to switch off before 18 or around 14, they are far more likely to be out of education and training at 18. Southampton has also shown some great opportunities that work safe New futures is a local charity that works with long term unemployed young people, combining mental health support and group CBT with job ready skills and vocational training.
When I visited, one of the young people told me that after an incredibly difficult period, this course had given them the confidence to actually enter the world of work and pursue their career. Half of the participants in that scheme go on to find work. Half Saints Works is run by the Saints Foundation, the charitable wing of our excellent football club, and they combine skills, growth and mentoring and then in work follow up support once they've got into jobs. And we've got a young adults employment hub that brings the council, the job centre, work coaches and youth workers under one roof.
None of these are national schemes. They're all local partnerships that know their young people by name. And that's the lesson I hope the final report draws. So my question to the minister is, when we respond to the final report, will there be sustained funding for local programmes like this that are getting the work done?
So I very much welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review's push to make school more engaging, to broaden the curriculum so that there are more hooks, including, as my honourable friend has said, in the humanities, if we allow children to switch off before 18 or around 14, they are far more likely to be out of education and training at 18. Southampton has also shown some great opportunities that work safe New futures is a local charity that works with long term unemployed young people, combining mental health support and group CBT with job ready skills and vocational training.
When I visited, one of the young people told me that after an incredibly difficult period, this course had given them the confidence to actually enter the world of work and pursue their career. Half of the participants in that scheme go on to find work. Half Saints Works is run by the Saints Foundation, the charitable wing of our excellent football club, and they combine skills, growth and mentoring and then in work follow up support once they've got into jobs. And we've got a young adults employment hub that brings the council, the job centre, work coaches and youth workers under one roof.
None of these are national schemes. They're all local partnerships that know their young people by name. And that's the lesson I hope the final report draws. So my question to the minister is, when we respond to the final report, will there be sustained funding for local programmes like this that are getting the work done?
10:21
10:22
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Sir, you in the chair today, and I thank the honourable member for Wrexham for securing today's debate. We understand the long term, sustained challenges as a result of young people and work evidence based and astute in its diagnosis. We know that the challenges that young people face today have been sustained as well through generations. And this is the generation, of course, who had surestart stripped away youth services removed, and, of course, have been in that straitjacket of the education system, not to mention Covid. So the challenges are high in a society where young people are facing multiple challenges today, but we've got a great opportunity before us to change the system.
And I've met young people who have been on a programme in York called the Spear Programme, getting 78% of young people into work from long term unemployment, because it doesn't penalise, it encourages young people, giving them confident aptitude to to engage in work, the skills that are needed in order to get work, but also working with employers in the city, too. And that's a really important piece because employers themselves need to be equally engaged as partners on the programme. And I do think that Alan Milburn and his diagnosis in chapter seven of his report, when he's saying, we don't just need programmes, we need a system change and one focused on outcomes.
But the one point that I really want to draw out to the minister today, it starts too late. These programmes kicking in from people being 16 means young people are already on that pathway. If we can introduce these programmes into school, not only with the career support and putting in those work placement opportunities, but ensuring there are programs around employability. This scheme with spear is a four week programme, two half days a week and then a one session, 1 to 1 where young people get those skills are driven forward, but also a year of support into work.
They're the kind of programmes we need.
And I've met young people who have been on a programme in York called the Spear Programme, getting 78% of young people into work from long term unemployment, because it doesn't penalise, it encourages young people, giving them confident aptitude to to engage in work, the skills that are needed in order to get work, but also working with employers in the city, too. And that's a really important piece because employers themselves need to be equally engaged as partners on the programme. And I do think that Alan Milburn and his diagnosis in chapter seven of his report, when he's saying, we don't just need programmes, we need a system change and one focused on outcomes.
But the one point that I really want to draw out to the minister today, it starts too late. These programmes kicking in from people being 16 means young people are already on that pathway. If we can introduce these programmes into school, not only with the career support and putting in those work placement opportunities, but ensuring there are programs around employability. This scheme with spear is a four week programme, two half days a week and then a one session, 1 to 1 where young people get those skills are driven forward, but also a year of support into work.
They're the kind of programmes we need.
10:25
10:25
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you. Your chair. I just quickly draw attention to my register of interests. I'd like to start out with the fact that in the North East, almost 1 in 5 young people are not in education, employment or in trend. To put it another way, it's estimated to be over 53,000 every week across my constituency, whether I'm in Haltwhistle, Haydon Bridge, Allendale, Bellingham, Prudhoe, Hexham itself, or Throckley or any of the other 200 communities that make up my constituency, I do meet young people who are being failed in different ways by a system that has for a long time failed to perform for them for a long time.
Constituencies like mine simply haven't been part of the national conversation on this at all. Rural youth unemployment has been off the political agenda for quite some time. I think it was in 2012 when the when the Commission for Rural Communities warned that rural Neet numbers are rising fast and no one in government was taking over responsibility for it. This is a crisis that has been rooted in my communities in decades of complacency and a failure to take on the underlying factors. It is hard enough to find a job for young people at the moment without having to worry about a bus that may never arrive, a train connection that won't be on time, a bus disruption that doesn't take place.
I do want to touch very briefly in the short time I have. To me, and I would like to go into my slightly longer speech about the full time for it. But on the requirement for post 16 travel support and to make sure that any holistic system that comes forward works for the entirety of the communities it serves. So in Northumberland, for example, the post support that does exist is largely targeted at that central Morpeth corridor in Northumberland, rather than being targeted at West Northumberland. And the Morpeth Conservatives, who run the county council, are largely occupied with making sure the system works for that corridor rather than being a holistic solution for the entire county.
That's not something that happens by accident, that is the ongoing neglect of the west of the county by the county council. But I'll ask the minister three further things. Will the system be rural proofed from the start? Can the government look further at councils to bolster that post 16 travel duty, and can it back vocational and send provision closer to where those young people live, even in those rural communities where the headcount is naturally smaller?
Constituencies like mine simply haven't been part of the national conversation on this at all. Rural youth unemployment has been off the political agenda for quite some time. I think it was in 2012 when the when the Commission for Rural Communities warned that rural Neet numbers are rising fast and no one in government was taking over responsibility for it. This is a crisis that has been rooted in my communities in decades of complacency and a failure to take on the underlying factors. It is hard enough to find a job for young people at the moment without having to worry about a bus that may never arrive, a train connection that won't be on time, a bus disruption that doesn't take place.
I do want to touch very briefly in the short time I have. To me, and I would like to go into my slightly longer speech about the full time for it. But on the requirement for post 16 travel support and to make sure that any holistic system that comes forward works for the entirety of the communities it serves. So in Northumberland, for example, the post support that does exist is largely targeted at that central Morpeth corridor in Northumberland, rather than being targeted at West Northumberland. And the Morpeth Conservatives, who run the county council, are largely occupied with making sure the system works for that corridor rather than being a holistic solution for the entire county.
That's not something that happens by accident, that is the ongoing neglect of the west of the county by the county council. But I'll ask the minister three further things. Will the system be rural proofed from the start? Can the government look further at councils to bolster that post 16 travel duty, and can it back vocational and send provision closer to where those young people live, even in those rural communities where the headcount is naturally smaller?
10:30
10:30
10:31
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Achieving social justice. But it's also a key part of a thriving and resilient economy, providing the necessary safeguards to help people in times of need and provide the route back to work for those that can. But currently, the Department of Work and Pensions spends £25 roughly on benefits for every £1 spent on employment support. In practice, this means that only around 1 in 5 NEETs receive meaningful employment support. This is simply not sustainable. Thus, I welcome the emphasis on Melbourne's interim report on strengthening employment support for these young people, and I expect the final recommendations of the review to build on this with a clear national strategy.
And such a national strategy is crucial. But also what we do locally is equally as important. Hence the importance of partnering with local providers and career services on this issue. And in my own constituency, I have been leading the Aspire project, in which I'm working with Kirklees College and careers and local businesses to identify young people who are NEETs, pair them with mentors who can offer guidance, support and work experience. The aim is to help them gain confidence in themselves, provide pragmatic advice when it comes to accessing educational and employment opportunities. Now this is the first step, but it's a big step for many of these young people in engaging with colleges and employers .
And in my view, local and national need to be in lock step when it comes to the issue of NEETs. So pleased with the minister comment on how the government can help achieve this. .
And such a national strategy is crucial. But also what we do locally is equally as important. Hence the importance of partnering with local providers and career services on this issue. And in my own constituency, I have been leading the Aspire project, in which I'm working with Kirklees College and careers and local businesses to identify young people who are NEETs, pair them with mentors who can offer guidance, support and work experience. The aim is to help them gain confidence in themselves, provide pragmatic advice when it comes to accessing educational and employment opportunities. Now this is the first step, but it's a big step for many of these young people in engaging with colleges and employers .
And in my view, local and national need to be in lock step when it comes to the issue of NEETs. So pleased with the minister comment on how the government can help achieve this. .
10:34
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, miss McRae. It's a pleasure to serve the number of young people not in education. Employment and training is one of the biggest challenges facing the country. Contrary to stereotype though, in my experience, most young people desperately want the opportunities that previous generations took for granted. The problem is that those opportunities simply aren't there for too many of them, and that's partly because we've spent so long, over the past few years talking about the cost of welfare, but nowhere near enough time talking about the cost of failing to invest in our young people. So I'm pleased that the Milburn report is reportedly calling for much more investment, because we can't seriously expect to tackle this problem on the cheap.
And also, it's not just about how much we spend, it's about how we spend it. Earlier this this year, I led a debate in this chamber on place based employment support, and I made an argument then that I wish to repeat today the barriers facing a young person in my Southport constituency aren't necessarily the same as those facing someone in London or Manchester. So localism matters. We need to give local areas the freedom and resources they need to bring together colleges, employers, job centres, health services and community organisations and actually design support around the people who need it.
We need a system that aligns training and education with the type of jobs that might be on offer in the local area. There is no point training young people up for jobs that don't exist locally now, never mind in 10 or 15 years time. So what we're debating today has to be part of a wider economic strategy, one that creates decent jobs in our towns and communities, not just in our big cities. So my request to the minister is a simple one. Let's invest properly. Let's trust local communities to deliver and let us judge success not just by how much we cut the benefits bill, but also by how many young people we help build decent, fulfilling working lives.
Because ultimately, making the country a better place for the next generation should be what we're here in this place to do. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And also, it's not just about how much we spend, it's about how we spend it. Earlier this this year, I led a debate in this chamber on place based employment support, and I made an argument then that I wish to repeat today the barriers facing a young person in my Southport constituency aren't necessarily the same as those facing someone in London or Manchester. So localism matters. We need to give local areas the freedom and resources they need to bring together colleges, employers, job centres, health services and community organisations and actually design support around the people who need it.
We need a system that aligns training and education with the type of jobs that might be on offer in the local area. There is no point training young people up for jobs that don't exist locally now, never mind in 10 or 15 years time. So what we're debating today has to be part of a wider economic strategy, one that creates decent jobs in our towns and communities, not just in our big cities. So my request to the minister is a simple one. Let's invest properly. Let's trust local communities to deliver and let us judge success not just by how much we cut the benefits bill, but also by how many young people we help build decent, fulfilling working lives.
Because ultimately, making the country a better place for the next generation should be what we're here in this place to do. Thank you, Madam Chair.
10:39
10:39
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you, Madam Chair. Every young person deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Where someone grows up, the circumstances into which they were born, or the financial position of their family should never determine the opportunities available to them. We have 1 million NEETs, but we should be clear that this is not simply a question of young people needing to try harder. It is about whether we, as a society are providing the right opportunities, support and pathways into employment. Particularly want to highlight the challenges facing young people in Derbyshire Dales and our rural communities? Public transport is often limited, particularly in the evenings and at weekends.
A young person living in a village outside Matlock, Ashbourne, Bakewell or Wirksworth may find that that a job, apprenticeship or college course is technically available but practically inaccessible. Transport costs can make low paid entry level employment financially unviable. Limited local provision can also mean young people have to travel considerable distances to access further education, vocational training or specialist support. Any effective measures must recognize and address these challenges. There are real opportunities in Derbyshire Dales. Our tourism and hospitality businesses, agricultural sector, construction industry, care services and growing green economy all need skilled and enthusiastic young people.
We should be connecting local people with these opportunities, rather than allowing vacancies and skills shortages to exist alongside young people struggling to find their first job. I welcome the steps. The government has already taken the additional £2.5 billion investment in the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and skills Levy, the ambition to create 500,000 opportunities, expanded youth hubs, apprenticeship support and local jobs guarantee are important interventions, as is the commitment to removing barriers for disabled young people and those experiencing mental health difficulties. We must recognise that people need different kinds of support and that a one size fits all approach will not work, but there is so much more to do.
In particular, I want to see the expansion of successful local initiatives such as Yes Derbyshire, which provides young people with careers advice, training and 1 to 1 support, and the unstoppable Derbyshire programme, which helps 18 to 21 year olds overcome barriers including mental health, financial difficulties and housing problems. These initiatives demonstrate what can be achieved when support is tailored to individual circumstances. We should build on them and ensure that young people in Derbyshire Dales can access comparable.
A young person living in a village outside Matlock, Ashbourne, Bakewell or Wirksworth may find that that a job, apprenticeship or college course is technically available but practically inaccessible. Transport costs can make low paid entry level employment financially unviable. Limited local provision can also mean young people have to travel considerable distances to access further education, vocational training or specialist support. Any effective measures must recognize and address these challenges. There are real opportunities in Derbyshire Dales. Our tourism and hospitality businesses, agricultural sector, construction industry, care services and growing green economy all need skilled and enthusiastic young people.
We should be connecting local people with these opportunities, rather than allowing vacancies and skills shortages to exist alongside young people struggling to find their first job. I welcome the steps. The government has already taken the additional £2.5 billion investment in the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and skills Levy, the ambition to create 500,000 opportunities, expanded youth hubs, apprenticeship support and local jobs guarantee are important interventions, as is the commitment to removing barriers for disabled young people and those experiencing mental health difficulties. We must recognise that people need different kinds of support and that a one size fits all approach will not work, but there is so much more to do.
In particular, I want to see the expansion of successful local initiatives such as Yes Derbyshire, which provides young people with careers advice, training and 1 to 1 support, and the unstoppable Derbyshire programme, which helps 18 to 21 year olds overcome barriers including mental health, financial difficulties and housing problems. These initiatives demonstrate what can be achieved when support is tailored to individual circumstances. We should build on them and ensure that young people in Derbyshire Dales can access comparable.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Regardless of where they live. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nearly a million people now are outside education, employment and training and we call them NEETs. I think we should consign this term to history. It defines a young person by entirely what they are not. It tells us nothing about what they can do or indeed, how they can get there. I have been spending a lot of time in Selly Oak. Earlier this year, I bought local employers together to talk about what they were seeing. They told me too many young people were reaching them without the confidence of the basic communication skills they needed to get into work.
Some some of those problems start exceptionally early, 10 to 16, not just 16 to 24. And I have spoken before about boys and young men. Just 62% of boys in our school ready, compared with 75% of girls. Indeed, they fall further behind through school. Then at 18, the rate nearly trebles. Just as is statutory participation, age ends. And if schools has not worked for you and there is no obvious step, it is disappointingly easy to drift out of sight. I am convinced we need employers involvement much earlier work exposure to inspire, embolden, enlighten and close the gap between expectation and the jobs job reality across the market.
Indeed, government should be obsessed with closing this gap as we invest in rebuilding British industrial capacity. We need to think about where the workforce will come from. If a company is expanding a factory with public support, who are we training to work there? If it knows we need technicians in five years, it should be working with the schools and colleges much earlier. An apprenticeship will not be the immediate answer for everyone. Some young people will need help before they are ready for one, or an employer willing to give them their first experience of work. The youth guarantee needs to reach those people.
Alan Milburn estimates the annual cost of youth inactivity at £125 billion. That is an extraordinary amount of money. So I would like to ask the Minister, are we working across departments education, health, DWP, are we working earlier between 10 and 16 year olds? And indeed, are we closing the gap between the expectation and the reality of the job market? We should be much better at bringing the two together, employers and education, and in doing so, can consign the term NEETs to history.
Some some of those problems start exceptionally early, 10 to 16, not just 16 to 24. And I have spoken before about boys and young men. Just 62% of boys in our school ready, compared with 75% of girls. Indeed, they fall further behind through school. Then at 18, the rate nearly trebles. Just as is statutory participation, age ends. And if schools has not worked for you and there is no obvious step, it is disappointingly easy to drift out of sight. I am convinced we need employers involvement much earlier work exposure to inspire, embolden, enlighten and close the gap between expectation and the jobs job reality across the market.
Indeed, government should be obsessed with closing this gap as we invest in rebuilding British industrial capacity. We need to think about where the workforce will come from. If a company is expanding a factory with public support, who are we training to work there? If it knows we need technicians in five years, it should be working with the schools and colleges much earlier. An apprenticeship will not be the immediate answer for everyone. Some young people will need help before they are ready for one, or an employer willing to give them their first experience of work. The youth guarantee needs to reach those people.
Alan Milburn estimates the annual cost of youth inactivity at £125 billion. That is an extraordinary amount of money. So I would like to ask the Minister, are we working across departments education, health, DWP, are we working earlier between 10 and 16 year olds? And indeed, are we closing the gap between the expectation and the reality of the job market? We should be much better at bringing the two together, employers and education, and in doing so, can consign the term NEETs to history.
10:49
10:49
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Friend from Wrexham for securing this debate. A lot has been said by honourable members across the House, so I will seek not to repeat it, but I would like to push the Minister on a couple of points, if I may, that come out of the review. I think the diagnosis that the Milburn Review has shone a light on is something that was known to most of us. Indeed, Stoke on Trent has quite often been seen as both an exemplar of where things were terrible, but where things are getting better. Our Neet rate has dropped from 16% down to below 10% because of work done by partnerships, but we still have more to do.
Part of that is because our local environment has flexed to do what it needs to do, sometimes against the guidelines provided to it by Ofsted and the government. I would commend to the minister the work that's been done by the CEO Futures Forum, which brings together mats from across the city to look at the pathways that young people need now for the jobs that exist in the future, much like the comment that was just made by my hon. Friend from Birmingham, Selly Oak. But we are also constrained by the fact that good apprenticeship providers are finding themselves unable to take on the numbers of young people that want to do apprenticeships because they are held back by the de minimis rules under the regulations, and I would urge the minister in her department to look at how we can use every aspect of our arsenal available to us.
If this is a moral crusade to ensure that every young person has that right pathway, including, if needs be, liberalizing some of the rules around registration of apprenticeship providers so that groups like Dan Canavan's spark Group can take on the young people that they want to. But I would end with miss McVeigh. Could I urge the minister not, not to fall back on some of the rudimentary politics that suggest that artificially capping the wages that we pay young people as opposed to wages we would pay a full time adult, is a way in which we can address this problem.
If you are in work, you should be paid fairly for the work you do, regardless of the age and the way you are doing it. And I know the government is committed to this and it was a manifesto commitment, but the siren voices are calling for that to be slowed down, and I would urge the government to resist that as much as they can.
Part of that is because our local environment has flexed to do what it needs to do, sometimes against the guidelines provided to it by Ofsted and the government. I would commend to the minister the work that's been done by the CEO Futures Forum, which brings together mats from across the city to look at the pathways that young people need now for the jobs that exist in the future, much like the comment that was just made by my hon. Friend from Birmingham, Selly Oak. But we are also constrained by the fact that good apprenticeship providers are finding themselves unable to take on the numbers of young people that want to do apprenticeships because they are held back by the de minimis rules under the regulations, and I would urge the minister in her department to look at how we can use every aspect of our arsenal available to us.
If this is a moral crusade to ensure that every young person has that right pathway, including, if needs be, liberalizing some of the rules around registration of apprenticeship providers so that groups like Dan Canavan's spark Group can take on the young people that they want to. But I would end with miss McVeigh. Could I urge the minister not, not to fall back on some of the rudimentary politics that suggest that artificially capping the wages that we pay young people as opposed to wages we would pay a full time adult, is a way in which we can address this problem.
If you are in work, you should be paid fairly for the work you do, regardless of the age and the way you are doing it. And I know the government is committed to this and it was a manifesto commitment, but the siren voices are calling for that to be slowed down, and I would urge the government to resist that as much as they can.
10:54
10:54
10:54
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
And I congratulate my hon. Friend for Wrexham on securing this vital debate. The interim report, set out by the Milburn Review, is as stark as it is comprehensive. It is a damning indictment on a broken system that has left over a million young people across the country not yet in employment, education or training. That is, over a million young people whose talents, aspirations and potential are at risk of being wasted, leaving long lasting scars on themselves, their families, their communities, and the taxpayer. A figure like that does not reflect individual failure, but rather a systematic failure at the heart of government policy over many years.
For too long, young people have been failed by governments that lacked the ambition that they themselves hold. Conservative governments in Westminster and the SNP government in Holyrood have presided over a steady erosion of opportunity, and it is in their level of interest in this debate today is instructive. They fail to equip young people with the skills that they need, fail to provide the support that they deserve, and fail to recognise that a lack of opportunity is the driving force behind rising youth joblessness. We see the weakening of the career ladder everywhere. Entry level jobs have declined dramatically, with 1.6 million fewer opportunities available across the country and the traditional Saturday jobs that many of us had when we were growing up.
I worked in our local veterinary surgery. Those have been disappearing for years, whilst apprenticeship starts have fallen by 35% over the past decade and the hiring process itself is broken. Young people desperately want to work and they need to be given the opportunity to do so. These complex, multifaceted challenges deserve a comprehensive plan equal to the generational scale of the crisis. So I urge the minister and the government to set out a clear direction which fixes youth mental health services reforms. Technical education bridges the gap in transition between compulsory education and employment, and transforms the culture within our jobcentres.
For too long, young people have been failed by governments that lacked the ambition that they themselves hold. Conservative governments in Westminster and the SNP government in Holyrood have presided over a steady erosion of opportunity, and it is in their level of interest in this debate today is instructive. They fail to equip young people with the skills that they need, fail to provide the support that they deserve, and fail to recognise that a lack of opportunity is the driving force behind rising youth joblessness. We see the weakening of the career ladder everywhere. Entry level jobs have declined dramatically, with 1.6 million fewer opportunities available across the country and the traditional Saturday jobs that many of us had when we were growing up.
I worked in our local veterinary surgery. Those have been disappearing for years, whilst apprenticeship starts have fallen by 35% over the past decade and the hiring process itself is broken. Young people desperately want to work and they need to be given the opportunity to do so. These complex, multifaceted challenges deserve a comprehensive plan equal to the generational scale of the crisis. So I urge the minister and the government to set out a clear direction which fixes youth mental health services reforms. Technical education bridges the gap in transition between compulsory education and employment, and transforms the culture within our jobcentres.
10:58
10:58
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I congratulate my hon. Friend for Wrexham for this debate. Across my constituency of Aylesbury and the villages, there is no shortage of talent or ambition among our young people. What they lack is opportunity, confidence and sustained, trusted support. I want to share three points that I think will help, and I look forward to the minister's response. The first is that we have to recognise the multiple different pathways to success in work. Both national and local policy should better recognise and support self-employment and entrepreneurial ism as legitimate employment pathways. We have a fantastic example of this in Aylesbury, which is the making It programme run by Youth Concern, which combines leadership development with guidance on self-employment and the chance to gain direct experience working in the creative industries.
And they've had really strong interest in this from young people, particularly from those for whom traditional employment feels too inaccessible or unattractive. The second is that we have to measure success, not just by how many people enter jobs, but by whether they stay in them. Bucks College Group offers a Positive steps programme in collaboration with Jobcentre Plus and Buckinghamshire NHS trust. The Jobcentre identifies people who are unemployed. The college provides training through its immersive healthcare suite and its work preparation support, and the NHS trust provides a placement and a guaranteed interview. But the important point is that it doesn't stop there.
The college's programme data shows that 85% of participants are not just getting jobs, but progressing into that permanent, sustainable NHS employment. The third point is recognising that employment is, of course, just one part of young people's lives. Too many young people experience poor mental health, family difficulties, exclusion from education or other challenges and as a result they lack the confidence to progress into education, training or employment. So what's needed is not just the job interviews and the work prep, but access to mental health support, and also that wider support for young people to help them actually recognise and articulate their strengths and their skills in the first place.
So I really look forward to the minister's response, and I look forward to making Alan Milburn's recommendations a reality for young people in Aylesbury and the villages.
And they've had really strong interest in this from young people, particularly from those for whom traditional employment feels too inaccessible or unattractive. The second is that we have to measure success, not just by how many people enter jobs, but by whether they stay in them. Bucks College Group offers a Positive steps programme in collaboration with Jobcentre Plus and Buckinghamshire NHS trust. The Jobcentre identifies people who are unemployed. The college provides training through its immersive healthcare suite and its work preparation support, and the NHS trust provides a placement and a guaranteed interview. But the important point is that it doesn't stop there.
The college's programme data shows that 85% of participants are not just getting jobs, but progressing into that permanent, sustainable NHS employment. The third point is recognising that employment is, of course, just one part of young people's lives. Too many young people experience poor mental health, family difficulties, exclusion from education or other challenges and as a result they lack the confidence to progress into education, training or employment. So what's needed is not just the job interviews and the work prep, but access to mental health support, and also that wider support for young people to help them actually recognise and articulate their strengths and their skills in the first place.
So I really look forward to the minister's response, and I look forward to making Alan Milburn's recommendations a reality for young people in Aylesbury and the villages.
11:02
11:03
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. McVey. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, and I congratulate the honourable member for Wrexham on securing this debate. Alan Milburn's interim report is a thorough and in places uncomfortable piece of work, but it is an important foundation for anyone serious about tackling the waste of a million young people's talent, not least because it takes apart some myths. Some 54% of young people who are Neet told the review that they want to work, and another 30% want to get into education or training. These are not lazy young people, as the report puts it.
They are exhausted. The mechanisms that used to bring young people into work are working less well. The first rung has thinned the share of 16 and 17 year old students doing any paid work has fallen from 35% in 2006 to just 19% today.
They are exhausted. The mechanisms that used to bring young people into work are working less well. The first rung has thinned the share of 16 and 17 year old students doing any paid work has fallen from 35% in 2006 to just 19% today.
11:05
11:05
11:05
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you for giving way. Thank you chair. UK hospitality highlights how over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the sector, particularly in areas such as Torbay, where it where hospitality can be the first rung in employment. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that actually what we're seeing is a crisis of opportunity for young people than in each crisis. in some.
11:05
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree that the opportunities that have been thinned for a long time now are a big part of the issue. Employers do ask for experience, but the pathways through which it was once gained have narrowed or gone. And the report is blunt on why the system fails. Britain has not ignored youth unemployment. It has had the New Deal for young people, the Future Jobs Fund, the youth Contract and kickstart, and each has been abolished once the immediate crisis has passed. Milburn also describes what we have as parallel play, education accountable for attainment, welfare for benefit flows, health for treatment , and nobody in the pathway, for nobody for the pathway from childhood to working life.
The clearest sign of that is what the report calls the hidden cohort. Around 314,000 NEETs aged 18 to 24 in England, nearly half claim no benefits at all. There are no caseload and no institution is responsible for them. What the system needs is a long term commitment through a permanent architecture. That is why the Liberal Democrats advocate for a wholesale overhaul of jobs coaching, so that every young person has a real person who sits down with them several times a year and helps them plan where they want to get to. Building on models from the Netherlands and Germany now, we know that support like that has to be delivered locally because labour markets, transport and employers operate locally.
The risk, Milburn warns us, is that without a national framework, devolution becomes a delegation of failure skills. England ought to be part of that national framework, but in its short life it has already been moved from one department to another and it remains simply an executive agency. It needs supercharging. It should become a genuinely independent body with the standing to work across government, including local government. Miss McVeigh. The review estimates that for every £1 the department spent on employment support for young people in 2425, around £25 was spent on benefits. In its words, the UK's approach for decades has been to pay the bill for youth in activity rather than invest in preventing it.
Milburn argues that the Treasury's usual value for money tests do not look far enough ahead to capture the lasting damage of time out of work or training at a young age and that once that is counted, early intervention pays for itself many times over. And I note that the Chancellor announced that the budget last week that from the next spending review, there would be a ring fenced budget for prevention. So the question is whether support for young people at risk of becoming Neet goes in that ring fenced budget. The report shows that we can already identify many of those most at risk while they are still at school, but the pupil premium stops when a young person turns 16 at exactly the point the risk peaks.
Extending it to post 16 learners, including those in further education, is a long standing call of the Lib Dems. And I hope that we see that in Milburn's prescription. And we would also like to see a guarantee to every young person of 100 hours of work experience before they turn 18, so that it no longer depends on who their parents happen to know. And that brings me to who else needs to be part of the solution. Milburn has said that there is a contract at the heart of all this, referring to the relationship between young people and the state, but I would suggest that the contract is missing a signatory.
For most young people, the first job is offered not by the state but by an employer. In the final report's recommendations, Dations. If the final report's recommendations are to work, employers have to be part of the bargain, too. Milburn's own evidence makes the case. He argues that as the cost of employment rises, the case for taking on someone inexperienced becomes harder unless employers are given the support to offset the risk on cost. The national Insurance changes of this government's first budget undoubtedly added to the pressure on part time, entry level roles, especially in retail and hospitality.
That is why we Liberal Democrats have called, at the very least for a lower rate, between £5000 and £9100. But cost is only half of it. A large employer can absorb the risk of a young recruit who needs supervision and support. A small firm often cannot. However cheap the hire. That's why we've also proposed skills cooperatives as part of the solution. SMEs pooling training and pastoral support so that no single business carries the whole risk of giving a young person their first start. Now, I realise the minister will not pre-empt the final report. So I have three questions of principle.
First, as I have said, the report highlights that no institution is responsible for this. So does the minister accept it as principle that someone must be. And should that responsibility be, with a named local body working within a national framework that guarantees a minimum standard? Secondly, will employment support and post 16 provision for disadvantaged young people count as preventative spending when that new ring fence budget is set? And thirdly, before any new obligations are placed on young people. Will the government ensure that the support offer is actually in place first? The report says that inaction or tinkering at the edges is itself a decision and a costly one.
I hope the minister will tell us that the final report will be met with something much more than that. Thank you , chair.
The clearest sign of that is what the report calls the hidden cohort. Around 314,000 NEETs aged 18 to 24 in England, nearly half claim no benefits at all. There are no caseload and no institution is responsible for them. What the system needs is a long term commitment through a permanent architecture. That is why the Liberal Democrats advocate for a wholesale overhaul of jobs coaching, so that every young person has a real person who sits down with them several times a year and helps them plan where they want to get to. Building on models from the Netherlands and Germany now, we know that support like that has to be delivered locally because labour markets, transport and employers operate locally.
The risk, Milburn warns us, is that without a national framework, devolution becomes a delegation of failure skills. England ought to be part of that national framework, but in its short life it has already been moved from one department to another and it remains simply an executive agency. It needs supercharging. It should become a genuinely independent body with the standing to work across government, including local government. Miss McVeigh. The review estimates that for every £1 the department spent on employment support for young people in 2425, around £25 was spent on benefits. In its words, the UK's approach for decades has been to pay the bill for youth in activity rather than invest in preventing it.
Milburn argues that the Treasury's usual value for money tests do not look far enough ahead to capture the lasting damage of time out of work or training at a young age and that once that is counted, early intervention pays for itself many times over. And I note that the Chancellor announced that the budget last week that from the next spending review, there would be a ring fenced budget for prevention. So the question is whether support for young people at risk of becoming Neet goes in that ring fenced budget. The report shows that we can already identify many of those most at risk while they are still at school, but the pupil premium stops when a young person turns 16 at exactly the point the risk peaks.
Extending it to post 16 learners, including those in further education, is a long standing call of the Lib Dems. And I hope that we see that in Milburn's prescription. And we would also like to see a guarantee to every young person of 100 hours of work experience before they turn 18, so that it no longer depends on who their parents happen to know. And that brings me to who else needs to be part of the solution. Milburn has said that there is a contract at the heart of all this, referring to the relationship between young people and the state, but I would suggest that the contract is missing a signatory.
For most young people, the first job is offered not by the state but by an employer. In the final report's recommendations, Dations. If the final report's recommendations are to work, employers have to be part of the bargain, too. Milburn's own evidence makes the case. He argues that as the cost of employment rises, the case for taking on someone inexperienced becomes harder unless employers are given the support to offset the risk on cost. The national Insurance changes of this government's first budget undoubtedly added to the pressure on part time, entry level roles, especially in retail and hospitality.
That is why we Liberal Democrats have called, at the very least for a lower rate, between £5000 and £9100. But cost is only half of it. A large employer can absorb the risk of a young recruit who needs supervision and support. A small firm often cannot. However cheap the hire. That's why we've also proposed skills cooperatives as part of the solution. SMEs pooling training and pastoral support so that no single business carries the whole risk of giving a young person their first start. Now, I realise the minister will not pre-empt the final report. So I have three questions of principle.
First, as I have said, the report highlights that no institution is responsible for this. So does the minister accept it as principle that someone must be. And should that responsibility be, with a named local body working within a national framework that guarantees a minimum standard? Secondly, will employment support and post 16 provision for disadvantaged young people count as preventative spending when that new ring fence budget is set? And thirdly, before any new obligations are placed on young people. Will the government ensure that the support offer is actually in place first? The report says that inaction or tinkering at the edges is itself a decision and a costly one.
I hope the minister will tell us that the final report will be met with something much more than that. Thank you , chair.
11:20
11:20
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair for this debate, and I congratulate the member for Wrexham on securing this debate, and I thank all members who have contributed this afternoon, including the honourable member for Horsham, who referred to the thoughts of even the most zealot right wingers. Now, I'm not sure where I sit on his zealot ometer at this moment in time, but maybe we can see by the end of this speech, and I'm sure I will. Sure I will wear it with pride. And it's great to be shadowing the minister, who has always .
Wonderful to be debating with a fellow Boltonian. So the issues raised by the interim report are made all the more topical by the delay in publishing the final report and by last week's budget, which was notable for the absence of any action on the number of young people not in education, employment or training alongside the budget. The office for Budget Responsibility published a figure that should give every member pause over this Parliament. This government will spend 911 billion on working age welfare. That is more than £48,000 for every one of Britain's over 18 million working households.
There are few subjects this house debates that matter more to the future of our country. Behind every figure in Alan Milburn's interim report is a young person whose working life is either not starting well or not starting at all. And those.
Wonderful to be debating with a fellow Boltonian. So the issues raised by the interim report are made all the more topical by the delay in publishing the final report and by last week's budget, which was notable for the absence of any action on the number of young people not in education, employment or training alongside the budget. The office for Budget Responsibility published a figure that should give every member pause over this Parliament. This government will spend 911 billion on working age welfare. That is more than £48,000 for every one of Britain's over 18 million working households.
There are few subjects this house debates that matter more to the future of our country. Behind every figure in Alan Milburn's interim report is a young person whose working life is either not starting well or not starting at all. And those.
11:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank him in my contribution. I highlighted the issue for those young people with mental health issues. The fact that the percentage has went from 21% up to 35, which is an indication of a special issue for young people today. Honourable gentleman knew that through his own constituency, as I do as well. Does the gentleman feel that there must be a priority and a focus on young people with mental issues in particular, to ensure that they can get the employment and the focus that they need on something and a purpose in life.
11:24
11:24
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Speaking of badges of honor, it's always a badge of honour to be intervened on by the honourable member in this place. And yes, I totally agree with the point that he makes. And the figures that I just referred to are stark. Youth unemployment reached 15.6% in the first quarter of this year. That is 715,000 young people, 139,000 more than when this Labour government came to office. Almost a million young people, 981,000 are not in education, employment or training. Our youth unemployment rate is now higher than Hungary, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Perhaps the most telling finding of all is this 6 in 10 young people without a job have never worked for them.
This is not about getting back into work, it is about getting a start in the first place. We on this side of the House welcome the review and we recognise much of its diagnosis. Work is not just a wage, it brings structure, confidence and purpose. And prolonged unemployment early in life leaves a scar on earnings, on health and on life chances that can last for decades. The conservatives in government understood that it was a conservative government that introduced the kickstart scheme during the pandemic, helping more than 150,000 young people into paid work. It was a conservative government that introduced the apprenticeship levy and supported millions of apprenticeship starts.
We acted because we knew that the first job matters most. It teaches the value of punctuality, the necessary, the necessity of taking instructions. It builds social skills in a personal setting. Since the election, this government has had more than two years to get to grips with the post-COVID youth unemployment and rising cost of welfare. Instead, we have seen a culture of dither, delay and U-turn and I'll happily give one.
This is not about getting back into work, it is about getting a start in the first place. We on this side of the House welcome the review and we recognise much of its diagnosis. Work is not just a wage, it brings structure, confidence and purpose. And prolonged unemployment early in life leaves a scar on earnings, on health and on life chances that can last for decades. The conservatives in government understood that it was a conservative government that introduced the kickstart scheme during the pandemic, helping more than 150,000 young people into paid work. It was a conservative government that introduced the apprenticeship levy and supported millions of apprenticeship starts.
We acted because we knew that the first job matters most. It teaches the value of punctuality, the necessary, the necessity of taking instructions. It builds social skills in a personal setting. Since the election, this government has had more than two years to get to grips with the post-COVID youth unemployment and rising cost of welfare. Instead, we have seen a culture of dither, delay and U-turn and I'll happily give one.
11:28
11:29
11:29
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Doesn't remember agree that making it easier for young people to get functional skills qualifications, rather than being stuck in an endless cycle of resets, would allow them to get those qualifications and then onto an apprenticeship and into work exactly as they do at the Aspire Youth Hub in Witney does well. Thank you.
11:29
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank the honourable member for his intervention, and tailored support is something I'm going to come on to shortly. And worse still, the government's own choices have made the problem harder. The rise in employers, National Insurance and the new burdens of the Employment Rights Act have made it more expensive and more risky to take a chance on a young person. The government cannot tax the first rung of the ladder and an expect expressed surprise that you are. Fewer young people are climbing it. At the same time, spending on personal independence payments for 16 to 24 year olds has risen from 1.3 billion to 3 point 2,000,000,000 in 5 years.
45% of young people who are Neet no report a disability, and of those who fall out of work or study through ill health, 8 in 10 are still Neet two years later. New analysis from the Taxpayers Alliance shows just how deep this runs. In April this year, more than two thirds of Universal Credit claimants in their 20s, some 870,000 young people, were not in work. And in just two years, Pip claims, rose by almost a quarter among 20 to 29 year olds and by nearly as much among 16 to 19 year olds. These are not numbers to be managed.
They are young lives being put on hold. One of the ministers of state in the DWP has told us that Pip is not fit for purpose yet. He also said that the current level of spending is not of great concern. The House is entitled to know which of these statements reflects the government's position accurately. Nor is it reassuring that the Secretary of State is reported to have written to Peter Mandelson that every meeting I have is with who we can tax in order to pay benefits to others? All of which raises some simple but urgent questions for this government that I would like to put to the Minister.
First, can she confirm exactly when Milburn's final report will be published and when the government will respond to it in full? Can the Minister also explain why neither the Milburn Review nor the Timms review was allowed to report before the budget? Second, will the Minister set out precisely how these two reviews will be brought together? Will there be a single package of welfare reform and when will it come before this House? Third, does the Minister accept that the rise in employer National Insurance has reduced entry level hiring?
45% of young people who are Neet no report a disability, and of those who fall out of work or study through ill health, 8 in 10 are still Neet two years later. New analysis from the Taxpayers Alliance shows just how deep this runs. In April this year, more than two thirds of Universal Credit claimants in their 20s, some 870,000 young people, were not in work. And in just two years, Pip claims, rose by almost a quarter among 20 to 29 year olds and by nearly as much among 16 to 19 year olds. These are not numbers to be managed.
They are young lives being put on hold. One of the ministers of state in the DWP has told us that Pip is not fit for purpose yet. He also said that the current level of spending is not of great concern. The House is entitled to know which of these statements reflects the government's position accurately. Nor is it reassuring that the Secretary of State is reported to have written to Peter Mandelson that every meeting I have is with who we can tax in order to pay benefits to others? All of which raises some simple but urgent questions for this government that I would like to put to the Minister.
First, can she confirm exactly when Milburn's final report will be published and when the government will respond to it in full? Can the Minister also explain why neither the Milburn Review nor the Timms review was allowed to report before the budget? Second, will the Minister set out precisely how these two reviews will be brought together? Will there be a single package of welfare reform and when will it come before this House? Third, does the Minister accept that the rise in employer National Insurance has reduced entry level hiring?
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
For his intervention. And actually in this session, which is precisely why we have pledged as a party to reduce it by 50%, to take it down even further. So we are talking about the 21 to 24 year olds, and I thank the member for his intervention. Fourth, on the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Jobs Grant. How many young people have actually started a job so far? What cost per place and how many remain unsubsidized work once the subsidy ends? Fifth, can the minister tell the House how many apprenticeship starts there have been for those aged 25 since the growth skills levy replaced the apprenticeship levy and how that compares with the year before.
And finally, will the government accept the offer made by my right hon. Friend the leader of the opposition and repeated at Prime Minister's Questions in June to work with us on serious welfare reform. Chair, that offer stands because we have a plan. I get to work scheme rests on a simple principle that no young person who can work should leave education and drift straight on to benefits. Every young person would have a dedicated get to work manager and work requirements from day one. It would cost a net £303 million, paid for by streamlining existing employment schemes, and as part of the broader £36 billion of welfare savings set out by my right hon.
Friend, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary. To conclude, we all share the objective of giving every young person the dignity and opportunity of work. But good intentions are not good enough. And another review is not a plan. A working age welfare bill of £911 billion in a single parliament is not the mark of a system that works. It is the mark of one that is failing both young people trapped in it and the working families who pay for it. So I press the government for straight answers today. When will it act? How will it pay for it and how will it measure success?
And finally, will the government accept the offer made by my right hon. Friend the leader of the opposition and repeated at Prime Minister's Questions in June to work with us on serious welfare reform. Chair, that offer stands because we have a plan. I get to work scheme rests on a simple principle that no young person who can work should leave education and drift straight on to benefits. Every young person would have a dedicated get to work manager and work requirements from day one. It would cost a net £303 million, paid for by streamlining existing employment schemes, and as part of the broader £36 billion of welfare savings set out by my right hon.
Friend, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary. To conclude, we all share the objective of giving every young person the dignity and opportunity of work. But good intentions are not good enough. And another review is not a plan. A working age welfare bill of £911 billion in a single parliament is not the mark of a system that works. It is the mark of one that is failing both young people trapped in it and the working families who pay for it. So I press the government for straight answers today. When will it act? How will it pay for it and how will it measure success?
11:40
11:40
11:40
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Miss McVeigh. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair. As ever. I begin by congratulating my honourable friend for securing this important debate. I know that he has paid significant attention to the NI crisis, and he's rightly said before, it cannot be treated as just another political issue. It's one of the most serious social and economic challenges facing the country, and I think that's clear from the number of backbench members speaking in this debate. 20 speaking, it's just perhaps disappointing that the official opposition spokesperson is the only representative of his party here today. This is a challenge that requires government, business and others, including the third sector, to come together to tackle it and to treat doing so as a national cause, a moral mission, as my hon.
Friend said. It's for these reasons that the government commissioned Alan Milburn's independent report. We asked him to get under the bonnet of this issue. Looking across the piece at the deep rooted causes of long term trends, which have led to almost 1 million young people being stuck on the sidelines, not in education, employment or training. And I gently remind the opposition spokesperson that that number rose by 250,000 between 2021 and 2024, and youth apprenticeship starts fell by 40% over a decade. Young people with talent, ambition and potential who for too long have not had the opportunities or support they need to succeed.
As the interim report makes clear, the challenge goes deeper than that headline figure. Around 60% of young people who are Neet are economically inactive, and 6 in 10 have never had a job. This government will not accept a generation being left behind. We recognise that there is no single cause of rising economic activity among young people. Poor physical and mental health, disengagement from education, a lack of qualifications, limited work experience and difficulty navigating a changing labour market can all play a part. And that is why our response must be comprehensive, coordinated across education, health, welfare skills, employers and employment services.
Alan Milburn's final report and recommendations are coming soon, but this government is already taking action. At the heart of our current, very briefly.
Friend said. It's for these reasons that the government commissioned Alan Milburn's independent report. We asked him to get under the bonnet of this issue. Looking across the piece at the deep rooted causes of long term trends, which have led to almost 1 million young people being stuck on the sidelines, not in education, employment or training. And I gently remind the opposition spokesperson that that number rose by 250,000 between 2021 and 2024, and youth apprenticeship starts fell by 40% over a decade. Young people with talent, ambition and potential who for too long have not had the opportunities or support they need to succeed.
As the interim report makes clear, the challenge goes deeper than that headline figure. Around 60% of young people who are Neet are economically inactive, and 6 in 10 have never had a job. This government will not accept a generation being left behind. We recognise that there is no single cause of rising economic activity among young people. Poor physical and mental health, disengagement from education, a lack of qualifications, limited work experience and difficulty navigating a changing labour market can all play a part. And that is why our response must be comprehensive, coordinated across education, health, welfare skills, employers and employment services.
Alan Milburn's final report and recommendations are coming soon, but this government is already taking action. At the heart of our current, very briefly.
11:46
11:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you chair. Thank you. I do thank you for giving me. She listed some of the the drivers for this problem. Many members have mentioned transport links, particularly for people in rural communities. She will remember the Transport Select Committee recommended that the government look seriously at Scotland and institute free bus travel for young people in England to help solve this problem. Will the government look at this again, Minister?
11:47
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank him for his intervention and I agree with him. That provision of transport, an affordable and convenient transport is vitally important. I shall leave that to my colleagues still in the Department for transport. But at the heart of our current approach is the Youth Guarantee, backed by an additional £2.5 billion by 2029, alongside investment in the growth and skills levy. Together, this funding will support almost 1 million young people and create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn or learn. We are strengthening support at every stage of a young person's journey through an expanded network of youth hubs and the new Youth Guarantee Gateway.
Young people will receive earlier and more intensive support, and we owe young people that. As my honourable friend said, this generation is facing and has faced a unique combination of challenges. They're not to blame for the predicament they are in. It is the system that has failed them. And as many honourable members have said, the report found 84% of Neet young people said they want to find a job, education or training. I agree that we need to find a better acronym. The will is there, but it needs to be matched by support and it also needs to be matched by opportunities.
So we are giving employers practical incentives to create them, including the £3,000 Youth Jobs grant and a £2,000 apprenticeship hiring payment. And I remind all honourable members that employers pay zero National Insurance on employees under the age of 21, earning less than £50,000, and our wider reform of employment support matters to the new Jobs and Careers Service will bring together employment skills and career support, with stronger links between employers, local areas and the people looking for work. The objective is simple a service focused not on processing people, but on helping people to find work to build skills and progress.
Personalised support will be at the heart of our approach, helping people access the support that best meets their needs. We've launched new digital tools, expanded community based delivery and strengthened our employer offer. We're also increasing access to work experience and training, which has a critical role to play in breaking that age old cycle of no experience, no job, no job, no experience. My hon. Friend for Paisley and Renfrewshire got her first chance in Yvette's. My Saturday job was working in Bolton's newly opened Superdrug. These are the opportunities that help you to learn what work is like, but we know that far too many young people haven't been getting these sorts of opportunities.
So, as my hon. Friend for North West Leicestershire highlighted, work experience is as if not more important than ever. But where unemployment becomes entrenched, we must go further. That's why the jobs guarantee will offer eligible 18 to 24 year olds who have been claiming Universal Credit and looking for work for 18 months, a fully subsidised six month paid job. And this is already changing lives for the better. In August, the Secretary of State came to Nottingham to Boots to meet young people benefiting from the jobs guarantee. And he has spoken about how remarkable it was to see the transformation in their sense of self-belief and their confidence in the hope they now have for the future.
Well, we're going to see more of that. Following the first phase national rollout of the programme across 25 areas this month, and is expected to support more than 90,000 young people over the next three years. Crucially, we're also extending that opportunity to eligible young disabled people and young people with long term health conditions, and the honourable member for Horsham will be pleased to hear that from April 2027, eligible young people receiving health related benefits will be able to take up the offer voluntarily shortly after their work capability assessment. So they're going to the front of the queue because nobody should be written off because of their health.
Now, through programmes including Connect to Work Work Well, access to work and disability employment advisers, we're bringing employment and health support closer together. Our approach recognises that different people face different combinations of barriers, and that we have to see people in the round and take a joined up approach to how we offer support. We also know we can't solve this challenge only when a young person walks through the Jobcentre door. Prevention must begin much earlier. There's a strong relationship, as people have said, between disengagement from school and becoming Neet later in life. That's why improving attendance is fundamental to our approach.
We've set a national ambition to increase school attendance to over 94% by 2020 829, and was supporting schools through clear expectations, better data and new rise attendance and behaviour hubs. Alongside this, we're fixing the broken Sen system, reforming careers provision so young people have better, greater exposure to the workplace before they leave education. Now, I mentioned earlier how crucial work experience is. That's why our ambition is for every young person to receive two weeks of meaningful workplace experience during secondary school building, progressively through key stages three and four. There are 41 second careers hubs supporting that work, while additional provision is being targeted towards young people who face the greatest barriers briefly.
Young people will receive earlier and more intensive support, and we owe young people that. As my honourable friend said, this generation is facing and has faced a unique combination of challenges. They're not to blame for the predicament they are in. It is the system that has failed them. And as many honourable members have said, the report found 84% of Neet young people said they want to find a job, education or training. I agree that we need to find a better acronym. The will is there, but it needs to be matched by support and it also needs to be matched by opportunities.
So we are giving employers practical incentives to create them, including the £3,000 Youth Jobs grant and a £2,000 apprenticeship hiring payment. And I remind all honourable members that employers pay zero National Insurance on employees under the age of 21, earning less than £50,000, and our wider reform of employment support matters to the new Jobs and Careers Service will bring together employment skills and career support, with stronger links between employers, local areas and the people looking for work. The objective is simple a service focused not on processing people, but on helping people to find work to build skills and progress.
Personalised support will be at the heart of our approach, helping people access the support that best meets their needs. We've launched new digital tools, expanded community based delivery and strengthened our employer offer. We're also increasing access to work experience and training, which has a critical role to play in breaking that age old cycle of no experience, no job, no job, no experience. My hon. Friend for Paisley and Renfrewshire got her first chance in Yvette's. My Saturday job was working in Bolton's newly opened Superdrug. These are the opportunities that help you to learn what work is like, but we know that far too many young people haven't been getting these sorts of opportunities.
So, as my hon. Friend for North West Leicestershire highlighted, work experience is as if not more important than ever. But where unemployment becomes entrenched, we must go further. That's why the jobs guarantee will offer eligible 18 to 24 year olds who have been claiming Universal Credit and looking for work for 18 months, a fully subsidised six month paid job. And this is already changing lives for the better. In August, the Secretary of State came to Nottingham to Boots to meet young people benefiting from the jobs guarantee. And he has spoken about how remarkable it was to see the transformation in their sense of self-belief and their confidence in the hope they now have for the future.
Well, we're going to see more of that. Following the first phase national rollout of the programme across 25 areas this month, and is expected to support more than 90,000 young people over the next three years. Crucially, we're also extending that opportunity to eligible young disabled people and young people with long term health conditions, and the honourable member for Horsham will be pleased to hear that from April 2027, eligible young people receiving health related benefits will be able to take up the offer voluntarily shortly after their work capability assessment. So they're going to the front of the queue because nobody should be written off because of their health.
Now, through programmes including Connect to Work Work Well, access to work and disability employment advisers, we're bringing employment and health support closer together. Our approach recognises that different people face different combinations of barriers, and that we have to see people in the round and take a joined up approach to how we offer support. We also know we can't solve this challenge only when a young person walks through the Jobcentre door. Prevention must begin much earlier. There's a strong relationship, as people have said, between disengagement from school and becoming Neet later in life. That's why improving attendance is fundamental to our approach.
We've set a national ambition to increase school attendance to over 94% by 2020 829, and was supporting schools through clear expectations, better data and new rise attendance and behaviour hubs. Alongside this, we're fixing the broken Sen system, reforming careers provision so young people have better, greater exposure to the workplace before they leave education. Now, I mentioned earlier how crucial work experience is. That's why our ambition is for every young person to receive two weeks of meaningful workplace experience during secondary school building, progressively through key stages three and four. There are 41 second careers hubs supporting that work, while additional provision is being targeted towards young people who face the greatest barriers briefly.
11:53
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
And the aspiration of the work experience is laudable. However, the the guidance that came out in the recent Keeping Children Safe in Education update now requires a young person, if they're spending more than three days in the workplace for that workplace to have a DBS check as part of it being an unregulated activity that puts a significant barrier on a lot of small businesses, particularly those that have previously hosted young people who now have to go through this burden of getting a check. Could she take that back to the department and work with DfE to find a way of ironing out that kink, so we keep children safe, but don't preclude the opportunities that they previously had?
11:53
11:53
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I'm sure, my honourable friend, that that is an issue we are aware of and we are setting about addressing it. So alongside that, we're reforming post 16 education so young people can have clearer academic, technical and vocational routes. We're transforming the apprenticeship levy back by an additional £1 billion, supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New foundation apprenticeships, fully funded apprenticeships for eligible UN 25 and additional support for employers will all create more routes into skilled employment. And, as my honourable friend for Basingstoke rightly said, the skills needs are changing in a world of AI.
Miss McVey these reforms represent significant action, but we recognise that the government must continue to listen and learn. Alan Milburn's interim report set out starkly the scale and complexity of the participation challenge facing this generation. Our ambition is straightforward. Wherever a young person starts, from whatever barriers they face, they should have a genuine route into education, training or good work. And I hope that reassures my hon. Friend for Stoke on Trent Central. It means intervening earlier. It means joining up services across departmental boundaries. As my hon. Friend for Birmingham Selly Oak said, it means working with employers, colleges and local organisations like that.
Those highlighted by many, many honourable members, including Saints Works in Southampton, the spear programme in York and making it in Aylesbury. Because, as my hon. Friend for Southport said, a place place based solutions show great results and it means refusing to accept that any young person is destined to remain outside opportunity. And I should have said it also means better public transport, especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend for Hexham and Derbyshire Dales emphasised, because tackling the Nietzsche.
I won't because I'm a bit short on no I can't. Go ahead.
Miss McVey these reforms represent significant action, but we recognise that the government must continue to listen and learn. Alan Milburn's interim report set out starkly the scale and complexity of the participation challenge facing this generation. Our ambition is straightforward. Wherever a young person starts, from whatever barriers they face, they should have a genuine route into education, training or good work. And I hope that reassures my hon. Friend for Stoke on Trent Central. It means intervening earlier. It means joining up services across departmental boundaries. As my hon. Friend for Birmingham Selly Oak said, it means working with employers, colleges and local organisations like that.
Those highlighted by many, many honourable members, including Saints Works in Southampton, the spear programme in York and making it in Aylesbury. Because, as my hon. Friend for Southport said, a place place based solutions show great results and it means refusing to accept that any young person is destined to remain outside opportunity. And I should have said it also means better public transport, especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend for Hexham and Derbyshire Dales emphasised, because tackling the Nietzsche.
I won't because I'm a bit short on no I can't. Go ahead.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Minister giving way. It's worth noting that 13% of NEETs are actually university graduates, and I'm meeting so many people who've just graduated with good degrees from good universities who are applying for over 300 jobs and not even getting a response. There's very little talk about support for graduates, and we're very disappointed that in the budget, there's no mention of reforming of the student loan system that is adding pressure to these graduates. Will the minister assure us that the government is looking at the student loan system?
11:53
11:53
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Well, I can assure him that we are considering the the issues for graduates as well as for younger young people who are leaving school with lower levels of qualifications. So tackling the Neet challenge is not only an economic imperative. Important as that is, it is about fairness. It's about aspiration. And it's ensuring that every young person has the chance to build a better future. We look forward to the publication of the final Young People and Work Report in the coming weeks. Its findings will provide an important opportunity to consider what more must be done to address the challenges facing young people today, and to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to participate, to progress and to thrive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Honourable members for coming today for their valuable contributions. and sharing their experiences and the work that's going on in their areas. I think it's by doing that, that is what is so vital, because we can all learn from each other and take this forward. And I also want to thank the Minister as well, my hon. Friend the Minister and the spokespeople from the other parties for their responses. You know, the number of people here today and contributing just shows how important this is across the UK. We're at an important moment coming up when the Milburn Report is published, and how we respond to it here is vital.
It's going to define our country and our legacy here for many years into the future, and it's going to need all of us to fix this, and I hope we can work across the House and beyond to do that. You know, it's quite clear from everyone's contributions here today that we need a whole system approach covering things such as transport, the economic approach, the early intervention that local design and delivery, and so many other things that other, other. The honourable members have mentioned. So once again, thank you all for today's debate and contributing. And thank you, miss McVey.
Thank you.
It's going to define our country and our legacy here for many years into the future, and it's going to need all of us to fix this, and I hope we can work across the House and beyond to do that. You know, it's quite clear from everyone's contributions here today that we need a whole system approach covering things such as transport, the economic approach, the early intervention that local design and delivery, and so many other things that other, other. The honourable members have mentioned. So once again, thank you all for today's debate and contributing. And thank you, miss McVey.
Thank you.
11:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that this House has considered the findings of the Milburn Review into Young People and Work interim report published on the 28th of May 2026. As many of that opinion say, I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order! Order! Or Aphra Brandreth to move the motion.
11:53
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
I beg to move that. This House has considered prevention and public awareness of strangulation. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, miss McVey. 27% of women killed by men in the UK were strangled to death. That is a shocking statistic and one that should concern us all. But behind the statistics are the stories of victims and survivors, many of whom have bravely shared their experiences. I want to recognise their courage today and thank everyone who has helped to bring this issue to Parliament, particularly the Institute for Addressing Strangulation. One of the reasons I'm grateful to have secured this debate is that far too few people understand how prevalent non-fatal strangulation is, or the devastating harm it can cause.
But let me start where I believe we must begin by listening to survivors. Last month, I attended the Ifa's conference where I met an inspirational woman who I will call Rose to protect her identity. I want to share her story because it brings home far more powerfully than any statistic could. The devastating impact strangulation can have on someone's life, not just in the moment, but for many years afterwards. In 2021, Rose was raped in an ordeal that lasted several hours. During this already horrific attack, she was also subjected to strangulation. It was the moment she thought that she was going to die.
As Rose herself explained, the strangulation was not a minor detail within the attack. It was central to the violence that she experienced. In the aftermath, Rose sought medical help at several hospitals but struggled to obtain an appropriate assessment, having her injuries documented or received the compassionate, trauma informed care she so desperately needed. At one hospital, she waited alone for hours before eventually leaving. At another, her request for photographs of her injuries was not acted upon, and she was questioned about why she had not reported the rape. Rose had already endured a horrific attack. Yet when she turned to the very services that should have helped her, she was left feeling dismissed and unsupported, and the consequences of that failure were significant.
Rose waited almost a month before reporting the attack to the police. Even today,
But let me start where I believe we must begin by listening to survivors. Last month, I attended the Ifa's conference where I met an inspirational woman who I will call Rose to protect her identity. I want to share her story because it brings home far more powerfully than any statistic could. The devastating impact strangulation can have on someone's life, not just in the moment, but for many years afterwards. In 2021, Rose was raped in an ordeal that lasted several hours. During this already horrific attack, she was also subjected to strangulation. It was the moment she thought that she was going to die.
As Rose herself explained, the strangulation was not a minor detail within the attack. It was central to the violence that she experienced. In the aftermath, Rose sought medical help at several hospitals but struggled to obtain an appropriate assessment, having her injuries documented or received the compassionate, trauma informed care she so desperately needed. At one hospital, she waited alone for hours before eventually leaving. At another, her request for photographs of her injuries was not acted upon, and she was questioned about why she had not reported the rape. Rose had already endured a horrific attack. Yet when she turned to the very services that should have helped her, she was left feeling dismissed and unsupported, and the consequences of that failure were significant.
Rose waited almost a month before reporting the attack to the police. Even today,
11:53
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
First of all, can I commend the honourable lady for bringing this incredibly sensitive and difficult subject for consideration? We in Northern Ireland, of course, have brought in the legislation for a standalone criminal offence back in 2022, carrying a sentence of up to 14 years. This is a terrifying, accurate indicator of escalating abuse and potential lethality. But does my honourable friend and I believe she has a friend that we are truly to protect victims. Government must work hand in hand with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and support local charities to launch a robust, targeted public awareness campaign ensuring that healthcare workers, police officers and victims themselves can recognise the signs of non-fatal strangulation before it turns fatal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
Thank you. The honourable member makes an important point, and I will come on later in my speech to the work that's already happened in Northern Ireland to raise awareness. But certainly there is much more that needs to be done. Just to return to Rose and her story and the message that she gives us today, which is really clear, do not wait for a perfect disclosure, a police report or visible injury to take strangulation seriously. Miss McVey, I do want to recognise the positive steps that have been taken to recognise the seriousness of this offence. The introduction of a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation and suffocation under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important step taken by the previous conservative government.
It recognised that strangulation should be treated as a serious crime in its own right, but legislation is only part of the answer. My question to the minister is whether it is working effectively in practice, and whether we are doing enough to close the gaps between healthcare, safeguarding and criminal justice that failed victims like Rose. Chair Rose's experience is sadly far from an isolated case. Strangulation is reported in around 1 in 5 rapes and sexual assaults, but it is also a particularly serious and dangerous form of domestic abuse, with a quarter of women accessing domestic abuse, community and refuge services reporting having experienced strangulation or suffocation.
What makes this particularly frightening is that strangulation is also a major warning sign of potentially fatal violence. Research has found that women who have experienced strangulation by an intimate partner face around seven times the odds of being killed by that partner. That is why strangulation must be treated as a red line. It is not simply another act of violence. It is a warning sign that must be recognised and acted upon before it is too late. Chair, I want to pay tribute to the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, led by Bernie Ryan, which has worked tirelessly to give victims a voice and improve our understanding of this crime.
IFAs has made an invaluable contribution to improving recognition of strangulation and the response to those who experience it, and the evidence it has uncovered is staggering. Between June 2024 and June 2025, police recorded 44,426 strangulation and suffocation offences in England and Wales, up 13% on the previous year and 87% since the standalone offence was introduced in 2022. Some of that increase may reflect better recognition and reporting, which is welcome, but we must not lose sight of what these figures represent. Behind every recorded offence is a victim of an extremely dangerous act of violence. And for too many women, strangulation forms part of a wider pattern of domestic abuse and coercive control, with potentially devastating consequences.
Chair, the government has set itself the ambition of halving violence against women and girls, and that is an ambition I am sure members across this House will want to see achieved. But if we are serious about preventing violence against women and girls, we must be serious about recognising strangulation as one of the clearest warning signs of potentially fatal abuse. That means recognising it early, supporting victims and ensuring police, healthcare and safeguarding professionals understand the risks and act because this is not just about securing justice after a crime has been committed, it is about preventing further violence and potentially saving lives.
IFAs has done remarkable work since the standalone offence came into force in June 2022, and I hope that the Minister has read their recent impact report, which sets out clearly what still needs to change. Let me start with the medical response to understand why this is so important. We need to understand what strangulation actually does to the body. Strangulation can restrict the flow of blood to and from the brain. It can cause hypoxia, brain injury, and stroke with symptoms that may not become apparent until after the attack. For pregnant women, it can also have serious consequences for their pregnancy and their unborn baby, and it can leave lasting psychological scars that survivors carry for years.
Yet in many cases, there are no visible signs of injury at all. That means a woman who walks into A&E, looking on the surface as though she is fine may be anything but. If our response depends on what can be seen, we will continue to fail. Women who need help. I recently met my constituent doctor, Helen Bershad, a clinical neuropsychologist whose research includes the effects of non-fatal strangulation. What she made clear is that healthcare professionals need the right guidance and training to recognise the danger and to respond with the compassion that someone like Rose was denied.
So I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on how we can ensure that happens consistently across healthcare services. But there is also an inequality at the heart of the current system that must be addressed. If a woman is strangled during a rape or sexual assault, she may be able to access a sexual assault referral centre with specialist medical, psychological and forensic support. But if a woman is strangled by her partner in her own kitchen without sexual assault, she does not necessarily have access to the same care or to forensic medical examination. The medical risk doesn't disappear because of the circumstances in which the attack took place, and nor should a woman's access to proper assessment, documentation of her injuries and ongoing support.
That is why I support Ifa's call for a national pathway so that wherever a victim first seeks help, they can access the care and support they need. And I would welcome the minister's response to that proposal. The same applies to the criminal justice system. Now that non-fatal strangulation is a standalone offence. We must ensure the police have the training and resources to investigate it effectively. So can the minister update us on how the government is assessing its implementation, and what more is being done to improve consistency in police investigations and evidence collection? Miss McVeigh. Improving our response to offences that have already happened is vital, but we must also stop them happening in the first place.
And that means confronting an uncomfortable truth. Strangulation is increasingly being normalised. Young people are encountering depictions of strangulation through pornography and social media, often without the information they need to understand the very real dangers involved. We need to get the message across. There is no safe way to strangle. And sadly, it's not only pornography where strangulation is being portrayed in ways that risk normalising it. This year, the BBC broadcast Romania's Eurovision entry, a song called Choke Me, in which the phrase is repeated around 30 times. I find it deeply troubling that a song appearing to glamorise Such a Dangerous act was broadcast into family living rooms across the country, and I am particularly disappointed that the BBC, funded by licence fee payers, did not heed the concerns raised about the dangerous message this song could send.
I want to be clear this is not about censorship, it is about the messages we are sending to young people and whether we are doing enough to educate them about the very real dangers of strangulation. I first research found that among sexually experienced 16 to 34 year olds, almost two thirds reported having been strangled during sex. That is a deeply concerning finding. We need to be talking to young people about healthy relationships, making sure they understand the very real risks of strangulation. Our public institutions have a responsibility to take these issues seriously, and I would ask the minister whether the government will raise concerns about the portrayal and normalisation of strangulation with broadcasters.
Chair, this debate is particularly timely because this Friday, new criminal offences will come into force in England and Wales, making it illegal to possess or publish pornographic material depicting strangulation or suffocation. I very much welcome this change, which follows important work of Baroness Burton and her review of pornography regulation. But legislation must be effective in practice. So can I ask the Minister how the government intends to ensure that these new offences are enforced alongside education, legislation and education? We need to raise public awareness more widely. When Northern Ireland changed its law, it ran a broadcast and poster campaign so that the public understood what had changed and why.
Yet there has been no equivalent national campaign in England and Wales. A well-targeted public awareness campaign could help challenge dangerous misconceptions, encourage victims to seek help and make sure people understand the risks. Will the minister commit to that today? Finally, miss McVeigh, let me turn to the future of IFAs itself and let me acknowledge the minister's letter, which arrived as if almost by magic yesterday. I welcome her commitment to meet with IFAs and discuss its future sustainability and funding opportunities, but unfortunately, there was no commitment to continued funding, let alone the long term certainty that IFAs needs.
Since October 2022, IFAs has brought together clinical forensic research and policy expertise that simply did not exist in this form before. The government has invested more than £2.1 million in that work, and I believe it has been money very well spent, but it has been kept going on short term funding arrangements, sometimes for as little as six months at a time and with very little notice. No small specialist organisation can retain staff, plan its work or protect hard won expertise under that kind of uncertainty. We have invested in building up this expertise. Surely we cannot now allow it to be lost.
That would not just be a loss for IFAs. It would be a loss for the victims who depend on better awareness, better training and better support, and for the police officers, healthcare professionals and others who rely on its expertise to help them do their jobs effectively. So while the minister's letter did not provide the reassurance I had hoped for, I'd like to give her another opportunity today. Having heard the evidence. Will she commit to working with IFAs to secure the long term funding it needs to continue its vital work? Chair, I want to finish by returning to Will to where I began.
Rose survived. She found the strength to tell her story and the courage to share it, so that others might be spared what she went through. She should never have had to fight to be believed , and the next woman should not have to. I also want to say to anyone who is listening , who has experienced strangulation, please do seek help. There are organizations that can support you. You don't have to wait until you have visible injuries or have reported a crime to seek medical advice and support. Miss McVeigh, the previous conservative government, took an important step by making non-fatal strangulation a standalone offence.
We must not lose the momentum that legislation created. We have recognised the seriousness of strangulation in law. Now we must make sure that that recognition makes a difference in people's lives. Thank you.
It recognised that strangulation should be treated as a serious crime in its own right, but legislation is only part of the answer. My question to the minister is whether it is working effectively in practice, and whether we are doing enough to close the gaps between healthcare, safeguarding and criminal justice that failed victims like Rose. Chair Rose's experience is sadly far from an isolated case. Strangulation is reported in around 1 in 5 rapes and sexual assaults, but it is also a particularly serious and dangerous form of domestic abuse, with a quarter of women accessing domestic abuse, community and refuge services reporting having experienced strangulation or suffocation.
What makes this particularly frightening is that strangulation is also a major warning sign of potentially fatal violence. Research has found that women who have experienced strangulation by an intimate partner face around seven times the odds of being killed by that partner. That is why strangulation must be treated as a red line. It is not simply another act of violence. It is a warning sign that must be recognised and acted upon before it is too late. Chair, I want to pay tribute to the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, led by Bernie Ryan, which has worked tirelessly to give victims a voice and improve our understanding of this crime.
IFAs has made an invaluable contribution to improving recognition of strangulation and the response to those who experience it, and the evidence it has uncovered is staggering. Between June 2024 and June 2025, police recorded 44,426 strangulation and suffocation offences in England and Wales, up 13% on the previous year and 87% since the standalone offence was introduced in 2022. Some of that increase may reflect better recognition and reporting, which is welcome, but we must not lose sight of what these figures represent. Behind every recorded offence is a victim of an extremely dangerous act of violence. And for too many women, strangulation forms part of a wider pattern of domestic abuse and coercive control, with potentially devastating consequences.
Chair, the government has set itself the ambition of halving violence against women and girls, and that is an ambition I am sure members across this House will want to see achieved. But if we are serious about preventing violence against women and girls, we must be serious about recognising strangulation as one of the clearest warning signs of potentially fatal abuse. That means recognising it early, supporting victims and ensuring police, healthcare and safeguarding professionals understand the risks and act because this is not just about securing justice after a crime has been committed, it is about preventing further violence and potentially saving lives.
IFAs has done remarkable work since the standalone offence came into force in June 2022, and I hope that the Minister has read their recent impact report, which sets out clearly what still needs to change. Let me start with the medical response to understand why this is so important. We need to understand what strangulation actually does to the body. Strangulation can restrict the flow of blood to and from the brain. It can cause hypoxia, brain injury, and stroke with symptoms that may not become apparent until after the attack. For pregnant women, it can also have serious consequences for their pregnancy and their unborn baby, and it can leave lasting psychological scars that survivors carry for years.
Yet in many cases, there are no visible signs of injury at all. That means a woman who walks into A&E, looking on the surface as though she is fine may be anything but. If our response depends on what can be seen, we will continue to fail. Women who need help. I recently met my constituent doctor, Helen Bershad, a clinical neuropsychologist whose research includes the effects of non-fatal strangulation. What she made clear is that healthcare professionals need the right guidance and training to recognise the danger and to respond with the compassion that someone like Rose was denied.
So I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on how we can ensure that happens consistently across healthcare services. But there is also an inequality at the heart of the current system that must be addressed. If a woman is strangled during a rape or sexual assault, she may be able to access a sexual assault referral centre with specialist medical, psychological and forensic support. But if a woman is strangled by her partner in her own kitchen without sexual assault, she does not necessarily have access to the same care or to forensic medical examination. The medical risk doesn't disappear because of the circumstances in which the attack took place, and nor should a woman's access to proper assessment, documentation of her injuries and ongoing support.
That is why I support Ifa's call for a national pathway so that wherever a victim first seeks help, they can access the care and support they need. And I would welcome the minister's response to that proposal. The same applies to the criminal justice system. Now that non-fatal strangulation is a standalone offence. We must ensure the police have the training and resources to investigate it effectively. So can the minister update us on how the government is assessing its implementation, and what more is being done to improve consistency in police investigations and evidence collection? Miss McVeigh. Improving our response to offences that have already happened is vital, but we must also stop them happening in the first place.
And that means confronting an uncomfortable truth. Strangulation is increasingly being normalised. Young people are encountering depictions of strangulation through pornography and social media, often without the information they need to understand the very real dangers involved. We need to get the message across. There is no safe way to strangle. And sadly, it's not only pornography where strangulation is being portrayed in ways that risk normalising it. This year, the BBC broadcast Romania's Eurovision entry, a song called Choke Me, in which the phrase is repeated around 30 times. I find it deeply troubling that a song appearing to glamorise Such a Dangerous act was broadcast into family living rooms across the country, and I am particularly disappointed that the BBC, funded by licence fee payers, did not heed the concerns raised about the dangerous message this song could send.
I want to be clear this is not about censorship, it is about the messages we are sending to young people and whether we are doing enough to educate them about the very real dangers of strangulation. I first research found that among sexually experienced 16 to 34 year olds, almost two thirds reported having been strangled during sex. That is a deeply concerning finding. We need to be talking to young people about healthy relationships, making sure they understand the very real risks of strangulation. Our public institutions have a responsibility to take these issues seriously, and I would ask the minister whether the government will raise concerns about the portrayal and normalisation of strangulation with broadcasters.
Chair, this debate is particularly timely because this Friday, new criminal offences will come into force in England and Wales, making it illegal to possess or publish pornographic material depicting strangulation or suffocation. I very much welcome this change, which follows important work of Baroness Burton and her review of pornography regulation. But legislation must be effective in practice. So can I ask the Minister how the government intends to ensure that these new offences are enforced alongside education, legislation and education? We need to raise public awareness more widely. When Northern Ireland changed its law, it ran a broadcast and poster campaign so that the public understood what had changed and why.
Yet there has been no equivalent national campaign in England and Wales. A well-targeted public awareness campaign could help challenge dangerous misconceptions, encourage victims to seek help and make sure people understand the risks. Will the minister commit to that today? Finally, miss McVeigh, let me turn to the future of IFAs itself and let me acknowledge the minister's letter, which arrived as if almost by magic yesterday. I welcome her commitment to meet with IFAs and discuss its future sustainability and funding opportunities, but unfortunately, there was no commitment to continued funding, let alone the long term certainty that IFAs needs.
Since October 2022, IFAs has brought together clinical forensic research and policy expertise that simply did not exist in this form before. The government has invested more than £2.1 million in that work, and I believe it has been money very well spent, but it has been kept going on short term funding arrangements, sometimes for as little as six months at a time and with very little notice. No small specialist organisation can retain staff, plan its work or protect hard won expertise under that kind of uncertainty. We have invested in building up this expertise. Surely we cannot now allow it to be lost.
That would not just be a loss for IFAs. It would be a loss for the victims who depend on better awareness, better training and better support, and for the police officers, healthcare professionals and others who rely on its expertise to help them do their jobs effectively. So while the minister's letter did not provide the reassurance I had hoped for, I'd like to give her another opportunity today. Having heard the evidence. Will she commit to working with IFAs to secure the long term funding it needs to continue its vital work? Chair, I want to finish by returning to Will to where I began.
Rose survived. She found the strength to tell her story and the courage to share it, so that others might be spared what she went through. She should never have had to fight to be believed , and the next woman should not have to. I also want to say to anyone who is listening , who has experienced strangulation, please do seek help. There are organizations that can support you. You don't have to wait until you have visible injuries or have reported a crime to seek medical advice and support. Miss McVeigh, the previous conservative government, took an important step by making non-fatal strangulation a standalone offence.
We must not lose the momentum that legislation created. We have recognised the seriousness of strangulation in law. Now we must make sure that that recognition makes a difference in people's lives. Thank you.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Miss McVeigh, I would like to start by thanking my honourable friend, the member for Chester South and Eddisbury, for securing this important debate , alongside her tireless efforts in advocating for more prevention of strangulation and raising public awareness of the risks it poses. I am. Oh, I was going to. I was going to thank the the the member for Strangford, but sadly, he's left for also his contribution to this debate as well. Before addressing the many points you raise, I did want to agree with you on why tackling this matters.
This government has committed, like you said, to halving violence against women and girls within a decade , and improving our response to strangulation forms an important part of that mission. Like she says, it means recognising it early, supporting victims and allowing professionals to know the early signs. We know strangulation is a life threatening form of violence and abuse, and non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest indicators of future serious violence and domestic homicide. The scale of the challenge is vast. She mentioned the statistics around 44,000 strangulation offences recorded last year alone, up 13% from last year, with research suggesting over half of young people aged between 16 and 25 having experienced strangulation or suffocation.
I thought nothing could shock me in this job anymore and that definitely did. With concerning concerning evidence showing that strangulation now becoming more normalized among young people. To let me be clear, there is no safe way to strangle. We know, as she rightfully highlights, behind every one of those statistics is a victim. A victim living in fear, a victim dealing with trauma, a victim whose life has been put at risk. I wanted to thank the member for sharing Rose's story, and for her bravery in coming forward to share it as well. It is shocking and unacceptable what she experienced, and clearly those failures must be addressed and acted on.
We also know that victims may experience serious physical and psychological consequences without displaying obvious signs of injury. Opportunities to identify risks can therefore be missed and victims left without the support they need, as she rightfully said. This is why prevention and public awareness are so important. And to reassure the member that this government is taking action that is focused on prevention, but also, as she rightly states, legislation alone isn't enough. So including that must include education, healthcare and the criminal justice system to prevent and tackle strangulation. On the question of prevention, we are challenging harmful attitudes and behaviours that can underpin violence against women and girls through our enough campaign, which is raising awareness of this abuse, I'm happy to send a more information of the campaign.
We are also supporting young people in and out of schools to understand healthy and respectful relationships through strengthening statutory relationships, sex and health education guidance, which now includes specific teaching on strangulation and suffocation, which will be part of the school curriculum and will be financially supported. As she rightfully said, it's so vitally important that we get to children early. This Friday, she will know new offences criminalising the possession and publication of pornography depicting acts of strangulation will come into force. We are taking decisive action to challenge content that can contribute to the normalisation of dangerous and abusive behaviors.
The member mentioned health. We are improving the identification of domestic abuse and sexual violence within healthcare settings through the NHS Steps to Safety Programme, helping to ensure victims are connected to specialist support at the earliest opportunity. She mentioned some really powerful examples of how it got missed, and hopefully the rollout of steps to safety can act as a preventative measure so we can get to victims as early as possible. We are also helping to improve research, professional training, clinical guidance and public awareness through our support of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation since since its inception, which has become an important centre for expertise, I will come on to funding with them in a minute.
On justice, she mentioned the importance of it, and I'd like to add that bringing perpetrators to justice, even where there is no visible injury, through the standalone offence of strangulation and suffocation, police can already use domestic violence protection notices and orders to provide immediate protection following violence or threat of violence, including strangulation. I am pleased to say that by the end of this year, we will strengthen those protections through the rollout of the new Domestic abuse protection notices and orders, which can provide longer term and more flexible protections against all forms of domestic abuse, including strangulation.
And I wanted to add how an important part of that is multi-agency working, because she rightly identifies this is more than just the police doing their part, but everybody really focused around the victim and how to support their needs most. We know there is more to do. Preventing abuse requires awareness, early intervention and a coordinated response across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services. So hopefully that multi-agency work that we're bedding in will make a difference. In response to questions around policing, she will be aware that we are introducing specialist teams to every single police force across the country, and hopefully the domestic abuse protection orders that sit alongside .
That will only go further in encouraging victims and survivors to come forward, but also be taken seriously. Because I've heard far too often, as I'm sure she has as well, that too often they don't come forward because they don't think they're going to be believed. And hopefully we can turn a corner with that. In direct response to her comments on the institute. The member of Chester South Aylesbury mentions the important work of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation. I agree on how invaluable their work in this space has been, and the government is proud to have supported them since their inception.
Investing, as she says, over £2 million in strengthening research, improving professional practice and raising awareness of this issue. Through that support, the Institute has become a recognised centre of expertise on strangulation, helping to improve understanding of these crimes across healthcare, policing and the criminal justice system, while providing training to more than 22,000 frontline professionals. On funding. In particular, she will know and hopefully understand that I cannot comment on funding arrangements being currently considered. What I can say is that I support her analysis of the exceptional good work that they do, and I will push for those decisions to be made as soon as possible, so that we can offer the certainty that they so desperately need to close.
Miss McVeigh, I would again like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Chester South and Aylesbury for securing this important debate. And before this debate, I offered a meeting, and I'm more than happy to follow up on that, to talk about this further. This debate highlighted both the progress that has been made, but also, rightly, the challenges that still remain. We know that strangulation is a serious and potentially life threatening form of abuse. We know that its impacts are often hidden. We know that improving awareness, identifying risks early and strengthening support for victims can save lives.
While progress has been made through the introduction of a standalone offence, improving professional awareness and the work of organisations such as the IFAS, there is more to do. We must continue to improve understanding of the risks associated with strangulation. We must continue to challenge the attitudes that can normalise this abuse. We must continue to be working across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services to ensure that victims receive the support they need and deserve. Although it is action rather than words, that will ultimately make the difference. Debates such as this one provide an important opportunity for us to review our commitment to working together across political parties.
Hopefully, sectors and services victims deserve nothing less, and by doing so, we can improve awareness, prevent harm, support victims and help ensure that this dangerous form of abuse is recognised, challenged and addressed wherever it occurs. Thank you.
This government has committed, like you said, to halving violence against women and girls within a decade , and improving our response to strangulation forms an important part of that mission. Like she says, it means recognising it early, supporting victims and allowing professionals to know the early signs. We know strangulation is a life threatening form of violence and abuse, and non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest indicators of future serious violence and domestic homicide. The scale of the challenge is vast. She mentioned the statistics around 44,000 strangulation offences recorded last year alone, up 13% from last year, with research suggesting over half of young people aged between 16 and 25 having experienced strangulation or suffocation.
I thought nothing could shock me in this job anymore and that definitely did. With concerning concerning evidence showing that strangulation now becoming more normalized among young people. To let me be clear, there is no safe way to strangle. We know, as she rightfully highlights, behind every one of those statistics is a victim. A victim living in fear, a victim dealing with trauma, a victim whose life has been put at risk. I wanted to thank the member for sharing Rose's story, and for her bravery in coming forward to share it as well. It is shocking and unacceptable what she experienced, and clearly those failures must be addressed and acted on.
We also know that victims may experience serious physical and psychological consequences without displaying obvious signs of injury. Opportunities to identify risks can therefore be missed and victims left without the support they need, as she rightfully said. This is why prevention and public awareness are so important. And to reassure the member that this government is taking action that is focused on prevention, but also, as she rightly states, legislation alone isn't enough. So including that must include education, healthcare and the criminal justice system to prevent and tackle strangulation. On the question of prevention, we are challenging harmful attitudes and behaviours that can underpin violence against women and girls through our enough campaign, which is raising awareness of this abuse, I'm happy to send a more information of the campaign.
We are also supporting young people in and out of schools to understand healthy and respectful relationships through strengthening statutory relationships, sex and health education guidance, which now includes specific teaching on strangulation and suffocation, which will be part of the school curriculum and will be financially supported. As she rightfully said, it's so vitally important that we get to children early. This Friday, she will know new offences criminalising the possession and publication of pornography depicting acts of strangulation will come into force. We are taking decisive action to challenge content that can contribute to the normalisation of dangerous and abusive behaviors.
The member mentioned health. We are improving the identification of domestic abuse and sexual violence within healthcare settings through the NHS Steps to Safety Programme, helping to ensure victims are connected to specialist support at the earliest opportunity. She mentioned some really powerful examples of how it got missed, and hopefully the rollout of steps to safety can act as a preventative measure so we can get to victims as early as possible. We are also helping to improve research, professional training, clinical guidance and public awareness through our support of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation since since its inception, which has become an important centre for expertise, I will come on to funding with them in a minute.
On justice, she mentioned the importance of it, and I'd like to add that bringing perpetrators to justice, even where there is no visible injury, through the standalone offence of strangulation and suffocation, police can already use domestic violence protection notices and orders to provide immediate protection following violence or threat of violence, including strangulation. I am pleased to say that by the end of this year, we will strengthen those protections through the rollout of the new Domestic abuse protection notices and orders, which can provide longer term and more flexible protections against all forms of domestic abuse, including strangulation.
And I wanted to add how an important part of that is multi-agency working, because she rightly identifies this is more than just the police doing their part, but everybody really focused around the victim and how to support their needs most. We know there is more to do. Preventing abuse requires awareness, early intervention and a coordinated response across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services. So hopefully that multi-agency work that we're bedding in will make a difference. In response to questions around policing, she will be aware that we are introducing specialist teams to every single police force across the country, and hopefully the domestic abuse protection orders that sit alongside .
That will only go further in encouraging victims and survivors to come forward, but also be taken seriously. Because I've heard far too often, as I'm sure she has as well, that too often they don't come forward because they don't think they're going to be believed. And hopefully we can turn a corner with that. In direct response to her comments on the institute. The member of Chester South Aylesbury mentions the important work of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation. I agree on how invaluable their work in this space has been, and the government is proud to have supported them since their inception.
Investing, as she says, over £2 million in strengthening research, improving professional practice and raising awareness of this issue. Through that support, the Institute has become a recognised centre of expertise on strangulation, helping to improve understanding of these crimes across healthcare, policing and the criminal justice system, while providing training to more than 22,000 frontline professionals. On funding. In particular, she will know and hopefully understand that I cannot comment on funding arrangements being currently considered. What I can say is that I support her analysis of the exceptional good work that they do, and I will push for those decisions to be made as soon as possible, so that we can offer the certainty that they so desperately need to close.
Miss McVeigh, I would again like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Chester South and Aylesbury for securing this important debate. And before this debate, I offered a meeting, and I'm more than happy to follow up on that, to talk about this further. This debate highlighted both the progress that has been made, but also, rightly, the challenges that still remain. We know that strangulation is a serious and potentially life threatening form of abuse. We know that its impacts are often hidden. We know that improving awareness, identifying risks early and strengthening support for victims can save lives.
While progress has been made through the introduction of a standalone offence, improving professional awareness and the work of organisations such as the IFAS, there is more to do. We must continue to improve understanding of the risks associated with strangulation. We must continue to challenge the attitudes that can normalise this abuse. We must continue to be working across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services to ensure that victims receive the support they need and deserve. Although it is action rather than words, that will ultimately make the difference. Debates such as this one provide an important opportunity for us to review our commitment to working together across political parties.
Hopefully, sectors and services victims deserve nothing less, and by doing so, we can improve awareness, prevent harm, support victims and help ensure that this dangerous form of abuse is recognised, challenged and addressed wherever it occurs. Thank you.
11:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that this House has considered the prevention and public awareness of strangulation, as many of that opinion say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order, order! The sitting is suspended until 230. My constituency. I suspect that honourable members will have come to this debate with a huge range of weathers in mind, and I'm sure we'll be hearing something akin to the ten plagues of Egypt this afternoon, reflecting the diversity of our great nation. And I suspect that for many passengers on the chase line, the turning of the seasons into the warmer months now brings a familiar question Will the train make it to Rugeley?
That's not quite the seasonal tradition people have in mind. We might have hoped for a little sunshine, a trip away or an afternoon in the garden, but we now will probably have to check whether or not we can get a train home. Passengers along the chase line know the problem well. As temperatures rise, delays and cancellations become more frequent. Services are cancelled at short notice, journeys are cut short and the trains that do run are often overcrowded. And when they do run, services are often halted at Hednesford, with the dreaded rail replacement bus completing the journey to Rugeley Town and Rugeley Trent Valley stations.
My constituent Alan, who heads the Chase Line rail promotion group, rightly asked me to tell the House that for many months this year, trains were not reaching Rugeley for much of the day. At best, services were cut from half hourly to hourly, and passengers often didn't even know where to catch the bus. As honourable members will have heard from their constituents, missing a train is not just an inconvenience, as the tannoy often says, it can mean missing an appointment, arriving late for work or having even to lean on friends and family just to get home after a long day.
I want you to make sure. Yes, I will give way in a way, especially for starting this debate so powerfully. Does the honourable.
That's not quite the seasonal tradition people have in mind. We might have hoped for a little sunshine, a trip away or an afternoon in the garden, but we now will probably have to check whether or not we can get a train home. Passengers along the chase line know the problem well. As temperatures rise, delays and cancellations become more frequent. Services are cancelled at short notice, journeys are cut short and the trains that do run are often overcrowded. And when they do run, services are often halted at Hednesford, with the dreaded rail replacement bus completing the journey to Rugeley Town and Rugeley Trent Valley stations.
My constituent Alan, who heads the Chase Line rail promotion group, rightly asked me to tell the House that for many months this year, trains were not reaching Rugeley for much of the day. At best, services were cut from half hourly to hourly, and passengers often didn't even know where to catch the bus. As honourable members will have heard from their constituents, missing a train is not just an inconvenience, as the tannoy often says, it can mean missing an appointment, arriving late for work or having even to lean on friends and family just to get home after a long day.
I want you to make sure. Yes, I will give way in a way, especially for starting this debate so powerfully. Does the honourable.
14:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Member agree with me that during July heatwave, the service between East Midlands Railway service between Leicester and Nottingham ran directly and didn't stop in between because the. On the tannoy he said, it was simply too hot. Therefore, people. Students. Businesses cannot revolve around a service that works that way.
14:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable gentleman for raising that point. Having grown up myself in Leicestershire, I'm familiar with the line that he talked about and I think there we have another example of how hot weather can affect train journeys. I'll describe in detail how it affects my constituency, but he is very right to raise how it's affecting his constituents. And for those who need to stop off on that line, perhaps somewhere like Loughborough, they're massively impacted by that and that can really impact people's lives in a way that only they know. But I think we we should raise in this House.
So he's right to do so. And I wanted to make sure, Mr. Jardine, that my constituents experiences were heard directly in this debate, and my office ran a survey of people who used the chase line regularly. And the responses covered all sorts of journeys, people going to work, students getting to college, and families trying to get their children where they need to be. I want to share a few of them . Today, Rosie told us that her regular 8 a.m. journey from Hednesford to Walsall for college. She said that delays and cancellations have meant arriving late and missing lessons.
Replacement buses make any journey much longer and on some occasions she's had to spend around £22 on an Uber just to get there on time. She told us that she sometimes only found out about cancellations after buying her ticket, and then struggled to get a refund. Another respondent told us about their son travelling to college in Stafford. There's no direct bus from where they live, so the train is the only practical way for him to get there. Both parents work so they can't drop everything to drive him in when the train is cancelled. Emma also raised the importance of the Hednesford to Rugeley Trent Valley connection for children who travel onto Stafford.
There's no direct bus alternative for that journey either. Without the train. How are those students supposed to get to college? What do those aborted journeys mean for their futures? The impact on people travelling to work is just as clear. Jack commutes from Cannock or Hednesford to Birmingham New Street. He described repeated delays and serious overcrowding, particularly at peak times during hot weather. He told me two loads of passengers were two train loads of passengers were often squeezed onto one service. He wants to see more frequent services during the morning and evening peaks, a fair request, I think.
Angela told us about travelling from Rugeley to work at Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth Hospital. She uses the train to avoid the difficulty of parking, but reliability has meant train journeys are increasingly difficult. On one occasion, her outward journey was cancelled, so she had to drive to another station. On her return, she found that she couldn't get back to Rugeley, where her car was parked. Lewis, who commutes from Rugeley to Birmingham, too, has recently secured a major career opportunity after years of study and hard work. But constant delays and cancellation make it difficult to know whether he will get to work and, just as importantly, get home.
His commute costs him around £100 a month. We know how difficult it is at the moment for young people to get a foothold in their chosen career. Lewis should be able to concentrate on making the most of his opportunities, rather than worrying about whether the train will get him there. His role is hybrid, which helps, but not everybody has got that flexibility. Chris told us that after repeatedly being stranded at work, they stopped going to the station altogether. On some occasions, they had to travel via Wolverhampton and arrange a lift or find another bus because no replacement transport was even provided.
Susan described a similar problem on her journey from Rugeley towards Birmingham. Her return service terminated at Hednesford and with no replacement bus, she had to pay herself for a separate bus outside Tesco just to get her home. Lee described repeated summer cancellations and the explanations that he's been given about infrastructure and signalling. He said that the stretch between Hednesford and Rugeley must have a world unique microclimate. It's so consistently affected. I'm not sure we can significantly scientifically backed that one up. But as a Chase line passenger myself, I'm very much with him in that frustration.
The survey we ran also shows how much this uncertainty can affect people's working lives. I've heard from constituents who've suffered migraines, from the stress of their commute, and others who've had to take annual leave because of cancellations. I don't think anybody expects a railway to run completely without disruption. There will always be incidents and occasions when services have got to change. Safety must come first, after all. But passengers are entitled to ask why hot weather keeps causing such serious problems and what's being done to address them.
Absolutely have to give way.
So he's right to do so. And I wanted to make sure, Mr. Jardine, that my constituents experiences were heard directly in this debate, and my office ran a survey of people who used the chase line regularly. And the responses covered all sorts of journeys, people going to work, students getting to college, and families trying to get their children where they need to be. I want to share a few of them . Today, Rosie told us that her regular 8 a.m. journey from Hednesford to Walsall for college. She said that delays and cancellations have meant arriving late and missing lessons.
Replacement buses make any journey much longer and on some occasions she's had to spend around £22 on an Uber just to get there on time. She told us that she sometimes only found out about cancellations after buying her ticket, and then struggled to get a refund. Another respondent told us about their son travelling to college in Stafford. There's no direct bus from where they live, so the train is the only practical way for him to get there. Both parents work so they can't drop everything to drive him in when the train is cancelled. Emma also raised the importance of the Hednesford to Rugeley Trent Valley connection for children who travel onto Stafford.
There's no direct bus alternative for that journey either. Without the train. How are those students supposed to get to college? What do those aborted journeys mean for their futures? The impact on people travelling to work is just as clear. Jack commutes from Cannock or Hednesford to Birmingham New Street. He described repeated delays and serious overcrowding, particularly at peak times during hot weather. He told me two loads of passengers were two train loads of passengers were often squeezed onto one service. He wants to see more frequent services during the morning and evening peaks, a fair request, I think.
Angela told us about travelling from Rugeley to work at Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth Hospital. She uses the train to avoid the difficulty of parking, but reliability has meant train journeys are increasingly difficult. On one occasion, her outward journey was cancelled, so she had to drive to another station. On her return, she found that she couldn't get back to Rugeley, where her car was parked. Lewis, who commutes from Rugeley to Birmingham, too, has recently secured a major career opportunity after years of study and hard work. But constant delays and cancellation make it difficult to know whether he will get to work and, just as importantly, get home.
His commute costs him around £100 a month. We know how difficult it is at the moment for young people to get a foothold in their chosen career. Lewis should be able to concentrate on making the most of his opportunities, rather than worrying about whether the train will get him there. His role is hybrid, which helps, but not everybody has got that flexibility. Chris told us that after repeatedly being stranded at work, they stopped going to the station altogether. On some occasions, they had to travel via Wolverhampton and arrange a lift or find another bus because no replacement transport was even provided.
Susan described a similar problem on her journey from Rugeley towards Birmingham. Her return service terminated at Hednesford and with no replacement bus, she had to pay herself for a separate bus outside Tesco just to get her home. Lee described repeated summer cancellations and the explanations that he's been given about infrastructure and signalling. He said that the stretch between Hednesford and Rugeley must have a world unique microclimate. It's so consistently affected. I'm not sure we can significantly scientifically backed that one up. But as a Chase line passenger myself, I'm very much with him in that frustration.
The survey we ran also shows how much this uncertainty can affect people's working lives. I've heard from constituents who've suffered migraines, from the stress of their commute, and others who've had to take annual leave because of cancellations. I don't think anybody expects a railway to run completely without disruption. There will always be incidents and occasions when services have got to change. Safety must come first, after all. But passengers are entitled to ask why hot weather keeps causing such serious problems and what's being done to address them.
Absolutely have to give way.
14:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I want to thank the honourable member for introducing this debate and giving way. Like him, I've surveyed my commuting constituents and as a result of that, I regularly complain about the unreliability of South Western Railway. They're particularly unreliable whenever there is hot and cold weather. Does he agree with me that the government and hopefully we'll hear from the Minister later today, an investment plan to improve our railway network so it can adapt to climate change, including introducing air conditioning on all train services.
14:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, he is absolutely right to raise this issue, particularly of how extremes of temperature are increasingly affecting our railway. We know in many cases our lines were not designed to run at temperatures well into the high 30s or even below minus ten, but increasingly, those are the conditions that they're having to endure. And we know those conditions are not going to get any easier. We're not going to have milder winters suddenly coming back. So we absolutely, as he says, need to make sure that the service is in and out of the train, are resilient to that reality.
And he leads me perfectly on to my point that we know that high temperatures affect the railway rails. Expanding the heat, signalling equipment can overheat, and overhead lines can also be affected. Network rail already takes steps to manage those risks, including track inspections, painting rails white to reduce heat absorption, and monitoring infrastructure during hot weather. And I recognise the hard work that railway staff do to keep services safe in difficult conditions. And I sincerely thank all of the staff that do that. But I want to know what more can be done to make the Chase line more resilient.
We shouldn't be having to have the same conversations every summer. We all know that hotter and hotter weather will be coming. Passengers need to know that lessons are being learned, and that the work is happening before the next heat wave. Absolutely happy to give way.
And he leads me perfectly on to my point that we know that high temperatures affect the railway rails. Expanding the heat, signalling equipment can overheat, and overhead lines can also be affected. Network rail already takes steps to manage those risks, including track inspections, painting rails white to reduce heat absorption, and monitoring infrastructure during hot weather. And I recognise the hard work that railway staff do to keep services safe in difficult conditions. And I sincerely thank all of the staff that do that. But I want to know what more can be done to make the Chase line more resilient.
We shouldn't be having to have the same conversations every summer. We all know that hotter and hotter weather will be coming. Passengers need to know that lessons are being learned, and that the work is happening before the next heat wave. Absolutely happy to give way.
14:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Honourable member for giving way. And we share a lot of the problems in the South West. The Salisbury to Exeter line runs a reduced service over the summer as a result of soil moisture deficit, a catchy term that means the ground is too dry and too hard and the trains can't run over it. This is not a new problem. We had a reduced service last year. We had a reduced service the year before. Proper planning for what is now. Our everyday experience of climate change is vital, and I wonder whether or not he agrees with me that the railway bill currently in the other place, is an opportunity to ensure that our infrastructure is resilient for the future and is also taking account of our climate targets.
14:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, again, we're hearing a different impact from a different part of the country, and it's great to get that perspective from the West Country. I completely agree with him that we need to look at how the changing climate can affect different parts of the country in different ways as well. We all know we've got different realities, different weather patterns, different topographies. That all needs to be factored in. And I agree with him that the Railways bill, which I will come on to a little bit later in my speech, is provides us with an opportunity to think about the resilience for the future of the railway for decades to come, because that's absolutely where our thinking needs to be in the the long term as well as the short, the short term.
Yeah. Happy to.
Yeah. Happy to.
14:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Giving way and being very generous. As the honourable member has mentioned, Network Rail themselves have admitted there was an extremely challenging summer and that it has work to do. But does the honourable member agree with me that apology is not a strategy and that every route, including the Midland Mainline, needs a published heat resilience plan before next summer?
14:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think he makes a very interesting point again around what we need from Network Rail to ensure that the the kind of local particularities of each area are taken into account. I think he's right that that that kind of work around resilience in the face of climate change needs to be done. I think he raises a really interesting point, and I hope that Network Rail will take that on board. And I recently had a meeting, including Network Rail, with some of the passengers that are affected in my constituency. And this kind of question of long term planning in the face of what we know is going to get worse and worse, was part of that, and I hope that he will have the same opportunity to do that in his constituency.
There's also the question of communication, because people can make other arrangements if they know that a cancellation is happening in good time. It's much harder when they've bought a ticket, travelled to the station, only then to discover that the train isn't running. And when a service is cancelled or terminated, early replacement transport needs to get people to where they actually need to go. Now, thankfully, we already have the diagnosis and the prescription for the chase line. We just need the fee to dispense the cure. Back when the line was electrified around a decade ago now, the project ran over budget and the previous government refused to allocate additional resource.
So therefore corners were cut. The track circuits, which tell the signallers where trains are on the line, were bought on the cheap. A model designed for underground railways was used, and unsurprisingly, they don't fare too well outdoors, particularly in the warmer weather. In fact, they typically trip at any point above 24 degrees. And it goes without saying that we had many days this summer where at night time temperatures were higher than that, let alone during the day. This is what has led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tell us that a full replacement is what's needed.
However. Yes, happy to give away.
There's also the question of communication, because people can make other arrangements if they know that a cancellation is happening in good time. It's much harder when they've bought a ticket, travelled to the station, only then to discover that the train isn't running. And when a service is cancelled or terminated, early replacement transport needs to get people to where they actually need to go. Now, thankfully, we already have the diagnosis and the prescription for the chase line. We just need the fee to dispense the cure. Back when the line was electrified around a decade ago now, the project ran over budget and the previous government refused to allocate additional resource.
So therefore corners were cut. The track circuits, which tell the signallers where trains are on the line, were bought on the cheap. A model designed for underground railways was used, and unsurprisingly, they don't fare too well outdoors, particularly in the warmer weather. In fact, they typically trip at any point above 24 degrees. And it goes without saying that we had many days this summer where at night time temperatures were higher than that, let alone during the day. This is what has led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tell us that a full replacement is what's needed.
However. Yes, happy to give away.
14:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I thank the honourable member for giving way and for securing this debate in my North Down constituency. Passengers on the Bangor to Belfast line know about disruption to do with severe weather, particularly where trees grew close to railways. Would he agree that the UK government should work to support all relevant transport agencies and, where relevant, the devolved institutions to audit routes at risk from falling trees and support prevention measures and actions before the next storms.
14:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I'm really glad that we've had fallen trees and leaves raised as an issue. We all we've all heard the dreaded leaves on the line being the reason for service disruption, and he's absolutely right to raise that in all four corners of the UK. We know that that is an issue, particularly as budgets have been cut back, and some of that maintenance work hasn't always been done to the standard that it would have been done previously. He's absolutely right that we do need to look line by line at where the risks are and try and address the most severe risks, particularly where trees, as he said, are at risk of falling before the next season.
We know we've got stormy autumn and winter ahead, so that's particularly a poignant point. But I think he's right that we need to look at that in the longer term as well. Minister, this is what led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tell us that a full replacement is what we need. However, I'm told that that will cost in the region of £3 million and with budgets being tight, we need the department to support us with this essential infrastructure correction. The alternative being looked at at the moment is a coating for the circuits, which might raise their operational temperature to around 30 degrees, and that buys us a bit more time, but it will still leave us vulnerable to major disruption next summer.
I hope the Minister will pass on to the noble Lord Hendy, that my constituency neighbour and I would heartily welcome him to Rugeley to discuss the challenges on the chase line. And perhaps while he's there, also the urgent need for an accessible footbridge at Rugeley Trent Valley station as well. The lack of a lift is a total barrier for wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. It can also make journeys difficult for older passengers, people carrying luggage and parents with young children. I've heard from an older constituent who found the stairs at Rugeley Trent Valley a barrier to visiting his family.
I've also heard from a passenger with severely impaired knees who had to crawl up and down the steep footbridge just to change platforms. Nobody should have to face that just to catch a train. I also want to recognise the wider challenges taking place on our railways. London North Western Railway and West Midlands Railway have now returned to public ownership, a really important step in the government's plans for Great British Railways. I welcome that move. Bringing railways closer together with track and train, working closely together should make it easier to plan services, deal with problems and give passengers clearer accountability.
The government's also invested in new trains and stations right across the West Midlands and in the Midlands rail hub, which is all really welcome progress and I want people in Cannock Chase to benefit from that too. But there's a wider issue here about the condition of our railway infrastructure and its ability to cope with more extreme weather. Network Rail's current five year funding period, known as control period seven runs from 2024 to 2029 and its total funding envelope is £45.4 billion in cash terms. But inflation has put that settlement under considerable pressure. The Office of Rail and Road reports that Network Rail now expects to deliver just 83% of its original renewals programme in England and Wales by the end of that period.
It's also warned that an increasingly ageing asset base has implications for reliability, performance and safety, and that could lead to more asset failures over time. We've been hearing some of that in the chamber today. I recognise the financial pressures facing the railway and that difficult choices have got to be made. But with hotter summers and wetter winters, as we've heard, placing greater demands on our network. It's important that we keep the renewals programme under review and make sure essential work to protect the railway's resilience isn't lost. And as well, the rail Freight group has been in touch with me to raise a concern about the Railways Bill currently before Parliament.
At present, Network Rail pays compensation to passenger and freight operators when services are disrupted by bad weather and other incidents. That gives Network Rail a financial reason to keep services running where possible and to get them back up quickly when things go wrong. Clause 65 would remove the requirement to pay compensation for events outside of Network Rail's control. It's not yet clear whether that would include seasonal weather, and we understand that weather related exclusions are being considered by Network Rail. I'd be grateful if the minister could clarify, perhaps if not this afternoon in writing, what will count as being outside Network Rail's control and when we can expect that to be defined.
Because if weather related disruption is included, there's a risk that Network Rail has less financial incentive to keep services running or restore them, which could impact the government's ambitious target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050. I welcome the government's wider ambition to build a railway that people can rely on. This includes, as we've heard, the Railways Bill, which will create a strengthened passenger watchdog to set minimum standards on many things such as delay, compensation and accessible travel. This is a really welcome step forward towards ensuring that operators are held more accountable for when things go wrong, and that passengers are put at the heart of every journey, which is exactly what people on the Chase line are looking for.
That line is such an important connection for Cannock Chase and Southern Staffordshire, linking people to jobs, education and services in Birmingham and beyond. Making it reliable is absolutely part of delivering that ambition. So there are a few practical things I would like to put forward to end today's debate. Firstly, the need for a review of the parts of the chase line that are most vulnerable to hot weather, particularly between Hednesford and Rugeley, as you've heard me say many, many times, with a clear plan and timetable for the work needed. Secondly, a proper hot weather plan for passengers, good information, replacement transport that gets people to their destinations and clear arrangements when services are cancelled or cut short.
Thirdly, a serious look at the frequency and capacity of services, especially at peak times and hourly service, is difficult enough when everything is running normally, let alone when services are disrupted. And fourthly, an update on step free access at Rugeley Trent Valley, including the work that is needed and how it can be funded. The people who responded to my survey are asking for very simple things. Rosie wants to get to college. Jack wants to get to work without being packed on an overcrowded train. Angela wants to get to and from hospital where she works. Susan wants to be able to complete her journey home.
We can reasonably expect a little bit of sunshine in the summer. We might even look forward to it, but the people using the chase line should not have to spend the warmer months wondering whether the train will run, whether it will get them to their destination, or how they will get home if it doesn't. I hope the minister will take these experiences seriously and set out what can be done to make lines like the chase line more resilient before next summer, and I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of other honourable members. Thank you.
We know we've got stormy autumn and winter ahead, so that's particularly a poignant point. But I think he's right that we need to look at that in the longer term as well. Minister, this is what led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tell us that a full replacement is what we need. However, I'm told that that will cost in the region of £3 million and with budgets being tight, we need the department to support us with this essential infrastructure correction. The alternative being looked at at the moment is a coating for the circuits, which might raise their operational temperature to around 30 degrees, and that buys us a bit more time, but it will still leave us vulnerable to major disruption next summer.
I hope the Minister will pass on to the noble Lord Hendy, that my constituency neighbour and I would heartily welcome him to Rugeley to discuss the challenges on the chase line. And perhaps while he's there, also the urgent need for an accessible footbridge at Rugeley Trent Valley station as well. The lack of a lift is a total barrier for wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. It can also make journeys difficult for older passengers, people carrying luggage and parents with young children. I've heard from an older constituent who found the stairs at Rugeley Trent Valley a barrier to visiting his family.
I've also heard from a passenger with severely impaired knees who had to crawl up and down the steep footbridge just to change platforms. Nobody should have to face that just to catch a train. I also want to recognise the wider challenges taking place on our railways. London North Western Railway and West Midlands Railway have now returned to public ownership, a really important step in the government's plans for Great British Railways. I welcome that move. Bringing railways closer together with track and train, working closely together should make it easier to plan services, deal with problems and give passengers clearer accountability.
The government's also invested in new trains and stations right across the West Midlands and in the Midlands rail hub, which is all really welcome progress and I want people in Cannock Chase to benefit from that too. But there's a wider issue here about the condition of our railway infrastructure and its ability to cope with more extreme weather. Network Rail's current five year funding period, known as control period seven runs from 2024 to 2029 and its total funding envelope is £45.4 billion in cash terms. But inflation has put that settlement under considerable pressure. The Office of Rail and Road reports that Network Rail now expects to deliver just 83% of its original renewals programme in England and Wales by the end of that period.
It's also warned that an increasingly ageing asset base has implications for reliability, performance and safety, and that could lead to more asset failures over time. We've been hearing some of that in the chamber today. I recognise the financial pressures facing the railway and that difficult choices have got to be made. But with hotter summers and wetter winters, as we've heard, placing greater demands on our network. It's important that we keep the renewals programme under review and make sure essential work to protect the railway's resilience isn't lost. And as well, the rail Freight group has been in touch with me to raise a concern about the Railways Bill currently before Parliament.
At present, Network Rail pays compensation to passenger and freight operators when services are disrupted by bad weather and other incidents. That gives Network Rail a financial reason to keep services running where possible and to get them back up quickly when things go wrong. Clause 65 would remove the requirement to pay compensation for events outside of Network Rail's control. It's not yet clear whether that would include seasonal weather, and we understand that weather related exclusions are being considered by Network Rail. I'd be grateful if the minister could clarify, perhaps if not this afternoon in writing, what will count as being outside Network Rail's control and when we can expect that to be defined.
Because if weather related disruption is included, there's a risk that Network Rail has less financial incentive to keep services running or restore them, which could impact the government's ambitious target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050. I welcome the government's wider ambition to build a railway that people can rely on. This includes, as we've heard, the Railways Bill, which will create a strengthened passenger watchdog to set minimum standards on many things such as delay, compensation and accessible travel. This is a really welcome step forward towards ensuring that operators are held more accountable for when things go wrong, and that passengers are put at the heart of every journey, which is exactly what people on the Chase line are looking for.
That line is such an important connection for Cannock Chase and Southern Staffordshire, linking people to jobs, education and services in Birmingham and beyond. Making it reliable is absolutely part of delivering that ambition. So there are a few practical things I would like to put forward to end today's debate. Firstly, the need for a review of the parts of the chase line that are most vulnerable to hot weather, particularly between Hednesford and Rugeley, as you've heard me say many, many times, with a clear plan and timetable for the work needed. Secondly, a proper hot weather plan for passengers, good information, replacement transport that gets people to their destinations and clear arrangements when services are cancelled or cut short.
Thirdly, a serious look at the frequency and capacity of services, especially at peak times and hourly service, is difficult enough when everything is running normally, let alone when services are disrupted. And fourthly, an update on step free access at Rugeley Trent Valley, including the work that is needed and how it can be funded. The people who responded to my survey are asking for very simple things. Rosie wants to get to college. Jack wants to get to work without being packed on an overcrowded train. Angela wants to get to and from hospital where she works. Susan wants to be able to complete her journey home.
We can reasonably expect a little bit of sunshine in the summer. We might even look forward to it, but the people using the chase line should not have to spend the warmer months wondering whether the train will run, whether it will get them to their destination, or how they will get home if it doesn't. I hope the minister will take these experiences seriously and set out what can be done to make lines like the chase line more resilient before next summer, and I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of other honourable members. Thank you.
15:05
15:05
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Green. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the member for Cannock Chase for bringing this debate. Many decades ago I actually did an excavation in in Rugeley, a Mesolithic cave site, moving forward a little to the Bronze Age. We know from the excavations that flag Fen, that our forebears back then knew how difficult it was to travel across the Fenland and how to build and maintain good routes and keep an investment in them. So moving forward to the 21st century. It's extremely disappointing that we don't seem willing to put the same level of investment into our transport systems as they did back in in the Bronze Age.
Looking back over June and August this year, the train line between King's Lynn and King's Cross, one third of those trains didn't run at all. Of the two thirds that did run, 80% were delayed. So that is extremely unreliable for commuters, students or people just trying to go about their daily lives. Go to the theater, go to sports events. You cannot rely on a train that may or may not come, may or may not arrive on time. And indeed, the other insult is that it quite often terminates partway through the journey. So you're trying to get back from London and you get as far as Cambridge, and you're told that's as far as the train is going to take you, and you have to work out how you're going to finish your journey from there.
I myself have been impacted by this, obviously quite often with going back and forth, but particularly when I had a surgery in Littleport, I left in plenty of time, but the train I was trying to catch was cancelled. The next train terminated at Cambridge, so I arrived an hour later than I'd intended and therefore late for my surgery, which is extremely rude and I really hate being rude to my constituents. But worse than that, I've got constituents writing to me. One in particular who's written to say that because their train has been so unreliable for getting to their job in London that their employer is now putting them under pressure because they are becoming an unreliable member of staff, their employer doesn't know when they're going to turn up to work, and they're also having to make up the time at the end of the day, which means they're getting home very late, often later than they expected, because not only have they left late, but the train has then been delayed.
And so it makes it a complete nightmare for them because they have to be up early the next morning to come in. So the reasons are many and various, but one of the main ones is the overhead power lines. They , they, they don't like very hot weather. I think they don't like very cold weather either. But in the summer it was the very hot weather. But the really big problem is that the tracks are buckling because the soil underneath is moving. We have the same problem with our roads and this is a major problem. And with climate change, it is going to happen year in, year out.
So we really need to put the investment in to sorting that out. I will say I've talked to Great Northern and they are, in fairness, doing a lot to try and make it less unreliable. But really, they're going to need proper funding from government to help them address this. And my my constituents really rely on this. As I say, it's getting to work. Many of my students, because the sixth form colleges are in Cambridge, so they need to get to college. Our main hospital is in Cambridge, so people need to get to the hospital. This these train services are really vital to people.
So I do call on the government to look hard at what the particular issues are of, of the extreme weather and the impact it has on on Fen soils and how we can make our rail lines more resilient so that my constituents can rely on a good train service.
Looking back over June and August this year, the train line between King's Lynn and King's Cross, one third of those trains didn't run at all. Of the two thirds that did run, 80% were delayed. So that is extremely unreliable for commuters, students or people just trying to go about their daily lives. Go to the theater, go to sports events. You cannot rely on a train that may or may not come, may or may not arrive on time. And indeed, the other insult is that it quite often terminates partway through the journey. So you're trying to get back from London and you get as far as Cambridge, and you're told that's as far as the train is going to take you, and you have to work out how you're going to finish your journey from there.
I myself have been impacted by this, obviously quite often with going back and forth, but particularly when I had a surgery in Littleport, I left in plenty of time, but the train I was trying to catch was cancelled. The next train terminated at Cambridge, so I arrived an hour later than I'd intended and therefore late for my surgery, which is extremely rude and I really hate being rude to my constituents. But worse than that, I've got constituents writing to me. One in particular who's written to say that because their train has been so unreliable for getting to their job in London that their employer is now putting them under pressure because they are becoming an unreliable member of staff, their employer doesn't know when they're going to turn up to work, and they're also having to make up the time at the end of the day, which means they're getting home very late, often later than they expected, because not only have they left late, but the train has then been delayed.
And so it makes it a complete nightmare for them because they have to be up early the next morning to come in. So the reasons are many and various, but one of the main ones is the overhead power lines. They , they, they don't like very hot weather. I think they don't like very cold weather either. But in the summer it was the very hot weather. But the really big problem is that the tracks are buckling because the soil underneath is moving. We have the same problem with our roads and this is a major problem. And with climate change, it is going to happen year in, year out.
So we really need to put the investment in to sorting that out. I will say I've talked to Great Northern and they are, in fairness, doing a lot to try and make it less unreliable. But really, they're going to need proper funding from government to help them address this. And my my constituents really rely on this. As I say, it's getting to work. Many of my students, because the sixth form colleges are in Cambridge, so they need to get to college. Our main hospital is in Cambridge, so people need to get to the hospital. This these train services are really vital to people.
So I do call on the government to look hard at what the particular issues are of, of the extreme weather and the impact it has on on Fen soils and how we can make our rail lines more resilient so that my constituents can rely on a good train service.
15:15
15:15
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Jardine. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I congratulate and thank the honourable member for Cannock Chase for securing this debate on extreme weather and rail services, something that he knew I would probably turn up to talk about, because it's an issue that's felt so acutely in my coastal and rural constituency of Truro and Falmouth. Coastal and rural areas like mine need a railway that's reliable, resilient and speedy, so our communities and economy can thrive. Cornwall, in fact, has the fastest growing branch lines in the country, and demand has soared for rail since Covid.
Yet in the Duchy, there is just one rail line going in and one going out for the million residents of Cornwall and Plymouth. That is all anyone living or working across Cornwall and Devon knows the fragility of this vital link. The line through Devon into Cornwall sits right on the sea wall at Dawlish and Teignmouth, exposed and exceptionally vulnerable to heavy seas when the bad weather hits, this section frequently breaks down, leaving us 1 million people effectively cut off from the rest of the country. In February 2014, the railway line was basically swept away and cut off for eight weeks.
The track was hanging into the waves. GW shared with me in August that last winter, cancellations exceeded 10% of services and punctuality dropped to 75%. And obviously, as others have said, it's not just storms and wintry weather. The heat we experienced this summer meant there were four separate lineside fires on the Falmouth branch in July, resulting in full cancellations, and alternate branch line services were cancelled because the rails were too hot. On Saturday, the train I was on the. The lines in Cornwall were too slippery. This isn't just a story of severe named storms. Our line is now so precarious that train services get knocked out by standard non-extreme weather.
High tides, leaves on the track routine. Heavy rain are sometimes enough to trigger speed restrictions, single line working or total cancellations. When major storms do hit, the crisis deepens. Storm Goretti closed the route entirely. It was over a day in the end because we couldn't get home. And just a week later, during Storm Ingrid, I was on the 6 a.m. train home from Westminster when we were halted at Dawlish as massive waves crashed over the track with one line swallowed by the sea. We joined a queue of trains crawling forward on the single operational track, and soon after this storm, Chandra cut the line off yet again.
The human cost of this persistent disruption is immediate. I have constituents contacting me regularly, sharing their frustrations and the impact of the disruption on their lives. The last one was a constituent who contacted me about an overfilled train from Reading to Truro impacted by Storm Austin leaving her husband, who was coming back from abroad, heavily delayed. It's unacceptable that passengers travelling thousands of miles across the globe face the greatest hardship on the final leg home through our region, network rail teams do work heroically round the clock, clearing fallen trees, repairing track faults and executing a 2.6 billion national investment in climate resilience.
But our local infrastructure is simply failing to cope. Long range forecasts warn of increasingly challenging weather this coming winter. It's already started with Storm Austin. With climate change, obviously these disruptions will become more frequent and severe unless we take decisive action. In 2014, after the storms, the Department for transport started a Southwest Resilience programme. Phase 1 to 4 have been completed, but phase five at the Teignmouth Cliffs has been delayed and is currently unfunded. Phase five is dewatering and stabilising. The cliff face testing is occurring but funds are simply not there. There's obviously a very real risk that a cliff could fall on a train.
Much of the capital funding has gone to the Northern Powerhouse Rail. We have one vulnerable line in and out for our million people. There is no way of flying from Newquay to London most days because we've lost our. So for our airport and there is an acceptance. It appears with Network Rail that we will get cut off for a day or two when there's inclement weather, which I don't think would be accepted in many other parts of the country. To be honest, there are options. Brunel obviously didn't think ahead when he designed where the line was going to go.
You can't really blame him, I suppose. But now we look back, it maybe wasn't the best place to put it. The Okehampton line has been reopened and there is we've always talked about as a kind of a distant dream, a second line that could go across along by the A30, the rail Bill will mean that regional transport plans can be considered by GBR. We would hope that would apply to our Cornish transport plan as well. And GWR will be nationalised in December of this year. Cornwall has extraordinary economic potential. We have immense value to offer the country, partly through the critical minerals that we have under our feet, but we need to remain connected.
I'm trying very hard at the moment to reopen the freight line that 150 yards between Falmouth Docks and the Falmouth branch line, that could bring some of those critical minerals in and out of 50 yards between Falmouth Docks and the Falmouth Branch line. That could bring some of those critical minerals in and out of Cornwall. But up the line, we do need a more resilient line to connect to. The Royal Albert Bridge is hard for freight to get across, and those cliffs are very difficult to get . Better rail links aren't a luxury, they're a real necessity, particularly when you're out on a limb as we are.
We will keep pushing until the far southwest gets that resilient rail network that our constituents need.
Yet in the Duchy, there is just one rail line going in and one going out for the million residents of Cornwall and Plymouth. That is all anyone living or working across Cornwall and Devon knows the fragility of this vital link. The line through Devon into Cornwall sits right on the sea wall at Dawlish and Teignmouth, exposed and exceptionally vulnerable to heavy seas when the bad weather hits, this section frequently breaks down, leaving us 1 million people effectively cut off from the rest of the country. In February 2014, the railway line was basically swept away and cut off for eight weeks.
The track was hanging into the waves. GW shared with me in August that last winter, cancellations exceeded 10% of services and punctuality dropped to 75%. And obviously, as others have said, it's not just storms and wintry weather. The heat we experienced this summer meant there were four separate lineside fires on the Falmouth branch in July, resulting in full cancellations, and alternate branch line services were cancelled because the rails were too hot. On Saturday, the train I was on the. The lines in Cornwall were too slippery. This isn't just a story of severe named storms. Our line is now so precarious that train services get knocked out by standard non-extreme weather.
High tides, leaves on the track routine. Heavy rain are sometimes enough to trigger speed restrictions, single line working or total cancellations. When major storms do hit, the crisis deepens. Storm Goretti closed the route entirely. It was over a day in the end because we couldn't get home. And just a week later, during Storm Ingrid, I was on the 6 a.m. train home from Westminster when we were halted at Dawlish as massive waves crashed over the track with one line swallowed by the sea. We joined a queue of trains crawling forward on the single operational track, and soon after this storm, Chandra cut the line off yet again.
The human cost of this persistent disruption is immediate. I have constituents contacting me regularly, sharing their frustrations and the impact of the disruption on their lives. The last one was a constituent who contacted me about an overfilled train from Reading to Truro impacted by Storm Austin leaving her husband, who was coming back from abroad, heavily delayed. It's unacceptable that passengers travelling thousands of miles across the globe face the greatest hardship on the final leg home through our region, network rail teams do work heroically round the clock, clearing fallen trees, repairing track faults and executing a 2.6 billion national investment in climate resilience.
But our local infrastructure is simply failing to cope. Long range forecasts warn of increasingly challenging weather this coming winter. It's already started with Storm Austin. With climate change, obviously these disruptions will become more frequent and severe unless we take decisive action. In 2014, after the storms, the Department for transport started a Southwest Resilience programme. Phase 1 to 4 have been completed, but phase five at the Teignmouth Cliffs has been delayed and is currently unfunded. Phase five is dewatering and stabilising. The cliff face testing is occurring but funds are simply not there. There's obviously a very real risk that a cliff could fall on a train.
Much of the capital funding has gone to the Northern Powerhouse Rail. We have one vulnerable line in and out for our million people. There is no way of flying from Newquay to London most days because we've lost our. So for our airport and there is an acceptance. It appears with Network Rail that we will get cut off for a day or two when there's inclement weather, which I don't think would be accepted in many other parts of the country. To be honest, there are options. Brunel obviously didn't think ahead when he designed where the line was going to go.
You can't really blame him, I suppose. But now we look back, it maybe wasn't the best place to put it. The Okehampton line has been reopened and there is we've always talked about as a kind of a distant dream, a second line that could go across along by the A30, the rail Bill will mean that regional transport plans can be considered by GBR. We would hope that would apply to our Cornish transport plan as well. And GWR will be nationalised in December of this year. Cornwall has extraordinary economic potential. We have immense value to offer the country, partly through the critical minerals that we have under our feet, but we need to remain connected.
I'm trying very hard at the moment to reopen the freight line that 150 yards between Falmouth Docks and the Falmouth branch line, that could bring some of those critical minerals in and out of 50 yards between Falmouth Docks and the Falmouth Branch line. That could bring some of those critical minerals in and out of Cornwall. But up the line, we do need a more resilient line to connect to. The Royal Albert Bridge is hard for freight to get across, and those cliffs are very difficult to get . Better rail links aren't a luxury, they're a real necessity, particularly when you're out on a limb as we are.
We will keep pushing until the far southwest gets that resilient rail network that our constituents need.
15:28
15:28
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you. May I say it is a pleasure to share to to serve under your chairmanship? May I congratulate the member for Cannock Chase for landing this really important debate. And we've had heard conversations around climate change, and that really is the enemy that we're facing, whether it's extreme heat or storms. And it's already been alluded to so far in the debate about the storm. 12 years ago at Dawlish that ripped away the the sea wall, leaving it almost as if it looked as if it was a railway line somewhere in South America after a big storm had hit it.
But it resulted in eight weeks of a closure down to the south west of England, eight weeks that massively impact. One estimate suggested that the economic impact was around £1.2 billion. I can remember getting on trains in Paddington, which usually busy places, and the train felt more like the Marie Celeste. It was absolutely incredible. Now we know that there were five parts to the puzzle of sorting this rail line out as part of the Southwest Resilience Programme, and the last part of this jigsaw puzzle, the fifth one, remains outstanding, and that is extremely worrying.
We all know that we've you know, most of us enjoyed and some of us endured the really good summer that we've just had. But we know that the the other side of that coin is much wetter. Winters. And the fact of the matter is that those wetter winters could massively impact on the cliffs at Dawlish, because that is the enemy now rather than the sea, and that those cliffs could potentially collapse. And that is unfunded. And so we desperately need the funding. And so I hope the minister will be able to reflect on that in their comments at the end, further up the line from Dawlish is Powderham often a place for events and and but again, there's a challenge there.
We're perfectly aware that the Environment Agency are choosing to do a managed retreat away from Dawlish Warren. That means the Warren will break the acts as a protector to the estuary there, and that opens up the railway line at Powderham to to attack by storms in the sea. So again, we need investment there to protect the rail line, which is the next line that we need to protect after we've achieved the Dawlish success that we're hoping for from the minister. And then I'd like to reflect on where we are with the heat that a number of colleagues have spoken around and those, you know, particularly in Devon and Cornwall, we have really poor quality local rolling stock that is almost, you know, life expired.
And the perverse thing is that they're not new to us. They are new to us, but they're they're third or fourth hand-me-down ones from elsewhere in the country, the one seven, five, they haven't even though they were handed down from from South Wales, and yet they haven't quite got them running. So even the hand-me-downs don't work. So we've seen this happen up, up in the north of England, where there's been investment in the TransPennine railways for quality rail solutions, part partly electrification, part battery, so that we can have a futuristic rail service for Devon and Cornwall that will not only be a lot more sustainable in our changing world, but also making sure that we take the carbon out of the process of travelling on our rail systems.
So we're truly tackling those challenges. And then I'd like to we'd already heard of some of the challenges across South West trains and the lack of moisture in the soil, which means that trains are having to travel particularly slowly. So again, that that is another impact that we need to be alive to as well as buckling rails. And I'd like just, you know, we get I speak to hoteliers such as one, the owner of the Burberry Hotel, which is quite close to Torquay railway station, and she shares with me how she often gets international visitors.
And it's very sad because often their experience on the continent is a much better quality rail service. So after decades of underinvestment, we really need that investment to be happening. So in conclusion, chair, I look forward to the minister reflecting on the final piece, the fifth piece of Dawlish rail and what will be happening there. And how we can be protecting that in light of the threat that I've highlighted earlier on, and then finally investing in quality rail stock for Devon and Cornwall so we can face the future with confidence.
Thank you chair.
But it resulted in eight weeks of a closure down to the south west of England, eight weeks that massively impact. One estimate suggested that the economic impact was around £1.2 billion. I can remember getting on trains in Paddington, which usually busy places, and the train felt more like the Marie Celeste. It was absolutely incredible. Now we know that there were five parts to the puzzle of sorting this rail line out as part of the Southwest Resilience Programme, and the last part of this jigsaw puzzle, the fifth one, remains outstanding, and that is extremely worrying.
We all know that we've you know, most of us enjoyed and some of us endured the really good summer that we've just had. But we know that the the other side of that coin is much wetter. Winters. And the fact of the matter is that those wetter winters could massively impact on the cliffs at Dawlish, because that is the enemy now rather than the sea, and that those cliffs could potentially collapse. And that is unfunded. And so we desperately need the funding. And so I hope the minister will be able to reflect on that in their comments at the end, further up the line from Dawlish is Powderham often a place for events and and but again, there's a challenge there.
We're perfectly aware that the Environment Agency are choosing to do a managed retreat away from Dawlish Warren. That means the Warren will break the acts as a protector to the estuary there, and that opens up the railway line at Powderham to to attack by storms in the sea. So again, we need investment there to protect the rail line, which is the next line that we need to protect after we've achieved the Dawlish success that we're hoping for from the minister. And then I'd like to reflect on where we are with the heat that a number of colleagues have spoken around and those, you know, particularly in Devon and Cornwall, we have really poor quality local rolling stock that is almost, you know, life expired.
And the perverse thing is that they're not new to us. They are new to us, but they're they're third or fourth hand-me-down ones from elsewhere in the country, the one seven, five, they haven't even though they were handed down from from South Wales, and yet they haven't quite got them running. So even the hand-me-downs don't work. So we've seen this happen up, up in the north of England, where there's been investment in the TransPennine railways for quality rail solutions, part partly electrification, part battery, so that we can have a futuristic rail service for Devon and Cornwall that will not only be a lot more sustainable in our changing world, but also making sure that we take the carbon out of the process of travelling on our rail systems.
So we're truly tackling those challenges. And then I'd like to we'd already heard of some of the challenges across South West trains and the lack of moisture in the soil, which means that trains are having to travel particularly slowly. So again, that that is another impact that we need to be alive to as well as buckling rails. And I'd like just, you know, we get I speak to hoteliers such as one, the owner of the Burberry Hotel, which is quite close to Torquay railway station, and she shares with me how she often gets international visitors.
And it's very sad because often their experience on the continent is a much better quality rail service. So after decades of underinvestment, we really need that investment to be happening. So in conclusion, chair, I look forward to the minister reflecting on the final piece, the fifth piece of Dawlish rail and what will be happening there. And how we can be protecting that in light of the threat that I've highlighted earlier on, and then finally investing in quality rail stock for Devon and Cornwall so we can face the future with confidence.
Thank you chair.
15:39
15:39
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you as always, to serve under your chair, and I commend my hon. Friend for securing such an important. And given the weather on Sunday, timely debate. When the weather turns, the time value does find out very quickly how well looked after its railway has been over the years, and last Tuesday, for example, 20 services were cancelled across the northern network because of storm Bolo and the whole of the Carlisle to Newcastle line was disrupted. Now, I grew up in my constituency and I know what the morning looks like. After a particularly rough bit of weather, you get a message on your app saying cancelled or you see that message at the train station.
You make an apologetic phone call to your boss or a client. People wait for news either at home, in the station, coffee shop, or just hanging around under the shelter. But this is about far more than just one storm. Extreme weather is no longer the exception. Heavy rain, flooding, landslips, high winds, and extreme heat are all hitting the safe and reliable running of services and climate change is very much has been said here. The. The driving cause. The problem is, of course, that our railway wasn't built for this. Most of our infrastructure is Victorian origin, and around 90% of Network Rail's assets in my constituency were installed before the year 2000.
Rails is stressed for that standard operating operating limit of around 30 degrees. In 2022, we exceeded. That track has been recorded at 51 degrees. The July 22nd heatwave alone cut performance by 40 to 50% and cost £30 million in lost revenue in just a single week. We've seen that replicated over the years since, and the result is buckled track sagging wires and failing embankments. Those are, of course, the headlines. But behind each disruption is a personal story. In Haltwhistle, that clothesline turned hospital appointment into an ordeal in Haydon Bridge or Bardon Mill. It's someone who potentially loses out on a day's work in Corbridge Riding Mill or Stocksfield.
It's a commuter forced onto roads that could be flooded or blocked, and in Prudhoe or Wylam, that's being forced onto a bus that carries a fraction of what a train can. Now, rural lines like those in my constituency, feel it first and we feel it worst. Cities have other routes in the Tyne Valley. When the railway goes, it's the A69 that's all left , and that road then immediately becomes congested. And I just want to add to the weather problem, the trains problem. I recently wrote to northern about the lack of capacity between Hexham and Newcastle and across the west of my constituency, including the absence of extra trains when Newcastle United are playing at home now, it's hard to square the aspiration of a modern, passenger focused railway with these predictable surges in demand being managed by existing timetables, northern had been candid with me.
Too much of the fleet is approaching the end of their operational life and needs ever more repair. Those units become unexpectedly unavailable and that's because they run many different types of train, not all being compatible with all routes, which limits the ability to move around units to strengthen their services. Now, I'm grateful for that honesty, but thinking through it again, when a storm hits and units fail, there's no spare train and no flexibility. An old fleet and an old network are asked to cope with a climate that neither was designed for. That's what 14 years of putting off tough decisions looks like to rural communities in my constituency, and I touch on the rural communities in my constituency that face extensive difficulties even getting to the central train line.
If you're in Bellingham, if you're in Slaggyford, if you're in Garsdale Allendale, if you're up in Stamfordham, a unreliable local bus that's been cut by the Morpeth Conservatives is often not arriving on time or it's not arriving at all. And I welcome the government bringing the railway back into public hands. And I welcome the new trains programme, which I know the Minister is aware of my enthusiasm, my enthusiasm for. But structures aren't resilient, so I do want to put a few challenges to the Minister. First of all, sustained investment in resilience rather than simply repair.
We can't either. We can't answer extreme weather. With more cancellations and permanent resilience, reliance on precautionary speed restrictions. So could the minister look at longer term funding for renewals and maintenance so that the embankments, drainage and track are built for the climate that we have now and the one that's coming over the Hill. Secondly, safety and reliability together, the choice is not between accepting disruption and taking risks. Train drivers themselves see and tell me if the evasion infrastructure and extreme weather firsthand and their experience must be part of how we plan for the decades ahead, so can the minister make sure that it is?
Thirdly, spare capacity can the minister press northern on how the new how the new trains programme will give the Tyne Valley the flexibility to respond when something goes wrong and when something goes right, like when there's a full stadium on a match day, when the mags or when the Newcastle Red Bulls are playing. Fourthly, a plan for the day. If it goes wrong, proper replacement services, early and honest information, and a recovery plan in place for rural lines before the storm, rather than my constituency feeling like it's consistently improvised after the fact, there is a bigger argument to if we wish to hit our climate goals, we need more people and more freight onto rail.
Domestic transport is 30% of our territorial greenhouse gas emissions, and road vehicles represent around 90% of that figure. Rail is a fraction of that. A single freight train could replace up to 129 lorry movements. We can't ask people to switch to rail and give them a railway that falls over at the first sign of trouble. The people of the Tyne Valley and my constituency more broadly, aren't asking for luxury. They're simply asking for a railway that works when the weather doesn't.
You make an apologetic phone call to your boss or a client. People wait for news either at home, in the station, coffee shop, or just hanging around under the shelter. But this is about far more than just one storm. Extreme weather is no longer the exception. Heavy rain, flooding, landslips, high winds, and extreme heat are all hitting the safe and reliable running of services and climate change is very much has been said here. The. The driving cause. The problem is, of course, that our railway wasn't built for this. Most of our infrastructure is Victorian origin, and around 90% of Network Rail's assets in my constituency were installed before the year 2000.
Rails is stressed for that standard operating operating limit of around 30 degrees. In 2022, we exceeded. That track has been recorded at 51 degrees. The July 22nd heatwave alone cut performance by 40 to 50% and cost £30 million in lost revenue in just a single week. We've seen that replicated over the years since, and the result is buckled track sagging wires and failing embankments. Those are, of course, the headlines. But behind each disruption is a personal story. In Haltwhistle, that clothesline turned hospital appointment into an ordeal in Haydon Bridge or Bardon Mill. It's someone who potentially loses out on a day's work in Corbridge Riding Mill or Stocksfield.
It's a commuter forced onto roads that could be flooded or blocked, and in Prudhoe or Wylam, that's being forced onto a bus that carries a fraction of what a train can. Now, rural lines like those in my constituency, feel it first and we feel it worst. Cities have other routes in the Tyne Valley. When the railway goes, it's the A69 that's all left , and that road then immediately becomes congested. And I just want to add to the weather problem, the trains problem. I recently wrote to northern about the lack of capacity between Hexham and Newcastle and across the west of my constituency, including the absence of extra trains when Newcastle United are playing at home now, it's hard to square the aspiration of a modern, passenger focused railway with these predictable surges in demand being managed by existing timetables, northern had been candid with me.
Too much of the fleet is approaching the end of their operational life and needs ever more repair. Those units become unexpectedly unavailable and that's because they run many different types of train, not all being compatible with all routes, which limits the ability to move around units to strengthen their services. Now, I'm grateful for that honesty, but thinking through it again, when a storm hits and units fail, there's no spare train and no flexibility. An old fleet and an old network are asked to cope with a climate that neither was designed for. That's what 14 years of putting off tough decisions looks like to rural communities in my constituency, and I touch on the rural communities in my constituency that face extensive difficulties even getting to the central train line.
If you're in Bellingham, if you're in Slaggyford, if you're in Garsdale Allendale, if you're up in Stamfordham, a unreliable local bus that's been cut by the Morpeth Conservatives is often not arriving on time or it's not arriving at all. And I welcome the government bringing the railway back into public hands. And I welcome the new trains programme, which I know the Minister is aware of my enthusiasm, my enthusiasm for. But structures aren't resilient, so I do want to put a few challenges to the Minister. First of all, sustained investment in resilience rather than simply repair.
We can't either. We can't answer extreme weather. With more cancellations and permanent resilience, reliance on precautionary speed restrictions. So could the minister look at longer term funding for renewals and maintenance so that the embankments, drainage and track are built for the climate that we have now and the one that's coming over the Hill. Secondly, safety and reliability together, the choice is not between accepting disruption and taking risks. Train drivers themselves see and tell me if the evasion infrastructure and extreme weather firsthand and their experience must be part of how we plan for the decades ahead, so can the minister make sure that it is?
Thirdly, spare capacity can the minister press northern on how the new how the new trains programme will give the Tyne Valley the flexibility to respond when something goes wrong and when something goes right, like when there's a full stadium on a match day, when the mags or when the Newcastle Red Bulls are playing. Fourthly, a plan for the day. If it goes wrong, proper replacement services, early and honest information, and a recovery plan in place for rural lines before the storm, rather than my constituency feeling like it's consistently improvised after the fact, there is a bigger argument to if we wish to hit our climate goals, we need more people and more freight onto rail.
Domestic transport is 30% of our territorial greenhouse gas emissions, and road vehicles represent around 90% of that figure. Rail is a fraction of that. A single freight train could replace up to 129 lorry movements. We can't ask people to switch to rail and give them a railway that falls over at the first sign of trouble. The people of the Tyne Valley and my constituency more broadly, aren't asking for luxury. They're simply asking for a railway that works when the weather doesn't.
15:51
15:51
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Madam Chair, as always, an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and a big thank you to the honourable gentleman for Cannock Chase for for this debate. He continues to bring us an assiduous delivery for his constituency. Today is another example of doing just that and well done to him. The events of the past year have given us a very brutal wake up call. We have seen record breaking heat waves causing rail buckling, severe storms bringing down overhead lines, torrential downpours, flooding, key transport arteries right across the United Kingdom. This is no longer a temporary seasonal inconvenience.
It's a permanent disruption to the daily lives of our constituents, and it does require an urgent, systematic response. I want to give an ordinary perspective, which the minister will be very glad to hear he has no responsibility for, and I wish him well. And the minister always gives us a helpful response when it comes to the questions that we ask. Now over here, of course, whenever, as you do if you're in Northern Ireland. MP, how do you get here? Will you fly over? You get the Heathrow Express or it depends where you fly to, maybe the Gatwick Express and then you get the the DLR or the chips on the way down.
And there's occasions where there's delays on the rail due to obstructions. Sometimes it's people on the on the Heathrow Express and occasionally, as it was last summer or summer past there, whenever I was coming over and had taken the Gatwick Express, a bus had hit a bridge on on the Gatwick Express was unable to progress any further until they cleared the obstacle of what took place. So there's always problems and that's one of the reasons, Madam Chair, why travelling is certainly one of those things that I enjoy, because there's always hassle and there's always delays.
When much of the national debate naturally focuses on major intercity networks, I want to bring attention to the specific harsh realities facing my people. But in Northern Ireland, particularly within my own constituency of Strangford, I want to talk about the delays that happen and how that affects daily life and social engagement and people having normality. We must look at how these infrastructure failures are directly impacting two crucial groups. First of all, our children's trying to access education and our hard working citizens trying to travel to work. Madam chair, let us look first at the at our young people and children who are simply trying to better themselves through education.
We have students from across the Ards Peninsula and the wider Strangford area who travel every single day to universities and colleges in Belfast and right across the province to Londonderry. And the only way of getting there, if you haven't got a car and you've got to be too expensive, is the rail way, and that's how it works in extreme weather hits Northern Ireland. As we've seen with increasingly violent storms and localized flooding, Madam Chair, and many occasions now when the rain comes, it's a it's a biblical downpour . And the impact right of way upon roads and gullies is incredible.
What happened?
It's a permanent disruption to the daily lives of our constituents, and it does require an urgent, systematic response. I want to give an ordinary perspective, which the minister will be very glad to hear he has no responsibility for, and I wish him well. And the minister always gives us a helpful response when it comes to the questions that we ask. Now over here, of course, whenever, as you do if you're in Northern Ireland. MP, how do you get here? Will you fly over? You get the Heathrow Express or it depends where you fly to, maybe the Gatwick Express and then you get the the DLR or the chips on the way down.
And there's occasions where there's delays on the rail due to obstructions. Sometimes it's people on the on the Heathrow Express and occasionally, as it was last summer or summer past there, whenever I was coming over and had taken the Gatwick Express, a bus had hit a bridge on on the Gatwick Express was unable to progress any further until they cleared the obstacle of what took place. So there's always problems and that's one of the reasons, Madam Chair, why travelling is certainly one of those things that I enjoy, because there's always hassle and there's always delays.
When much of the national debate naturally focuses on major intercity networks, I want to bring attention to the specific harsh realities facing my people. But in Northern Ireland, particularly within my own constituency of Strangford, I want to talk about the delays that happen and how that affects daily life and social engagement and people having normality. We must look at how these infrastructure failures are directly impacting two crucial groups. First of all, our children's trying to access education and our hard working citizens trying to travel to work. Madam chair, let us look first at the at our young people and children who are simply trying to better themselves through education.
We have students from across the Ards Peninsula and the wider Strangford area who travel every single day to universities and colleges in Belfast and right across the province to Londonderry. And the only way of getting there, if you haven't got a car and you've got to be too expensive, is the rail way, and that's how it works in extreme weather hits Northern Ireland. As we've seen with increasingly violent storms and localized flooding, Madam Chair, and many occasions now when the rain comes, it's a it's a biblical downpour . And the impact right of way upon roads and gullies is incredible.
What happened?
15:58
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you. Thank the honourable member for giving way. I would agree with me that the issue now isn't just confined to the south and the south east of the United Kingdom, whereas it may have been 20 or 30 years ago, but given the increasing warming of our climate, it is imperative that all our devolved institutions, both North and South, need to ensure that they take steps to try and mitigate against the problem that we see everyone encountering.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
15:59
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. And and again, very wise words. And and he underlines the very issue when extreme weather hits Northern Ireland, as we've seen with increasingly violent storms and localised flooding, our transport network and certainly buckles. So for a student, Madam Chair, heading from our area to the Magee campus in Coleraine or Londonderry, a single weather related rail restriction, a flood of track. Excuse me. Or a single weather related rail restriction or a misconnection means missing vital lectures, labs and exams. They're fighting against a system where a simple weather warning can completely derail their academic work.
We can't expect our young people to fulfil their educational potential when the physical infrastructure to get them to the lecture hall is entirely unreliable or continuously breaks down, the situation is even more acute for further education. College students travelling south down to campuses in Downpatrick. Again, from my city as an example, many of these young people depend entirely on the Strangford Ferry service to bridge the gap between Portaferry and Strangford Village. That ferry is supposed to be the lifeline, a one mile crossing that replaces what would otherwise be a gruelling 46 mile journey by road.
Yet what have we seen? We have seen repeated sudden suspensions of ferry service due to severe storm conditions, high tides and subsequent mechanical strains caused by operating in extreme weather. The ferry stops the education of these teenagers, stops. Bus substitutions are hastily put in place, but they cannot make up for the hours that are lost, and these students are arriving at college exhausted, late or worse, unable to get there at all, facing attendance penalties through absolutely no fault of their own, the minister might say, and he probably will say to me, might look at a map and say, well, Strangford doesn't have a railway line.
Well, no it doesn't, no sir, we don't. But our workers and our commuters are resourceful. Thousands of my constituents utilize the Belfast to Bangor rail line, which the honourable member for North Down referred to, located just ten minutes away from the edge of my constituency. So it's a good opportunity to get a main train line into Belfast and not too far away and not have to park your car in Belfast. So our workers, our job seekers and commuters drive, get lifts or catch connecting buses to Bangor station every morning to access a wider employment market in Greater Belfast, where the employment and the jobs are.
But what happens when extreme weather strikes? The Bangor line? Has the honourable member for North Down trees fall leaves on the line and there's always problems on the Bangor line, suffers the immediate cancellations, terminates early or skips vital stops like the city hospital on Grand Central. So when the Bangor line fails due to weather stress infrastructure, the knock on effect on Strangford workforce is immediate and devastating. It is a low wage shift. Workers, the apprentices, the people who who don't have the luxury of working from home, who suffer the most. They're left stranded on cold platforms.
They lose vital day day wages and on occasion they face disciplinary action for employers for being late. It's not every time you can say the planes late again or the trains late again today. Unexpected to be the normal excuse when it is the right reason. But the rapidity of that as an excuse doesn't always work out. So , gentlemen, very happy to. Yes, yes.
We can't expect our young people to fulfil their educational potential when the physical infrastructure to get them to the lecture hall is entirely unreliable or continuously breaks down, the situation is even more acute for further education. College students travelling south down to campuses in Downpatrick. Again, from my city as an example, many of these young people depend entirely on the Strangford Ferry service to bridge the gap between Portaferry and Strangford Village. That ferry is supposed to be the lifeline, a one mile crossing that replaces what would otherwise be a gruelling 46 mile journey by road.
Yet what have we seen? We have seen repeated sudden suspensions of ferry service due to severe storm conditions, high tides and subsequent mechanical strains caused by operating in extreme weather. The ferry stops the education of these teenagers, stops. Bus substitutions are hastily put in place, but they cannot make up for the hours that are lost, and these students are arriving at college exhausted, late or worse, unable to get there at all, facing attendance penalties through absolutely no fault of their own, the minister might say, and he probably will say to me, might look at a map and say, well, Strangford doesn't have a railway line.
Well, no it doesn't, no sir, we don't. But our workers and our commuters are resourceful. Thousands of my constituents utilize the Belfast to Bangor rail line, which the honourable member for North Down referred to, located just ten minutes away from the edge of my constituency. So it's a good opportunity to get a main train line into Belfast and not too far away and not have to park your car in Belfast. So our workers, our job seekers and commuters drive, get lifts or catch connecting buses to Bangor station every morning to access a wider employment market in Greater Belfast, where the employment and the jobs are.
But what happens when extreme weather strikes? The Bangor line? Has the honourable member for North Down trees fall leaves on the line and there's always problems on the Bangor line, suffers the immediate cancellations, terminates early or skips vital stops like the city hospital on Grand Central. So when the Bangor line fails due to weather stress infrastructure, the knock on effect on Strangford workforce is immediate and devastating. It is a low wage shift. Workers, the apprentices, the people who who don't have the luxury of working from home, who suffer the most. They're left stranded on cold platforms.
They lose vital day day wages and on occasion they face disciplinary action for employers for being late. It's not every time you can say the planes late again or the trains late again today. Unexpected to be the normal excuse when it is the right reason. But the rapidity of that as an excuse doesn't always work out. So , gentlemen, very happy to. Yes, yes.
16:07
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I thank the honourable gentleman. It's interesting listening to his speech and the commonalities that we have so far apart with my constituency on the South Coast, and a lot of my constituents travel outside of the city of Chichester for work. And similarly, a lot of people living in Bognor Regis and Portsmouth come into the city for work and they are encouraged to use public transport. But when extreme weather is rapidly becoming weather, does he agree with me that it's incredibly frustrating for people who are constantly told we're sorry for the disruptions, but we're experiencing extreme weather.
But with 40 days this year where temperatures reached over 30 degrees, where leaves on the line can stop the trains from running, where the other day, swans on the line stopped the trains from running on our arterial railway route. That that we need to get a grip with making sure that trains can run so people can continue to work.
But with 40 days this year where temperatures reached over 30 degrees, where leaves on the line can stop the trains from running, where the other day, swans on the line stopped the trains from running on our arterial railway route. That that we need to get a grip with making sure that trains can run so people can continue to work.
16:08
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
The honourable it is an incredibly accurate explanation of what happens in our constituency. And when you look across the world and you see where Canada has extreme weather, snow and real warmth in the summer, they seem to be able to cope with it. All right. And really, sometimes I think we must ask ourselves this very question why come we can't adjust or learn perhaps from what from what they do? I would suggest that, Madam Chair, that the social contract is being broken. We're asking people to slog their guts out and go to work every day.
Yet the state, I think, is failing to provide the basic, resilient infrastructure to let them do safely and reliably. The national funding allocated for weather resilience must not, and I say this respectfully, must not be hoarded by the Treasury or spent exclusively on major English and English intercity routes. We need to see that investment deployed with absolute urgency into regional infrastructure. We need it spent on securing the resilience of the TransLink services, stabilizing the vessels on the Strangford ferry and ensuring that vital regional feeder lines like the Bangor Rail Track, for instance, are fully weatherproofed against extreme temperatures and flooding.
I conclude with this, Madam Chair. I urge the minister today, and the minister probably knows this already, but just to have it on the record, can I ask the minister to engage with the Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly to hold the discussions, to exchange thoughts and ideas on how we can better learn how to deal with extreme weather, whether it be warm in the summer, 35 to 40 degrees, or whether it be the . The winter time. Whenever they. They. The. The very bad weather means that we're not able to travel the same. And while exchanging those ideas with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister that resilience funding is released.
Let us fix those lines, protect our commuters and ensure that extreme weather starts putting the lives, the education and the careers of our people on hold. Thanks very much.
Yet the state, I think, is failing to provide the basic, resilient infrastructure to let them do safely and reliably. The national funding allocated for weather resilience must not, and I say this respectfully, must not be hoarded by the Treasury or spent exclusively on major English and English intercity routes. We need to see that investment deployed with absolute urgency into regional infrastructure. We need it spent on securing the resilience of the TransLink services, stabilizing the vessels on the Strangford ferry and ensuring that vital regional feeder lines like the Bangor Rail Track, for instance, are fully weatherproofed against extreme temperatures and flooding.
I conclude with this, Madam Chair. I urge the minister today, and the minister probably knows this already, but just to have it on the record, can I ask the minister to engage with the Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly to hold the discussions, to exchange thoughts and ideas on how we can better learn how to deal with extreme weather, whether it be warm in the summer, 35 to 40 degrees, or whether it be the . The winter time. Whenever they. They. The. The very bad weather means that we're not able to travel the same. And while exchanging those ideas with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister that resilience funding is released.
Let us fix those lines, protect our commuters and ensure that extreme weather starts putting the lives, the education and the careers of our people on hold. Thanks very much.
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:13
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Jardine. And it's good to see you in the chair today. And I congratulate the honourable member for Cannock Chase on securing this debate. It's one that I've tried to secure myself on a number of occasions, and that's because I have the West of England line running through the Honiton and Sidmouth constituency, passing through the towns of Axminster and Honiton, as well as the village of Feniton. I was struck a moment ago by the honourable member for Chichester, describing how extreme weather has become simply weather, and I think it's really very well put.
And moreover, we could talk in this debate not about extreme weather, but about the impact of climate change on our transport infrastructure. I think it's also really good to see the Minister for Local Transport in his place, because he has been fantastic at securing for Mid-devon and for Somerset new railway stations at Cullompton and Wellington respectively. So I know that he he does an excellent job in his role, and that's why I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to talk about Liberal Democrat policy, but also to talk about the West of England line. The West of England line connects Exeter with London Waterloo and goes via Salisbury, and for much of that line, certainly west of Salisbury, it is a single track line, so that when there is a disruption or a delay, it means that the whole timetable gets gets thrown.
And so you can understand that a lot of residents from from East Devon have contacted me about it in the dry, hot summers that we have had last year. And this South West railway describes the the main consequences of this dry weather as soil moisture deficit, which is a euphemism for embankments that are dry. And this is due to the route largely sitting on clay. When prolonged heat and drought remove moisture from the soil, the clay shrinks, the embankments move and the track moves to. And of course, in these conditions, it would be dangerous to carry on as normal speed restrictions have to be imposed, and we saw the consequences of extreme weather on railway line that that doesn't have any sort of disruption to the schedule.
We saw that in Lewes earlier this year, I think, where Southern Railway experienced a derailment. The euphemism in that case was track geometry irregularity, which I think is a euphemism for rails that have bent. But no, in seriousness, I accept that safety has to come first. We've got to acknowledge the. That that while safety is a priority, it's having severe consequences on the people who we represent. First of all, I'd like to just consider young people trying to build their future. One person who is from from Awliscombe wrote to me that her sorry, his 17 year old daughter could no longer get to her apprenticeship for 8:00 in the morning because the only train reaching Exeter at that time had been cancelled and without any replacement bus service, he and his wife are having to make a 40 mile round trip by car to get their daughter to work.
That's not an isolated incident. It's roughly 550 college students travel on the West of England line to Exeter College. A father from Offwell told me. His daughter, who has just started, is subject to train cancellations, delays and often spends 2 to 3 hours every day waiting for a train home from Exeter. A mother from Honiton explained how, since both the 7.30 and the seven, the 730 train and the 1745 bus have been cancelled, there's no way for students to arrive on time for the 945 lectures, so students are relying on this service to access further education, but it's also disrupting working people.
Shelby Gittins is a dental hygienist from All Saints near Axminster, and she is being prevented from reaching Exeter reliably before the start of her working day due to the delays, her office has had to reschedule her 9:00 patients indefinitely until the matter is resolved. And given that Devon is one of the UK's foremost dental deserts, this is quite a serious consequence for people trying to get dental work in Devon.
And moreover, we could talk in this debate not about extreme weather, but about the impact of climate change on our transport infrastructure. I think it's also really good to see the Minister for Local Transport in his place, because he has been fantastic at securing for Mid-devon and for Somerset new railway stations at Cullompton and Wellington respectively. So I know that he he does an excellent job in his role, and that's why I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to talk about Liberal Democrat policy, but also to talk about the West of England line. The West of England line connects Exeter with London Waterloo and goes via Salisbury, and for much of that line, certainly west of Salisbury, it is a single track line, so that when there is a disruption or a delay, it means that the whole timetable gets gets thrown.
And so you can understand that a lot of residents from from East Devon have contacted me about it in the dry, hot summers that we have had last year. And this South West railway describes the the main consequences of this dry weather as soil moisture deficit, which is a euphemism for embankments that are dry. And this is due to the route largely sitting on clay. When prolonged heat and drought remove moisture from the soil, the clay shrinks, the embankments move and the track moves to. And of course, in these conditions, it would be dangerous to carry on as normal speed restrictions have to be imposed, and we saw the consequences of extreme weather on railway line that that doesn't have any sort of disruption to the schedule.
We saw that in Lewes earlier this year, I think, where Southern Railway experienced a derailment. The euphemism in that case was track geometry irregularity, which I think is a euphemism for rails that have bent. But no, in seriousness, I accept that safety has to come first. We've got to acknowledge the. That that while safety is a priority, it's having severe consequences on the people who we represent. First of all, I'd like to just consider young people trying to build their future. One person who is from from Awliscombe wrote to me that her sorry, his 17 year old daughter could no longer get to her apprenticeship for 8:00 in the morning because the only train reaching Exeter at that time had been cancelled and without any replacement bus service, he and his wife are having to make a 40 mile round trip by car to get their daughter to work.
That's not an isolated incident. It's roughly 550 college students travel on the West of England line to Exeter College. A father from Offwell told me. His daughter, who has just started, is subject to train cancellations, delays and often spends 2 to 3 hours every day waiting for a train home from Exeter. A mother from Honiton explained how, since both the 7.30 and the seven, the 730 train and the 1745 bus have been cancelled, there's no way for students to arrive on time for the 945 lectures, so students are relying on this service to access further education, but it's also disrupting working people.
Shelby Gittins is a dental hygienist from All Saints near Axminster, and she is being prevented from reaching Exeter reliably before the start of her working day due to the delays, her office has had to reschedule her 9:00 patients indefinitely until the matter is resolved. And given that Devon is one of the UK's foremost dental deserts, this is quite a serious consequence for people trying to get dental work in Devon.
16:22
16:22
16:22
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Forgive me, chair, for being late, but the railway did not want me to be here for the start of this debate. So here I am. My hon. Friend talks about the impact on working people, of delays on the line, and we in the west of England are going to be impacted for a year, two years, possibly more, by the works at Old Oak Common. So I wonder if my honourable friend would agree with me that for the tiny, tiny sum of £12 million, which is only just over half of what is being spent every single day on his two for £12 million high speed Wi-Fi could be put on every single one of the 94 trains on the Great Western Railway network.
And if it was all those working people like myself who get stuck on delayed trains and slow trains going down to the west of England, we actually wouldn't mind an extra 10 or 15 minutes on the journey time because it would be productive time. So would he agree with me that the government needs to fund this project?
And if it was all those working people like myself who get stuck on delayed trains and slow trains going down to the west of England, we actually wouldn't mind an extra 10 or 15 minutes on the journey time because it would be productive time. So would he agree with me that the government needs to fund this project?
16:24
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
The honourable member for South Devon makes a very good point. Of course, time is not wasted on a delayed train. If if there is good wi fi connection for the workers on board the train, who can who can work. So of course I would recommend that that investment in the main line. But but on the on the poor relation that is the West of England line, I have heard from constituents who have been trying to get to college, to school, to businesses.
16:26
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Is having on the local economy. Most importantly, these disruptions often hit the most vulnerable in our society the hardest. Catherine Wilkerson from Sidmouth, told me that over the course of six journeys to London for work she made in the summer heat, only one featured working air . And when she was in packed trains, she explained that on multiple occasions she had to pause her journey and get off the train due to dizziness and to avoid fainting from heat exhaustion. Catherine pointed out that this means that train travel in the heat can be dangerous, and the rolling stock needs to be updated to accommodate and to adapt to the climate change we all see.
So these three groups tell the same story. It affects the students, the workers and the vulnerable. And people I represent are right to ask why a line of of such importance for the network as a whole remains so vulnerable. They accept that soil moisture deficit as a temporary measure is required. But this is no longer a temporary measure. This is the second year in a row where this this schedule has been introduced for months and months at a time, meaning that trains are only running once every two hours. Weather related delays across the country have cost around £370 million over three years from 2023 to 24.
But that is just the the narrow economic consequence on the on the on the railways, not the wider consequences for all of these people who I've described with their anecdotes earlier today, the Liberal Democrats believe passengers deserve railways that withstand the climate conditions. We are set to face. Too much of our infrastructure, particularly in the West Country, still relies on Victorian earthworks, drainage systems and assets that were never designed for today's climate. And of course, they've been subject also to the Beeching cuts. And instead of bringing these facilities back into the 21st century, the last conservative government left behind a legacy of underinvestment and crumbling infrastructure.
Now, I have corresponded with the Department for transport and with ministers, not least with Lord Hendy in the other place, about the West of England line, and the specific thing that I have been seeking from ministers is investment into passing loops on the West of England line. If you make an analogy with the road, this is like pulling over to allow an oncoming vehicle to come the other way, and I understand from from Lord Hendy that if we were to make the case for investment in passing loops in control period eight, the period 2029 to 2020, 2034, that potentially we could see those passing loops developed at Tisbury, Feniton, Whimple and other places on the West of England line to enable trains to pull over and to enable trains to run on a much more frequent basis, even when experiencing soil moisture deficit.
So I ask the minister, what further can he recommend we do to secure these passing loops in control period eight and more generally for the government? How will they accelerate investment in climate resilience so that we can get ahead of the changes we know are coming down the track at us with our changing climate, and to make sure that our students, our workers and our most vulnerable members of society get the transport links that they deserve. Thank you.
So these three groups tell the same story. It affects the students, the workers and the vulnerable. And people I represent are right to ask why a line of of such importance for the network as a whole remains so vulnerable. They accept that soil moisture deficit as a temporary measure is required. But this is no longer a temporary measure. This is the second year in a row where this this schedule has been introduced for months and months at a time, meaning that trains are only running once every two hours. Weather related delays across the country have cost around £370 million over three years from 2023 to 24.
But that is just the the narrow economic consequence on the on the on the railways, not the wider consequences for all of these people who I've described with their anecdotes earlier today, the Liberal Democrats believe passengers deserve railways that withstand the climate conditions. We are set to face. Too much of our infrastructure, particularly in the West Country, still relies on Victorian earthworks, drainage systems and assets that were never designed for today's climate. And of course, they've been subject also to the Beeching cuts. And instead of bringing these facilities back into the 21st century, the last conservative government left behind a legacy of underinvestment and crumbling infrastructure.
Now, I have corresponded with the Department for transport and with ministers, not least with Lord Hendy in the other place, about the West of England line, and the specific thing that I have been seeking from ministers is investment into passing loops on the West of England line. If you make an analogy with the road, this is like pulling over to allow an oncoming vehicle to come the other way, and I understand from from Lord Hendy that if we were to make the case for investment in passing loops in control period eight, the period 2029 to 2020, 2034, that potentially we could see those passing loops developed at Tisbury, Feniton, Whimple and other places on the West of England line to enable trains to pull over and to enable trains to run on a much more frequent basis, even when experiencing soil moisture deficit.
So I ask the minister, what further can he recommend we do to secure these passing loops in control period eight and more generally for the government? How will they accelerate investment in climate resilience so that we can get ahead of the changes we know are coming down the track at us with our changing climate, and to make sure that our students, our workers and our most vulnerable members of society get the transport links that they deserve. Thank you.
16:34
16:34
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Jean. And it's it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again. And I'd like to congratulate, first of all, the honourable member for Cannock Chase for bringing forward this debate today. The challenges posed by extreme weather on our railways are not a new problem. After all, in the early days of British railway innovation, plans could be repeatedly derailed for bad weather. For instance, one of the many challenges with Brunel's infamous attempts to introduce an atmospheric railway at South Devon was it repeatedly falling foul of the weather, a part of the country that is still acutely impacted by these extremes today?
And as we've heard from many members across the House, unfortunately, the problems posed by these extremes are not a thing of the past. After a spring and summer in which the performance of our railways has worsened, I would commend the member for proposing this debate, and as we have repeatedly said, our approach on this side of the House, the railways must be evidence based, and I hope that goes for all sides of the House. Our railways should not be run according to a dogmatic ideology, but according to what serves the travelling public best. Now, although Britain has one of the safest railways in the world, we cannot remain complacent.
And as we recently saw in Spain, rail accidents can have the most tragic of consequences and we have to do everything possible we can to avoid them. One of the approaches we need to take is improving the resilience of our railways, making them much more effective in coping with whatever weather conditions we experience, given the railways are performing worse now under almost every metric. This is all the more important. And the data for the first six or periods of the 2026 2027 financial year showed a deterioration in performance across the vast majority of operators. This included delays on services such as south western lNer, Southeastern Sea to Sea and Greater Anglia, many of which were previously performing much better under previous operators.
This is reflected in cost to the taxpayer. According to the Dft's own numbers, South Western Railway spent £8.25 million on payouts to rail users under its DeLay Repay scheme, despite the fact that fewer than half of eligible passengers actually claim this compensation, so it should be at least twice as high. Possibly most worryingly, given the terms of this debate and the importance of addressing extreme weather, Network Rail attributable delay minutes increased across every region of the UK except Scotland. This means more delays for passengers directly attributable to the organization's organisation that manages infrastructure, and which is likely to play a leading role within GBR once it is fully established.
And as the honourable member who proposed this debate mentioned, the impact this can have on freight sectors as well is incredibly important and we need to understand fully some of the clauses in the railway bill and the impact that could have on what we want to see, which is greater numbers of, of, of freight taking some of those lorries off the roads where it's appropriate to do so. And we need but they need to have the certainty that it's going to happen and that they will get properly compensated if there are issues with the network.
These are not small changes that we've seen, but significant ones in the southern region. For example, on a per thousand train mile basis, Network Rail was responsible for over 50% more delays in minutes than during the first few months of 2024. Over those last few time periods. I think it is worth noting this, considering Network Rail's comments about the challenges it faced this summer. If the government manager of our rail infrastructure is facing severe problems with the weather, how can we have confidence that it's going to be a really core part of GBR and managing that process of full nationalisation effectively?
I recognise that a number of these concerns have been raised previously and reiterated today. For example, I understand that the some of the Lib Dem members who spoke today have raised the need to consider the current rail stress. Temperatures need to be looked at again, given the much wider range of temperatures we are now experiencing across increasing the hot summers. Furthermore, more modern railway electrification infrastructure in the country is much needed and to be more resilient than the older and sometimes, as honourable members pointed out, sometimes inappropriate equipment installed over the decades. Given this government's cancellation of projects like the Midland mainline electrification.
It is unclear how the government will effectively upgrade that older, less resilient infrastructure. Now, we all recognise that costs that there would be involved in this if there were to be significant changes to increase those stress temperatures. Therefore, the government must explain how we can maintain our railway in a cost effective and targeted way. I say that on the basis of the previous reviews of extreme weather, highlighted a clear need to better establish where there are problems and the need to target root causes. However, to achieve this, Network Rail must embed cost control into its overall approach so that its resources are as used as effectively as possible across what is a large network.
Ultimately, why I absolutely share our love, obviously, of our environment and the need to protect it and to obviously ensure that money is allocated to our railways properly. It has got to be used as effectively as possible. The question is whether the projects Network Rail are currently conducting are the best use of such funds, as ministers have unfortunately given less than clear answers to some of my written parliamentary questions about biodiversity projects. It is hard to understand sometimes precisely how many is allocated to biodiversity is currently being directed, and whether it's being used in the best way in the.
In order to protect the infrastructure that so many of our constituents rely on across the country. We have heard from Network Rail about its innovative use of technology to achieve its aims of managing some of these projects. However, does the minister think that this technology and investment would be better directed towards ensuring that our infrastructure continues to operate successfully during periods of extreme weather? We know that Network Rail, for example, uses technologies such as thermal imaging to examine issues around earthworks, with East Midlands reporting savings of around £100,000 in doing so. However, ensuring these tools are directed always towards improving resilience must surely be the priority when facing weather conditions, as we've seen this summer.
Furthermore, in adapting to the changing causes of weather related delays, we must consider how we can build and maintain our infrastructure more cost effectively. That means removing unnecessary regulations wherever possible, which make it more difficult to carry out enhancements needed to make our railways more resilient. For example, we cannot allow unnecessary bureaucratic regulations to stand in way of measures designed to improve the railway's resilience to these extreme weather conditions we are now increasingly facing, and all of this could only be achieved with funding. The government's response is to written. Parliamentary questions on this matter have referred to £2.6 billion as recently as September.
However, given the official Control Period seven delivery plan published in the spring of 2024, set out a set out what it described as a step change in our approach to mitigating the impact of extreme weather, with an including a targeted £2.8 billion in investment to protect our most susceptible assets, in particular earthworks and drainage to support reliability. Could the minister perhaps explain the discrepancy between these numbers? And if he can't today, could he write to me about it? For example, the summary of regional plans for 2024 2029 set out clear spending commitments across all regions, amounting to £2.79 billion.
Is this discrepancy due to different classifications of maintenance spending, or is it the result of cuts which have been made to these resilience budgets, leading to a reduction in the allocated spending? Given that 2.6 is obviously less than 2.8 billion, and we've seen significant inflation within the rail sector as well, and the majority of the spending was earmarked for earthworks and drainage. Is the minister confident that all the money necessarily is being delivered towards these projects, specifically? Because that's what people here today have been asking about on behalf of their constituents. And when we consider the government's decision to indefinitely pause phase five of the South West Rail Resilience Programme, this is directly linked to funding and the priorities that this government has chosen to pursue.
While we obviously recognise that there are tough decisions to be made on spending, it would be helpful if the minister could clarify precisely, precisely how much the government is spending and whether it expects other significant projects in this space to be halted as well, overall. Mr.. I reiterate the points that we made at the start of the debate. When dealing with the extreme weather, the government must focus and focus all of its efforts to on to works which are most cost effective and delivering for our constituents. Having wasted money on GBR signage, obscure bureaucratic projects and other ideologically driven activities, the government really needs to demonstrate that it is prioritising prioritising things that matter to our constituents.
Our railways are experiencing an increasingly different set of challenges on the extreme weather conditions. We do understand that, but that means that the government needs to adapt accordingly to those to the challenges we face today. The end result otherwise would be a failure to deliver on the targets that are really there to support our constituents.
And as we've heard from many members across the House, unfortunately, the problems posed by these extremes are not a thing of the past. After a spring and summer in which the performance of our railways has worsened, I would commend the member for proposing this debate, and as we have repeatedly said, our approach on this side of the House, the railways must be evidence based, and I hope that goes for all sides of the House. Our railways should not be run according to a dogmatic ideology, but according to what serves the travelling public best. Now, although Britain has one of the safest railways in the world, we cannot remain complacent.
And as we recently saw in Spain, rail accidents can have the most tragic of consequences and we have to do everything possible we can to avoid them. One of the approaches we need to take is improving the resilience of our railways, making them much more effective in coping with whatever weather conditions we experience, given the railways are performing worse now under almost every metric. This is all the more important. And the data for the first six or periods of the 2026 2027 financial year showed a deterioration in performance across the vast majority of operators. This included delays on services such as south western lNer, Southeastern Sea to Sea and Greater Anglia, many of which were previously performing much better under previous operators.
This is reflected in cost to the taxpayer. According to the Dft's own numbers, South Western Railway spent £8.25 million on payouts to rail users under its DeLay Repay scheme, despite the fact that fewer than half of eligible passengers actually claim this compensation, so it should be at least twice as high. Possibly most worryingly, given the terms of this debate and the importance of addressing extreme weather, Network Rail attributable delay minutes increased across every region of the UK except Scotland. This means more delays for passengers directly attributable to the organization's organisation that manages infrastructure, and which is likely to play a leading role within GBR once it is fully established.
And as the honourable member who proposed this debate mentioned, the impact this can have on freight sectors as well is incredibly important and we need to understand fully some of the clauses in the railway bill and the impact that could have on what we want to see, which is greater numbers of, of, of freight taking some of those lorries off the roads where it's appropriate to do so. And we need but they need to have the certainty that it's going to happen and that they will get properly compensated if there are issues with the network.
These are not small changes that we've seen, but significant ones in the southern region. For example, on a per thousand train mile basis, Network Rail was responsible for over 50% more delays in minutes than during the first few months of 2024. Over those last few time periods. I think it is worth noting this, considering Network Rail's comments about the challenges it faced this summer. If the government manager of our rail infrastructure is facing severe problems with the weather, how can we have confidence that it's going to be a really core part of GBR and managing that process of full nationalisation effectively?
I recognise that a number of these concerns have been raised previously and reiterated today. For example, I understand that the some of the Lib Dem members who spoke today have raised the need to consider the current rail stress. Temperatures need to be looked at again, given the much wider range of temperatures we are now experiencing across increasing the hot summers. Furthermore, more modern railway electrification infrastructure in the country is much needed and to be more resilient than the older and sometimes, as honourable members pointed out, sometimes inappropriate equipment installed over the decades. Given this government's cancellation of projects like the Midland mainline electrification.
It is unclear how the government will effectively upgrade that older, less resilient infrastructure. Now, we all recognise that costs that there would be involved in this if there were to be significant changes to increase those stress temperatures. Therefore, the government must explain how we can maintain our railway in a cost effective and targeted way. I say that on the basis of the previous reviews of extreme weather, highlighted a clear need to better establish where there are problems and the need to target root causes. However, to achieve this, Network Rail must embed cost control into its overall approach so that its resources are as used as effectively as possible across what is a large network.
Ultimately, why I absolutely share our love, obviously, of our environment and the need to protect it and to obviously ensure that money is allocated to our railways properly. It has got to be used as effectively as possible. The question is whether the projects Network Rail are currently conducting are the best use of such funds, as ministers have unfortunately given less than clear answers to some of my written parliamentary questions about biodiversity projects. It is hard to understand sometimes precisely how many is allocated to biodiversity is currently being directed, and whether it's being used in the best way in the.
In order to protect the infrastructure that so many of our constituents rely on across the country. We have heard from Network Rail about its innovative use of technology to achieve its aims of managing some of these projects. However, does the minister think that this technology and investment would be better directed towards ensuring that our infrastructure continues to operate successfully during periods of extreme weather? We know that Network Rail, for example, uses technologies such as thermal imaging to examine issues around earthworks, with East Midlands reporting savings of around £100,000 in doing so. However, ensuring these tools are directed always towards improving resilience must surely be the priority when facing weather conditions, as we've seen this summer.
Furthermore, in adapting to the changing causes of weather related delays, we must consider how we can build and maintain our infrastructure more cost effectively. That means removing unnecessary regulations wherever possible, which make it more difficult to carry out enhancements needed to make our railways more resilient. For example, we cannot allow unnecessary bureaucratic regulations to stand in way of measures designed to improve the railway's resilience to these extreme weather conditions we are now increasingly facing, and all of this could only be achieved with funding. The government's response is to written. Parliamentary questions on this matter have referred to £2.6 billion as recently as September.
However, given the official Control Period seven delivery plan published in the spring of 2024, set out a set out what it described as a step change in our approach to mitigating the impact of extreme weather, with an including a targeted £2.8 billion in investment to protect our most susceptible assets, in particular earthworks and drainage to support reliability. Could the minister perhaps explain the discrepancy between these numbers? And if he can't today, could he write to me about it? For example, the summary of regional plans for 2024 2029 set out clear spending commitments across all regions, amounting to £2.79 billion.
Is this discrepancy due to different classifications of maintenance spending, or is it the result of cuts which have been made to these resilience budgets, leading to a reduction in the allocated spending? Given that 2.6 is obviously less than 2.8 billion, and we've seen significant inflation within the rail sector as well, and the majority of the spending was earmarked for earthworks and drainage. Is the minister confident that all the money necessarily is being delivered towards these projects, specifically? Because that's what people here today have been asking about on behalf of their constituents. And when we consider the government's decision to indefinitely pause phase five of the South West Rail Resilience Programme, this is directly linked to funding and the priorities that this government has chosen to pursue.
While we obviously recognise that there are tough decisions to be made on spending, it would be helpful if the minister could clarify precisely, precisely how much the government is spending and whether it expects other significant projects in this space to be halted as well, overall. Mr.. I reiterate the points that we made at the start of the debate. When dealing with the extreme weather, the government must focus and focus all of its efforts to on to works which are most cost effective and delivering for our constituents. Having wasted money on GBR signage, obscure bureaucratic projects and other ideologically driven activities, the government really needs to demonstrate that it is prioritising prioritising things that matter to our constituents.
Our railways are experiencing an increasingly different set of challenges on the extreme weather conditions. We do understand that, but that means that the government needs to adapt accordingly to those to the challenges we face today. The end result otherwise would be a failure to deliver on the targets that are really there to support our constituents.
16:54
16:54
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you very much. Always a pleasure to see you in the chair, miss Jardine. I'd like to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the tragic train crash in Toledo, Spain, on the 28th of October. And to all those affected, I know that the UK Rail Accident Investigation Branch was quick to offer its expertise and support to its counterparts in Spain in the aftermath of this tragedy. I also want to acknowledge the recent derailments at Lewes and Wickford and the collision at Bedford over the summer.
My thoughts are with everyone affected by these incidents and I'd like to pay tribute. I'm sure members across the House will join me in this tribute to the emergency services and all those that were involved in the response. These incidents are a reminder of the responsibility that we carry to remain vigilant, learn from what has happened and maintain an unwavering focus on safety as the relevant independent authorities continue their investigations. Miss Jardine, it's important that we avoid speculation and allow their work to conclude before drawing any conclusions about those those causes. I am pleased to speak in Westminster Hall today about the impact of extreme weather on train services, and I congratulate my hon.
Friend the member for Cannock Chase for securing this debate and for all the other contributions today. If I do not manage to address your specific points, I assure you, assure you, even, that the Minister would have heard your points today and can always follow that up in writing as well. The effects of extreme weather on the railway are felt not as abstract statistics as my. The honourable gentleman might. My byelection twin for Honiton and Sidmouth, said this is. This is not just about statistics, it's about about misconnections. It's about disrupted working days and uncertainty for passengers and freight.
It's about impacts on local economies, on customers. Communities need a railway that is safe and reliable and able to recover quickly when conditions deteriorate.
My thoughts are with everyone affected by these incidents and I'd like to pay tribute. I'm sure members across the House will join me in this tribute to the emergency services and all those that were involved in the response. These incidents are a reminder of the responsibility that we carry to remain vigilant, learn from what has happened and maintain an unwavering focus on safety as the relevant independent authorities continue their investigations. Miss Jardine, it's important that we avoid speculation and allow their work to conclude before drawing any conclusions about those those causes. I am pleased to speak in Westminster Hall today about the impact of extreme weather on train services, and I congratulate my hon.
Friend the member for Cannock Chase for securing this debate and for all the other contributions today. If I do not manage to address your specific points, I assure you, assure you, even, that the Minister would have heard your points today and can always follow that up in writing as well. The effects of extreme weather on the railway are felt not as abstract statistics as my. The honourable gentleman might. My byelection twin for Honiton and Sidmouth, said this is. This is not just about statistics, it's about about misconnections. It's about disrupted working days and uncertainty for passengers and freight.
It's about impacts on local economies, on customers. Communities need a railway that is safe and reliable and able to recover quickly when conditions deteriorate.
16:59
16:59
16:59
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Madam Chair in Cumbria, we fully appreciate how disruptive bad weather can be and we've got quite a lot of experience of it, but we don't appreciate why bad weather in Scotland can mean trains heading north on the West Coast mainline terminating Preston and nearly an hour away from Penrith and even further to Carlisle. Would the Minister commit to writing to Avanti and Network Rail to understand why and consider solutions that might get my constituents home a bit quicker.
17:00
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
My friend raises a really interesting question. I don't know personally, but I will make sure I speak to the Rail Minister and see what what answers we can get from my hon. Friend on that particular issue this summer brought those challenges into sharp focus. I think the UK experienced five widespread heat waves between May and August, and in June the Met Office issued a rare red extreme heat warning during the most severe conditions. On the 24th and 25th of June, passengers were advised to make only essential journeys in affected areas, including the West Midlands. Services continue to run but safety required reduced speeds and amended timetables.
That meant longer journeys and a greater risk of delays, cancellations and late changes. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the experience of of Cannock Chase this summer. Heat reduced chase line services while intense rainfall flooded the railway between Hednesford and Rugeley and forced trains to terminate at at Hednesford. Further storms disrupted services in October. These events reinforce, I think, the need for better preparations, including drainage, targeted resilience investment and strong local partnership. Working Network Rail have have produced a weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan for each of our regions and. And they indicate where investment may be needed during hot weather and how they can be addressed.
The first duty, of course, of the railway is, of course, to keep passengers and staff safe. Speed restrictions, targeted inspections and temporary closures can be really frustrating, but they are needed to ensure a safe railway. The task is to make those decisions earlier and more precisely, communicate them clearly and restore the service as quickly as possible as conditions allow. The industry has drawn practical lessons from summer 2026, preparing earlier, focusing on the greatest risks, planning for prolonged heat and making decisions sooner. Operationally, that means acting as one railway using restrictions in a targeted way, building recovery into the response and adapting quickly as evidence changes.
The Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways, which will integrate operations and infrastructure in regional routes, acting as one railway. In the meantime, the rail industry has established a climate change programme co-chaired by Network Rail and DFT to provide strategic direction, align the industry and monitor delivery. Preparation is not confined to summer and climate risks are not confined to heat, and the consequential soil moisture deficit in many areas, the developing El Nino is expected to increase the chances of wetter stormier conditions across the UK this autumn and early winter, with stronger winds and increased risks of heavy rainfall and flooding.
But in addition, colder spells are also possible. The railway is therefore preparing for a range of conditions using drones and specialist treatment trains and forecasts in autumn while managing vulnerable trees, planning contingency timetables, monitoring conditions in real time and deploying winter equipment to keep passengers moving safely. But as well as operational preparedness, we need to look to the future. Summers like these, like this last one we experienced this year will become increasingly common. As I said, the extreme weather has become the weather. The changing climate means that resilience cannot simply be something we consider after extreme weather strikes.
It needs to be built into the everyday decisions we make about how we transport, how the transport system is maintained, operated and of course, funded. That's why the Department for transport launched its Climate Adaptation Strategy for Transport in December 2025, setting out our vision for a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient to a changing climate. Importantly, the strategy is about turning that ambition into practical change, supporting the transport system to prepare for the impacts of climate change by setting the strategic direction, strengthening the evidence base and embedding adaptation into planning and decision making.
That approach is already being put into practice on the railway . Network rail is pioneering work on adaptation planning through its adaptation pathways, so that investment can be prioritised and staged as risks change. Publicly owned train operators have also developed weather resilience and climate adaptation plans for the first time to look at climate risks across the railway, not just infrastructure, staff and and customer welfare, for example, working air con are equally important. Just yesterday, the Department for transport published the first Transport Resilience strategy to provide strategic direction to improve the resilience of the transport sector and ensure that resilience principles are embedded within decision making and planning.
And the member for Stratford and East London, we would be pleased to know that we are setting up a four Nations transport resilience Group as part of this. Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority. Building on the £2.9 billion invested in 2024 to 2029, and this has been invested in in activity, yes, but also technology to improve resilience in extreme weather and climate change.
Well, indeed. Yes.
That meant longer journeys and a greater risk of delays, cancellations and late changes. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the experience of of Cannock Chase this summer. Heat reduced chase line services while intense rainfall flooded the railway between Hednesford and Rugeley and forced trains to terminate at at Hednesford. Further storms disrupted services in October. These events reinforce, I think, the need for better preparations, including drainage, targeted resilience investment and strong local partnership. Working Network Rail have have produced a weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan for each of our regions and. And they indicate where investment may be needed during hot weather and how they can be addressed.
The first duty, of course, of the railway is, of course, to keep passengers and staff safe. Speed restrictions, targeted inspections and temporary closures can be really frustrating, but they are needed to ensure a safe railway. The task is to make those decisions earlier and more precisely, communicate them clearly and restore the service as quickly as possible as conditions allow. The industry has drawn practical lessons from summer 2026, preparing earlier, focusing on the greatest risks, planning for prolonged heat and making decisions sooner. Operationally, that means acting as one railway using restrictions in a targeted way, building recovery into the response and adapting quickly as evidence changes.
The Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways, which will integrate operations and infrastructure in regional routes, acting as one railway. In the meantime, the rail industry has established a climate change programme co-chaired by Network Rail and DFT to provide strategic direction, align the industry and monitor delivery. Preparation is not confined to summer and climate risks are not confined to heat, and the consequential soil moisture deficit in many areas, the developing El Nino is expected to increase the chances of wetter stormier conditions across the UK this autumn and early winter, with stronger winds and increased risks of heavy rainfall and flooding.
But in addition, colder spells are also possible. The railway is therefore preparing for a range of conditions using drones and specialist treatment trains and forecasts in autumn while managing vulnerable trees, planning contingency timetables, monitoring conditions in real time and deploying winter equipment to keep passengers moving safely. But as well as operational preparedness, we need to look to the future. Summers like these, like this last one we experienced this year will become increasingly common. As I said, the extreme weather has become the weather. The changing climate means that resilience cannot simply be something we consider after extreme weather strikes.
It needs to be built into the everyday decisions we make about how we transport, how the transport system is maintained, operated and of course, funded. That's why the Department for transport launched its Climate Adaptation Strategy for Transport in December 2025, setting out our vision for a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient to a changing climate. Importantly, the strategy is about turning that ambition into practical change, supporting the transport system to prepare for the impacts of climate change by setting the strategic direction, strengthening the evidence base and embedding adaptation into planning and decision making.
That approach is already being put into practice on the railway . Network rail is pioneering work on adaptation planning through its adaptation pathways, so that investment can be prioritised and staged as risks change. Publicly owned train operators have also developed weather resilience and climate adaptation plans for the first time to look at climate risks across the railway, not just infrastructure, staff and and customer welfare, for example, working air con are equally important. Just yesterday, the Department for transport published the first Transport Resilience strategy to provide strategic direction to improve the resilience of the transport sector and ensure that resilience principles are embedded within decision making and planning.
And the member for Stratford and East London, we would be pleased to know that we are setting up a four Nations transport resilience Group as part of this. Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority. Building on the £2.9 billion invested in 2024 to 2029, and this has been invested in in activity, yes, but also technology to improve resilience in extreme weather and climate change.
Well, indeed. Yes.
17:04
17:04
17:04
17:04
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I come on to talk specifically about the issues you raised. I think all all endeavors are being made, and a great deal of funding has gone in to try and make that track as resilient as possible. I don't think anybody really wants to suspend services through that, through that area. But unfortunately, there will be instances where that that that may have to take place. But I think the investment that has taken place has made it more resilient. We saw that in the in the latest storms, whereby it was reopened the very next day after its closure.
So the member for True and Falmouth and the member for Torbay talked about the South West rail resilience. I think more than £165 million has been invested through the South West Rail Resilience Programme, including a new seawall, rockfall shelter at Parson's Tunnel and major cliff stabilisation work. And as I've just said, the value of that investment has already been demonstrated at the start of this year during those storms. And it also saw Cornwall's worst ever rainfall totals. But the new seawall performed as designed, helping to protect the infrastructure from major damage and allowed it to reopen the very next day.
In terms of phase five of the resilience programme. Indeed, it was not funded as part of the 2025 Spending Review. We're continuing to fund investigative work on that section of the route. Network rail is currently undertaking a drainage trial to remove water from the cliffs, as well as further ground investigation that will help Network Rail with with more detailed data that it needs for longer term solutions. And all that monitoring equipment is also installed in those areas of the cliff between Parson's Tunnel and Tamworth, which will help provide a quick response when triggered. And my hon.
Friend the member for Hexham also mentioned about northern. I think northern are procuring. I think it's 450 new trains due in 2031 now. I appreciate that. That feels like a long time away. But they're also looking at shorter term options to improve capacity. To conclude, Miss Jardine, I would like to assure the honourable member and honourable members throughout the House that this government recognises both the immediate disruption experienced by passengers and the longer term challenge facing our railway. Cannock Chase has seen the effect of of heat, intense rainfall and storms within a single season will continue to work with Network Rail train operators and local partners to learn from those events, improve drainage and operational preparedness, target investment where risk is greatest and give passengers clearer information.
Extreme weather cannot be prevented, but its consequences can be better anticipated, managed and reduced. And that is how we will secure a safer, more reliable and more resilient railway for Cannock Chase and for communities across the country. Thank you.
So the member for True and Falmouth and the member for Torbay talked about the South West rail resilience. I think more than £165 million has been invested through the South West Rail Resilience Programme, including a new seawall, rockfall shelter at Parson's Tunnel and major cliff stabilisation work. And as I've just said, the value of that investment has already been demonstrated at the start of this year during those storms. And it also saw Cornwall's worst ever rainfall totals. But the new seawall performed as designed, helping to protect the infrastructure from major damage and allowed it to reopen the very next day.
In terms of phase five of the resilience programme. Indeed, it was not funded as part of the 2025 Spending Review. We're continuing to fund investigative work on that section of the route. Network rail is currently undertaking a drainage trial to remove water from the cliffs, as well as further ground investigation that will help Network Rail with with more detailed data that it needs for longer term solutions. And all that monitoring equipment is also installed in those areas of the cliff between Parson's Tunnel and Tamworth, which will help provide a quick response when triggered. And my hon.
Friend the member for Hexham also mentioned about northern. I think northern are procuring. I think it's 450 new trains due in 2031 now. I appreciate that. That feels like a long time away. But they're also looking at shorter term options to improve capacity. To conclude, Miss Jardine, I would like to assure the honourable member and honourable members throughout the House that this government recognises both the immediate disruption experienced by passengers and the longer term challenge facing our railway. Cannock Chase has seen the effect of of heat, intense rainfall and storms within a single season will continue to work with Network Rail train operators and local partners to learn from those events, improve drainage and operational preparedness, target investment where risk is greatest and give passengers clearer information.
Extreme weather cannot be prevented, but its consequences can be better anticipated, managed and reduced. And that is how we will secure a safer, more reliable and more resilient railway for Cannock Chase and for communities across the country. Thank you.
17:04
17:04
17:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Start by thanking all honourable members who have contributed to this debate this afternoon, either through interventions or through making those speeches. I found it very enjoyable, not because of the litany of examples of disruption we've heard from all across the country, but because of the the richness with which honourable members have come here today to speak up for their constituents who are affected by these issues. We had many interventions where members highlighted particular constituency concerns, including from the members for Leicester South, Woking, West Dorset, Chichester and South Devon. I was really interested to hear about the archaeological endeavours in Rugeley, of the honourable member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire.
We'll have to find a site and have her back to to repeat that again. She's right to raise issues for her constituency, travelling in and out of London as well as within Cambridgeshire, and I support her calls for investment in her line, even if it's like just after for for my line and I, my hon. Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth really highlighted the human consequences of disruption, particularly in Cornwall, and she rightly highlighted the fact that big pots of money have gone to elsewhere in the country. But in Cornwall, where they just have the one line they've often missed out, she's right to raise that, as well as the lack of alternatives like flights, which I know are in many cases are being cut back to.
And also she highlighted the issues at Dawlish, which the minister referred to, which also referred to by the member for Torbay. He's right to say that climate change is a real enemy that we're facing in this battle. And he also raised the risks further up the line at Powderham. And I think he was he was right to highlight that, too. He mentioned ageing rolling stock, as did my hon. Friend the member for Hexham, who drew on his personal experience, having grown up in his constituency, and also the fact that so much of the infrastructure in his part of the world is getting very old now.
And he was right to highlight as well the disruption around major events, which I think underlined the fact that these disruptions could affect our sporting, hospitality and leisure industries as well as individually, us as passengers and my hon. Friend the member for Strangford, as always, present in these debates and making an excellent contribution. Despite the lack of his train line and his constituency boundaries, he was right to highlight the experiences of his constituents who use the Bangor line and the importance for resilience services going into Belfast, which the honourable member for North Down also mentioned.
I really thank him for highlighting the the issues for our young people who often find their opportunities limited by travel disruption. He was right to highlight that, and the member for East Londonderry also reminded us that transport woes are spreading right across Northern Ireland, and the need for that cross-border collaboration, which I think is true right across the British Isles. And just briefly, Miss Jardine, out of the interventions, I would just like to pick up the honourable member for South Devon, who made a really important point around train Wi-Fi. She's absolutely right. We face a lot of productivity issues in this country, and if people were able to work whilst they're stuck on trains, that would go some way to addressing that.
But I would also like to commend her for the campaigning that she is doing. Although it's a road issue, rather than rail around the A 379 at Slapton Sands, her constituency is one that my family and I visit every year to go on holiday and when we were down there this year, I was struck by the. The explanation on hoardings of businesses that have been affected by the washing away of the road and the immense storm they had at Torcross, and the explanation of the work that she is doing as a assiduous constituency MP to try and get those issues resolved, and I really wish her all the best with that campaign.
So with that, Mr.. I'd like to finish the debate once again by thanking all honourable members, and I'm sure we will all continue to talk about this disruption. Hopefully it will be resolved soon, but I thank everybody for bringing their stories to the debate today.
We'll have to find a site and have her back to to repeat that again. She's right to raise issues for her constituency, travelling in and out of London as well as within Cambridgeshire, and I support her calls for investment in her line, even if it's like just after for for my line and I, my hon. Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth really highlighted the human consequences of disruption, particularly in Cornwall, and she rightly highlighted the fact that big pots of money have gone to elsewhere in the country. But in Cornwall, where they just have the one line they've often missed out, she's right to raise that, as well as the lack of alternatives like flights, which I know are in many cases are being cut back to.
And also she highlighted the issues at Dawlish, which the minister referred to, which also referred to by the member for Torbay. He's right to say that climate change is a real enemy that we're facing in this battle. And he also raised the risks further up the line at Powderham. And I think he was he was right to highlight that, too. He mentioned ageing rolling stock, as did my hon. Friend the member for Hexham, who drew on his personal experience, having grown up in his constituency, and also the fact that so much of the infrastructure in his part of the world is getting very old now.
And he was right to highlight as well the disruption around major events, which I think underlined the fact that these disruptions could affect our sporting, hospitality and leisure industries as well as individually, us as passengers and my hon. Friend the member for Strangford, as always, present in these debates and making an excellent contribution. Despite the lack of his train line and his constituency boundaries, he was right to highlight the experiences of his constituents who use the Bangor line and the importance for resilience services going into Belfast, which the honourable member for North Down also mentioned.
I really thank him for highlighting the the issues for our young people who often find their opportunities limited by travel disruption. He was right to highlight that, and the member for East Londonderry also reminded us that transport woes are spreading right across Northern Ireland, and the need for that cross-border collaboration, which I think is true right across the British Isles. And just briefly, Miss Jardine, out of the interventions, I would just like to pick up the honourable member for South Devon, who made a really important point around train Wi-Fi. She's absolutely right. We face a lot of productivity issues in this country, and if people were able to work whilst they're stuck on trains, that would go some way to addressing that.
But I would also like to commend her for the campaigning that she is doing. Although it's a road issue, rather than rail around the A 379 at Slapton Sands, her constituency is one that my family and I visit every year to go on holiday and when we were down there this year, I was struck by the. The explanation on hoardings of businesses that have been affected by the washing away of the road and the immense storm they had at Torcross, and the explanation of the work that she is doing as a assiduous constituency MP to try and get those issues resolved, and I really wish her all the best with that campaign.
So with that, Mr.. I'd like to finish the debate once again by thanking all honourable members, and I'm sure we will all continue to talk about this disruption. Hopefully it will be resolved soon, but I thank everybody for bringing their stories to the debate today.
17:05
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
The question is that this House has considered the impact of extreme weather on train services, as many as are of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. Order, order! Sorry. Yeah. We'll suspend now until 4 p.m.. Hello? Order! I will call Esther McVey to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate and the Minister. They will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is convention, for a 30 minute debate.
Order, order McVey to move the motion.
Order, order McVey to move the motion.
17:07
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I beg to move that this House has considered the use of agricultural land for solar panels. And Mrs. Jardine, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Currently, planning is being sought for a large solar panel development in my constituency on a 150 acres of grade one and two agricultural land, some of the best and most versatile agricultural land there is, and including 70 acres of grade one farmland, and which forms part of an historic rural landscape to the local residents of Tabley and Knutsford, are both distraught and mystified that at a time when food security is increasingly recognized as a national priority, that we should be allowing our highest quality agricultural land to come out of production.
I will indeed.
I will indeed.
17:07
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The honourable lady and I share many, many things, and this is one of the things we share the same concern over . And increasingly in my constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland, there are a great many solar applications coming through which will take away prime agricultural land in Northern Ireland. The agriculture is an important problem, the most important backbone of our regional economy. Does the hon. Lady agree that we had a consideration must always be given that brownfield sites and rooftops, to ensure that the valuable land that nobody wishes and talks about is retained for the purpose that it should be.
And that's for the production of food.
And that's for the production of food.
17:07
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I'm extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. Clean air solar farm proposal near Beverley again is on some excellent BMV best and most versatile agricultural land. Does she like me? Consider the fact that, given this fantastic, high quality land only constitutes about 40% of farmland? Does she agree with me that it's insane to allow solar to go on that best land, when 60% of the land that's widely available could have solar on it, and the minister would be well advised to tighten up the rules, because then his solar strategy is far more likely to retain public support.
17:07
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Insanity is the right word. And what was expressed by many of my constituents at the last public meeting, arranged by Rowena Jackson and the newly formed community group Knutsford Solar Action, hundreds of local residents gathered hoping to get some answers from the developer and the local council as to why that site had been chosen. Sadly, neither the developer nor Cheshire East Council bothered to attend, and so even the most basic questions such as why an environmental environmental impact assessment had not been done for this site, could be answered. The whole process has shown absolutely no regard for the local rural community.
The truth is this government's colossal rush to achieve its net zero targets is coming at the expense of our nation's food security and destroying the UK's farming land. But then again, we know what this government thinks of our farmers and farming. Not a lot. I will indeed give away.
The truth is this government's colossal rush to achieve its net zero targets is coming at the expense of our nation's food security and destroying the UK's farming land. But then again, we know what this government thinks of our farmers and farming. Not a lot. I will indeed give away.
17:08
17:08
17:08
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Giving way. Would she agree with me that it cannot be right that farmers in the South Cotswolds, who had no say in this, are now facing the compulsory acquisition of rights over their land, purely because the developer has chosen to locate a solar farm 13 miles away from the nearest grid connection.
17:08
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I do hope the Minister today is listening to what all honourable and right honourable members are saying about this issue. According to the Commons Library, between August 2025 and July 2026, 733 solar photovoltaic projects received planning permission across the United Kingdom. This shows the pace at which solar developments are reshaping our countryside. With around 188,000 acres approved for grid scale solar projects across the UK, I will indeed give way. There were two members wishing to speak on the same point, so I'll go from one to the other.
17:08
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
My right hon. Friend has been very generous with the interventions that she is allowing. She's just talking about the scale and pace that we're seeing of cellular developments on agricultural land. In my constituency, we have a huge development over 700 acres already, and then another one of 160 acres just been given permission near Rodmersham. So this is a huge quantity of important agricultural land now being destroyed by these solar developments. Does she agree with me that the government needs to be taking this into account on their guidance on planning decisions, so that we don't jeopardize our food security?
17:08
17:09
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She's making an excellent and really important speech. Energy security, of course, is important, but as she has pointed out, we cannot lose sight of the vital importance of food security. And does she agree with me that actually we need action, not words? There has been a lot of people saying that we should prioritise brownfield sites. It's not enough to say it. We need to make sure that these solar panels are going on brownfield sites, on rooftops before, and not building over our prime agricultural land.
17:09
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I don't know how many thousands of people, tens of thousands of people. This government needs to hear saying precisely that before action is taken, ministers repeatedly state that lower quality land should be used, but in reality, that is not the case. And a growing gap is occurring between policy and practice. I will indeed give way.
17:09
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I thank my honourable friend for giving way. The Green Hill Solar farm in my constituency has just been approved by the Secretary of State. That is going to use 60% of best and most versatile land, and it means that arable land will be lost for 60 years in our area. Now, local groups are considering trying to do a judicial review because. Does the hon. Lady agree with me? It doesn't make sense if the policy says you shouldn't be using this land and then they're going ahead and approving them nonetheless?
17:09
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Well, I think like most things, this government doesn't actually know what's going on. It talks the talk but actually doesn't put what it says into practice. In 2025, the Campaign to Protect Rural England found that 59% of England's England's largest solar farms are located on productive farmland, with almost a third occupying the very best agricultural land. The proposed Tabley Hill solar farm in my constituency is another instance of a large scale solar development being directed towards some of the country's best agricultural land.
I will indeed give way.
I will indeed give way.
17:09
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I thank the member for giving way, being very generous, would you agree with me that apart from rolling over the wishes of local communities, that the ideology driving these solar farms is economically disastrous because we're losing good agricultural land and also environmentally disastrous because much of this land, which is good prime land, is being destroyed by machinery, by pipelines, by concrete bases, etc. and it's being lost for a generation because this isn't a short term thing.
It's at least 60 years.
It's at least 60 years.
17:09
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. And also, I applaud her speech in getting the speech today, the debate today. I do want to say one other thing about this, which is quite vital. We managed recently to finally under against government pressure, get an amendment into the Great British Energy Bill to stop the government buying solar arrays that are being made in Xinjiang. In China, where slave labour is practised. Now we know that they simply do not check enough. We have clear evidence now that there are still solar arrays cheaper, made using slave labour.
It's all very well to talk about 300 years ago, but right now we are allowing slave labour to take place and the minister needs to get to his feet and give us a pledge. He'll put in proper checks to stop that filthy trade being part of this disaster that my right hon. Friend is eloquently making.
It's all very well to talk about 300 years ago, but right now we are allowing slave labour to take place and the minister needs to get to his feet and give us a pledge. He'll put in proper checks to stop that filthy trade being part of this disaster that my right hon. Friend is eloquently making.
17:10
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I want to thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, too. I know it's something he spends a lot of time and energy investigating and pursuing this, and I'm glad that he's brought his expertise to this debate. Today. The government has made clear that solar energy will be central to its clean power mission, with solar capacity expected to increase from 17GW to between 45 and 47 by the end of the decade.
However, meeting that target should not come at the expense of the country's agricultural land. I will indeed give way.
However, meeting that target should not come at the expense of the country's agricultural land. I will indeed give way.
17:10
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you very much to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Solar energy must continue to make a huge and growing contribution towards our clean energy future, and this must include far more solar on rooftops and car parks, and a considered approach to the use of land for energy generation. There are competing demands for food production, renewable energy generation, nature and rural livelihoods, and I'm concerned about the lack of an integrated land use framework and strategic spatial energy plan to guide solar expansion, which is resulting in lots of speculative applications. So does the right hon.
Lady agree that we must move towards a coordinated spatial strategy that balances energy security, food security and nature recovery, and seeks to enhance all three.
Lady agree that we must move towards a coordinated spatial strategy that balances energy security, food security and nature recovery, and seeks to enhance all three.
17:10
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I do indeed agree that the government does need to have oversight of what is going on at the moment. It seems our farming land and our food security is being put at a lower priority than as sort of a net zero mission and vision. And as we've all agreed, solar panels should be put on appropriate brownfield land on top of roofs, on industrial industrial land, not on agricultural land. So does the minister know how much prime agricultural land this government is prepared to sacrifice to meet its green targets? Supposedly, tablet solar farm is a temporary development, yet a scheme expected to remain in place for 40 years is not temporary, and other members have talked about 60 years.
It will determine how this land is used for a generation. Now I recognise the financial pressures many farmers face, particularly under the government's savage policies, and why the certainty of a long term income from solar development may be attractive. The fault does not lie with individual farmers. It lies with the system that can make generating electricity more profitable than producing food on some of the country's highest quality agricultural land. There are impacts on tenant farmers threatened with eviction and further pressure on land values, which makes it harder for new entrants to join the sector and begin farming.
Or Kyra Tabley, Hills developer, points to a community fund that is established. I think it's derisory £10,000 a year, and that's evidence that it is bringing benefit to the local area. However, local residents are entitled to ask whether a £10,000 a year is proportionate. Compensation for a development covering 150 occupying, occupying greenbelt agricultural land and altering the character of the area for decades. I say it is not. Community benefit funds have their place, but they should not be treated as a substitute for meaningful community consent or as a suitable replacement for our food security.
The burden of this development will not be confined to the site as well. Construction traffic is expected for around two years, with every construction vehicle accessing the site via Chester Road. HGV movements are expected to increase by 60% for up to a year, placing additional pressures on local roads and nearby residents. This is a rural community and local people are understandably concerned about increased traffic, noise disruption and the danger of that on these rural roads. Tabley Hill is about more than one planning application in our constituency. It raises broader questions about how we meet our energy needs without undermining food production, eroding greenbelt protections and placing unnecessary pressure on rural communities.
There are also questions about whether land use for solar farms will, or ever could be returned to agricultural use. Many people are questioning that. Many people don't have the answers on that. I support a balanced energy mix, and I recognise that solar panel has a role to play in future energy, but I do not support the unnecessary loss of some of our highest quality agricultural land. When brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, warehouses and industrial land remain available . Alternatives. As other members have said today, productive farmland should be protected wherever possible and these alternatives should be exhausted before land of this quality is taken out of use for a generation, but in my mind it should never be used.
The minister presumably agrees with me about this issue. Solar planning guidance says the planning authority should encourage development of solar farms on non-agricultural land, but that is clearly not strong enough as it is not working. What does the minister propose to do to save our vital agricultural land? Stopping his government's assault on farmers would be a good start. So will he toughen up official planning policy to protect more agricultural land from solar farm developments? If not, how much agricultural land is he prepared to see lost from our nation's ability to provide food for its people?
It will determine how this land is used for a generation. Now I recognise the financial pressures many farmers face, particularly under the government's savage policies, and why the certainty of a long term income from solar development may be attractive. The fault does not lie with individual farmers. It lies with the system that can make generating electricity more profitable than producing food on some of the country's highest quality agricultural land. There are impacts on tenant farmers threatened with eviction and further pressure on land values, which makes it harder for new entrants to join the sector and begin farming.
Or Kyra Tabley, Hills developer, points to a community fund that is established. I think it's derisory £10,000 a year, and that's evidence that it is bringing benefit to the local area. However, local residents are entitled to ask whether a £10,000 a year is proportionate. Compensation for a development covering 150 occupying, occupying greenbelt agricultural land and altering the character of the area for decades. I say it is not. Community benefit funds have their place, but they should not be treated as a substitute for meaningful community consent or as a suitable replacement for our food security.
The burden of this development will not be confined to the site as well. Construction traffic is expected for around two years, with every construction vehicle accessing the site via Chester Road. HGV movements are expected to increase by 60% for up to a year, placing additional pressures on local roads and nearby residents. This is a rural community and local people are understandably concerned about increased traffic, noise disruption and the danger of that on these rural roads. Tabley Hill is about more than one planning application in our constituency. It raises broader questions about how we meet our energy needs without undermining food production, eroding greenbelt protections and placing unnecessary pressure on rural communities.
There are also questions about whether land use for solar farms will, or ever could be returned to agricultural use. Many people are questioning that. Many people don't have the answers on that. I support a balanced energy mix, and I recognise that solar panel has a role to play in future energy, but I do not support the unnecessary loss of some of our highest quality agricultural land. When brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, warehouses and industrial land remain available . Alternatives. As other members have said today, productive farmland should be protected wherever possible and these alternatives should be exhausted before land of this quality is taken out of use for a generation, but in my mind it should never be used.
The minister presumably agrees with me about this issue. Solar planning guidance says the planning authority should encourage development of solar farms on non-agricultural land, but that is clearly not strong enough as it is not working. What does the minister propose to do to save our vital agricultural land? Stopping his government's assault on farmers would be a good start. So will he toughen up official planning policy to protect more agricultural land from solar farm developments? If not, how much agricultural land is he prepared to see lost from our nation's ability to provide food for its people?
17:11
17:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Jardine. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. As always. Can I thank all honourable members for coming to this debate. I will just say at the outset, obviously, many colleagues across the House have come here to raise concerns about projects in their own constituencies. I understand entirely why, but given these are subject to planning processes, I want to say right at the outset, I cannot comment on the positives or negatives or decisions that will be raised through the CIP process for any of those particular applications, they are rightly for the Secretary of State to make decisions on in due course.
I do want to touch on the general points that the honourable lady makes in her speech. First of all, I think just recognize an area where I think we do have common agreement here on the fact that infrastructure across our country is necessary, but that it should be built in sensible locations and take account of local impacts. I have said throughout that I find much of the Nimby debate that has come about in a lot of this a bit redundant in actually trying to bring communities with us. But I've also said very clearly that we need to build infrastructure as a country, and it's not possible to just build all of it somewhere else.
And inevitably in these debates, what we often get back to is this argument that people are in favour of the technology, but just just not anywhere near my constituency. And there has to be some common ground somewhere in the middle of that, which recognises that we do need to build infrastructure somewhere and solar in particular. And I'll give you two honourable gentleman in a moment. Solar in particular is important because it tackles our energy security, but it is also by far the cheapest to deploy electricity generation in the country at the moment. And with affordability as right at the forefront of all of our constituents minds, it is right and proper that we try to deploy as much of solar as we possibly can.
I will give way to the honourable gentleman.
I do want to touch on the general points that the honourable lady makes in her speech. First of all, I think just recognize an area where I think we do have common agreement here on the fact that infrastructure across our country is necessary, but that it should be built in sensible locations and take account of local impacts. I have said throughout that I find much of the Nimby debate that has come about in a lot of this a bit redundant in actually trying to bring communities with us. But I've also said very clearly that we need to build infrastructure as a country, and it's not possible to just build all of it somewhere else.
And inevitably in these debates, what we often get back to is this argument that people are in favour of the technology, but just just not anywhere near my constituency. And there has to be some common ground somewhere in the middle of that, which recognises that we do need to build infrastructure somewhere and solar in particular. And I'll give you two honourable gentleman in a moment. Solar in particular is important because it tackles our energy security, but it is also by far the cheapest to deploy electricity generation in the country at the moment. And with affordability as right at the forefront of all of our constituents minds, it is right and proper that we try to deploy as much of solar as we possibly can.
I will give way to the honourable gentleman.
17:11
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Minister, for giving way. And of course, I had his role just two and a half years ago. I think I agree with pretty much everything he said so far. There is a backlash because we're seeing so much high quality land loss. We're seeing cumulative impact, which again, notionally, I know the government says should be looked at, but it never seems to stop a project. And we're seeing the slave labour supply chains issue. So I would invite the minister, given that 60% of the land isn't best and most versatile, to tighten up the rules on best and most versatile land, tighten up the rules so that there's real protection around cumulative, and tighten up the rules on slave labour supply chains.
And I think he can still fulfil his ambition to see that infrastructure built. But make sure that we've got a system which is sufficiently rigorous that communities are quieted. It won't stop every Nimby anywhere, but at least it will show reassurance and show there are real rules to provide real protection, because right now, the absence of it is causing skepticism right across this House and across the country.
And I think he can still fulfil his ambition to see that infrastructure built. But make sure that we've got a system which is sufficiently rigorous that communities are quieted. It won't stop every Nimby anywhere, but at least it will show reassurance and show there are real rules to provide real protection, because right now, the absence of it is causing skepticism right across this House and across the country.
17:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I will come to several of those points. He has always, I think I hope this doesn't do him a disservice being more pragmatic than his party on a lot of these issues, and I've always appreciated that. And he's right to say , what we want to try and do is find a place where we build the infrastructure we need, that we bring communities with us and that we don't turn them away from from the energy transition. I think that's really important. I do want to just put some statistics here, because I think individual applications often paint a picture of a much greater use of land across the country than is actually the case.
The land devoted to solar farms at the end of September 2024, which is the latest set of figures I have at this point, is that it covered an estimated 21,000 hectares, which is around 0.1% of total land in the UK. Even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios in the Clean Power Action Plan, we expect to get to 0.4% of deployment and 0.6% of agricultural land in the country. So while I recognise that there are local impacts of all of these projects, and I speak as a as a member of Parliament, very close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms that were built under the previous government.
I recognise that land use is a challenge across communities, but it is nevertheless across the country a very small proportion of land overall. The second point the honourable gentleman raises, which the right hon. Gentleman from Chingford made earlier on, and he rightly challenges us on this around supply chains. I'd say two things on this. First of all, it was right that we accepted the amendment, but also set up Great British Energy to be a leader in how we build supply chains that can try to get a supply chain on solar panels here in the UK again, and to do due diligence on supply chains coming in from from China.
There is much more work to do on that, and I do not pretend that the work is complete yet. Some of the initiatives, like the Solar Stewardship Initiative, I think, need to go further to make sure we're really getting into the detail of of supply chains. But equally, I would just say that when we left government in 2010, there were three companies building in the solar supply chains in the UK. And when we came back, there were none. And this comes back to a really important part, I think, about Reindustrialisation, which is if we want to have supply chain security, if we want to have line of sight on things like human rights, but actually, if we want to create good jobs across the country, we need to invest in the manufacturing capability in this country and nurture it and not let it let it go to the wall, which is where we where we get to particular risks at the moment.
I will give way to both. Honourable gentleman, briefly.
The land devoted to solar farms at the end of September 2024, which is the latest set of figures I have at this point, is that it covered an estimated 21,000 hectares, which is around 0.1% of total land in the UK. Even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios in the Clean Power Action Plan, we expect to get to 0.4% of deployment and 0.6% of agricultural land in the country. So while I recognise that there are local impacts of all of these projects, and I speak as a as a member of Parliament, very close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms that were built under the previous government.
I recognise that land use is a challenge across communities, but it is nevertheless across the country a very small proportion of land overall. The second point the honourable gentleman raises, which the right hon. Gentleman from Chingford made earlier on, and he rightly challenges us on this around supply chains. I'd say two things on this. First of all, it was right that we accepted the amendment, but also set up Great British Energy to be a leader in how we build supply chains that can try to get a supply chain on solar panels here in the UK again, and to do due diligence on supply chains coming in from from China.
There is much more work to do on that, and I do not pretend that the work is complete yet. Some of the initiatives, like the Solar Stewardship Initiative, I think, need to go further to make sure we're really getting into the detail of of supply chains. But equally, I would just say that when we left government in 2010, there were three companies building in the solar supply chains in the UK. And when we came back, there were none. And this comes back to a really important part, I think, about Reindustrialisation, which is if we want to have supply chain security, if we want to have line of sight on things like human rights, but actually, if we want to create good jobs across the country, we need to invest in the manufacturing capability in this country and nurture it and not let it let it go to the wall, which is where we where we get to particular risks at the moment.
I will give way to both. Honourable gentleman, briefly.
17:12
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
What do you accept that one of the reasons why so many UK firms disappear is because they can't compete against firms, and especially from China, who have got cheap labour or labor at no cost at all. And that's why it's so important that we, the government, tighten down on where the supplies of these this equipment comes from.
17:12
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Yeah. The main point I wanted to make to the to the gentleman is that China thwarts all the rules around commerce. They subsidize all their industries. They subsidize the solar array industry. They use slave labor, which we've mentioned already. The thing about the slave labor is America does it in a much cleaner way. What they do is they force the companies and they assume that those companies are in fact, using slave made solar arrays. They leave it to the company to prove to them with serious checks from places like all these various companies that do it using forensic science, that they are not using slave made solar arrays.
Now, the government should look at that and adopt that process. That would kill the supply of slave made solar arrays tomorrow.
Now, the government should look at that and adopt that process. That would kill the supply of slave made solar arrays tomorrow.
17:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I thank the right hon. Gentleman. And he made similar points during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill, and we continue to look at that across government in procurement that we're reviewing right across government investment in these projects. And we do want to incentivize as much as possible supply chains to be here in the UK. I do not accept the point that the honourable gentleman makes. That cost alone is the reason why we do not have supply chains here in the UK. We have to use the mechanisms. We have to encourage that manufacturing to be in the UK, which is why things like the Clean Industry Bonus is about saying alongside contracts for difference to build renewable energy in the UK, you can also get investment to make sure the manufacturing is here in the UK as well and the jobs that go with it, but also security at a time when supply chains are absolutely critical.
So I think there is more we can do. No doubt it's a challenge. I absolutely accept that point, but there's more we can do. I want to just come back to two points. The honourable lady, the Right Honourable lady, talked about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net, zero zealotry in this debate as well. And I hope there is. I think at the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is a recognition that solar is part of an energy mix. It's not the entirety of it.
We need a mix of technologies, but that the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security and a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing at the moment, but also to to bring down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that. And although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible, and we want to support innovative projects like floating solar, we also recognise ground mounted solar plays an absolutely critical role in this as well. The honourable hon. Lady made a number of points about food security and of course I absolutely agree with her.
Food security is national security. We do need to back British farmers, and agriculture is really important in this country, and it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and the character of rural areas. I understand all of those points, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do, to weigh up different impacts, with opportunities to look through specific projects, to take account of local views, which are all considered in these processes and on cumulative impact. To be really clear that a number of projects in a particular area does impact on the on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and they are taken into account in those processes.
So visual amenity, protected landscapes, natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. And as she rightly says, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land has to only be where absolutely necessary. And even then it should be lower grade land used. First. I very briefly to the hon. Then I have to close.
So I think there is more we can do. No doubt it's a challenge. I absolutely accept that point, but there's more we can do. I want to just come back to two points. The honourable lady, the Right Honourable lady, talked about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net, zero zealotry in this debate as well. And I hope there is. I think at the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is a recognition that solar is part of an energy mix. It's not the entirety of it.
We need a mix of technologies, but that the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security and a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing at the moment, but also to to bring down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that. And although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible, and we want to support innovative projects like floating solar, we also recognise ground mounted solar plays an absolutely critical role in this as well. The honourable hon. Lady made a number of points about food security and of course I absolutely agree with her.
Food security is national security. We do need to back British farmers, and agriculture is really important in this country, and it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and the character of rural areas. I understand all of those points, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do, to weigh up different impacts, with opportunities to look through specific projects, to take account of local views, which are all considered in these processes and on cumulative impact. To be really clear that a number of projects in a particular area does impact on the on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and they are taken into account in those processes.
So visual amenity, protected landscapes, natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. And as she rightly says, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land has to only be where absolutely necessary. And even then it should be lower grade land used. First. I very briefly to the hon. Then I have to close.
17:13
17:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, it's not for me to litigate individual planning applications. That is what the planning system exists for. We've given very clear guidance on this. Of course, we keep these things under review, but we do at the moment already have a planning system that takes those things into consideration. I'm not going to open up the debate on individual projects, and indeed, the National Farmers Union has said that there is no threat to food security as a result of solar. I would also just point to the most glaring point on all of this, which is clean energy is about us trying to get off fossil fuels.
But the reason we're doing that is partly to reduce the exposure to all of our constituents to to the bill's impact we are seeing. But the summer we've just lived through is also a perfect example of climate change in action, and the impact of food security, of not tackling the climate crisis is very clear and present for us as well. And I think to exclude that from the debate is missing. The absolutely crucial point here, which is climate change is far more likely to impact our food security in Britain than any infrastructure that we are building.
I have already said to her that I agree on on rooftop solar. We should be building much more of that. That is why the Future Homes Standard encourages new houses to be built with solar installed. That is why I am working to see if we can get even more solar onto warehouses and supermarkets and car parks and everywhere else we possibly can. I am entirely open to that. But nevertheless, ground mounted solar will remain important. I also want us to look at much more innovation in how we do farming alongside solar farms. I visited a number of solar farms where two.
The two do go alongside one another, where livestock grazing can go alongside solar deployment. A lot of emerging I just I do not think I can I'm sorry, a lot of emerging science and agrivoltaics to develop new ways to make sure we've got arable farming alongside solar. I will give way very, very briefly.
But the reason we're doing that is partly to reduce the exposure to all of our constituents to to the bill's impact we are seeing. But the summer we've just lived through is also a perfect example of climate change in action, and the impact of food security, of not tackling the climate crisis is very clear and present for us as well. And I think to exclude that from the debate is missing. The absolutely crucial point here, which is climate change is far more likely to impact our food security in Britain than any infrastructure that we are building.
I have already said to her that I agree on on rooftop solar. We should be building much more of that. That is why the Future Homes Standard encourages new houses to be built with solar installed. That is why I am working to see if we can get even more solar onto warehouses and supermarkets and car parks and everywhere else we possibly can. I am entirely open to that. But nevertheless, ground mounted solar will remain important. I also want us to look at much more innovation in how we do farming alongside solar farms. I visited a number of solar farms where two.
The two do go alongside one another, where livestock grazing can go alongside solar deployment. A lot of emerging I just I do not think I can I'm sorry, a lot of emerging science and agrivoltaics to develop new ways to make sure we've got arable farming alongside solar. I will give way very, very briefly.
17:14
17:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I'm not making any guarantees here. I haven't pretended that I have. I'm saying there is much more opportunity to do these things side by side. And I've visited and seen some of that where it is working and and indeed, actually a net gain in biodiversity from the deployment of solar panels. I look, we are clearly in this focus group on solar , not going to have supporters from everyone who's spoken in the debate today. And I entirely understand that. But I recognise, as I've said in a number of debates and I hope fairly, that we do want to try and make sure we bring communities with us on this as much as possible.
The planning system is important. The right hon. Lady also rightly talked about community benefits. It is really important that those are meaningful to communities. We will say more on this very soon about our expectations on developers, on community benefits. We want those to genuinely invest in the future of communities, to not be tokenistic, but it is important to say that they are not compensation regimes. They are about saying you are hosting infrastructure on behalf of the country. We thank you for that. And here is a community benefit. There is much, contrary to what it might seem from my speech that actually I think we agree on, we do want to preserve the character of the countryside across the country, but I also genuinely believe that we have to rapidly increase the amount of electricity we can generate from clean sources.
We do have to make sure that renewables are there alongside nuclear and other technologies, but the balance of doing that alongside continued food production, alongside protecting communities, is what the planning system exists to do. And I am very open to the idea that we should continue to look at any further reforms that are necessary. But I think at the moment that balance is absolutely understood, and I hope we can continue this conversation in the manner in which we have today, and I will give way.
Thank you.
The planning system is important. The right hon. Lady also rightly talked about community benefits. It is really important that those are meaningful to communities. We will say more on this very soon about our expectations on developers, on community benefits. We want those to genuinely invest in the future of communities, to not be tokenistic, but it is important to say that they are not compensation regimes. They are about saying you are hosting infrastructure on behalf of the country. We thank you for that. And here is a community benefit. There is much, contrary to what it might seem from my speech that actually I think we agree on, we do want to preserve the character of the countryside across the country, but I also genuinely believe that we have to rapidly increase the amount of electricity we can generate from clean sources.
We do have to make sure that renewables are there alongside nuclear and other technologies, but the balance of doing that alongside continued food production, alongside protecting communities, is what the planning system exists to do. And I am very open to the idea that we should continue to look at any further reforms that are necessary. But I think at the moment that balance is absolutely understood, and I hope we can continue this conversation in the manner in which we have today, and I will give way.
Thank you.
17:14
17:15
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you. Chair, it's a pleasure to serve under you. Gynecological. Gynecological health should never cost you your livelihood. However, almost a third of women with endometriosis are forced to leave work because of their symptoms. Behind these statistics are heartbreaking stories of women struggling every day to get the support that they need in the workplace. A defining mission of my time in Parliament, which is coming up to 12 years now, is about making the workplace fairer and safer for women up and down the country. One of my proudest achievements in Parliament has been leading the campaign for mandatory flexible working rights, and this has enabled parents, particularly women, to thrive at work while balancing their commitments, especially their family commitments.
Some people in the House may remember that in 2019, a delayed the birth of my son to vote against Brexit because there was no other option. I had to come into Parliament because there was no way to register the views of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. I was very pleased to say after that proxy voting was brought in, which means that MPs can now come in and ask someone to vote for them when its parental absence. But it shouldn't have taken something like that for proxy voting to come in, and it showed the world how inaccessible even Parliament is for women nowadays.
I am pleased to say that the rules have changed, but we still have a long way to go before we can make workplaces more accessible for women. So when one of my very brave constituents told me how they were unfairly dismissed from work after many years of loyal service while suffering from crippling endometriosis, and then had to fight years simply to establish that the law had protected them at all. I was absolutely astounded by her story. And that's because not a single gynaecological condition is included in the disability guidance of the Equality Act. And yes.
Some people in the House may remember that in 2019, a delayed the birth of my son to vote against Brexit because there was no other option. I had to come into Parliament because there was no way to register the views of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. I was very pleased to say after that proxy voting was brought in, which means that MPs can now come in and ask someone to vote for them when its parental absence. But it shouldn't have taken something like that for proxy voting to come in, and it showed the world how inaccessible even Parliament is for women nowadays.
I am pleased to say that the rules have changed, but we still have a long way to go before we can make workplaces more accessible for women. So when one of my very brave constituents told me how they were unfairly dismissed from work after many years of loyal service while suffering from crippling endometriosis, and then had to fight years simply to establish that the law had protected them at all. I was absolutely astounded by her story. And that's because not a single gynaecological condition is included in the disability guidance of the Equality Act. And yes.
17:15
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank the honourable member for giving way. I, too, have a constituent who suffered with endometriosis and has been unable to work as a result, and hasn't received the support that she requires. And whilst the Equality Act protects and pregnancy, does my friend agree that it should also protect gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis? And there are other conditions as well, because we know at the moment that 1 in 6 people leave the workplace due to endometriosis because they just experience apathy, lack of understanding, etc. and it's really important that we empower women to work with conditions like endometriosis.
17:16
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank my honourable member for her intervention. I think it's very important what she says about people not quite understanding what endometriosis is actually about. And I have to say, when my constituent came to me and started talking to me about her situation and her case at work, I have to say I had to look it up as well, because if you haven't personally suffered from it yourself, it can be very easy to just dismiss as something that isn't crippling your life, but it does cripple your life. And I will go on to a few points that the honourable member makes as well in my speech.
And the reason I'm standing here today is because of my constituent who is in the gallery today, and who led the petition that received over 110,000 signatures calling for this to be changed. A formidable campaigner who I'm proud to say lives in our constituency. The statutory guidance on the definition of disability does name Meniere's disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and certain types of depression as examples of conditions where effects are fluctuating or recurring, but it is silent on endometriosis. It is silent on fibroids. It's silent on PMOS Pmdd, conditions that affect millions of women and whose effects are, by their very nature cyclical and recurring.
And in response, yes.
And the reason I'm standing here today is because of my constituent who is in the gallery today, and who led the petition that received over 110,000 signatures calling for this to be changed. A formidable campaigner who I'm proud to say lives in our constituency. The statutory guidance on the definition of disability does name Meniere's disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and certain types of depression as examples of conditions where effects are fluctuating or recurring, but it is silent on endometriosis. It is silent on fibroids. It's silent on PMOS Pmdd, conditions that affect millions of women and whose effects are, by their very nature cyclical and recurring.
And in response, yes.
17:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And I commend the honourable for bringing this forward and the merits of adding debilitating gynaecological conditions like endometriosis to the quality list are clear. But with legally guarantee women the reasonable workplace adjustments they need to stay in employment. But does the honourable lady not agree? This means very little if the underlying health care system is failing for us back home. The minister's responsibility. But back home we find ourselves where the care is severely limited. Women in my constituency are trapped in agony, agonising willingness or forced to pay thousands to travel across the water here for surgery simply because the care does not exist at home.
So does the honourable lady agree that protecting women at work is only half the battle? There's still a lot to do in the health care system.
So does the honourable lady agree that protecting women at work is only half the battle? There's still a lot to do in the health care system.
17:16
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I'm pleased to see him at every debate in the chamber, and he hasn't stopped doing that. And he's always fighting for the rights of women in any of the debates that we have. And he's absolutely right to say that we do need to settle what's happening in the workplace, but we've got to look at the health care system as well, and make sure that it doesn't become a postcode lottery so that women have to travel in order to get treatment because it should be available for everyone. So in response to my constituents petition, the government acknowledged that these conditions can affect women's performance at work.
But it said it had no plans to amend the guidance. And that's why I'm standing here today urging my colleagues in government to reconsider this decision, because when a woman's condition is missing from the guidance, she starts every conversation with her employer and also her HR department and every claim that she has on the back foot. And that's because courts and tribunals must take the guidance into account. HR departments and managers will use it as their checklist. It opens the door to legal protection, to fairer workplace adjustments, and a fairer system for millions of women across the country.
Last month, members of this House may have seen that the Appg on endometriosis published its Endometriosis Not in the Workplace report. And if everyone looks at the results, they are sobering. They are gathering evidence for more than 6000 employers with confirmed or suspected endometriosis and 250 employers, and the inquiry provides one of the most detailed pictures yet of the condition's impact on working life. These are some of the facts 97% of employees worked with severe pain, 94% believed employers lacked understanding of the condition. 62% were worried about losing their job, 47% had lost income and 39% were experiencing financial hardship.
49% had difficulties progressing in their career. After the condition, 28% had been forced to leave their job. Altogether, 49% had received no workplace adjustments at all, and 72% of employers said they had no training and no guidance on women's health conditions such as endometriosis. So it's I think it's fair to say that women with endometriosis have been failed by employment rights system, and it's damaging their lives, damaging their families, damaging the economy. With only 11% of employers in the UK having a menstrual health policy, employers are not making the reasonable adjustments to accommodate people with endometriosis who are then forced to suffer in silence, and this is a shocking statistic that highlights why there is such a widespread discrimination of women with endometriosis.
And that's why I think we need to have gynaecological conditions, which must be included as impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects. In the Equality Act 2010, guidance on the actual definition of disability, because I believe by doing so, we strengthen workplace protections for women with disabling gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, including fibroids, including PMOS Pmdd, severe menopausal symptoms and other menstrual disorders. One of the biggest challenges we have, and this is a lot that I've learned from my constituent as well, who suffers from this, is the unpredictable nature of these conditions. So women can experience severe pelvic pain, they can have debilitating fatigue, they can have heavy bleeding leading to anaemia.
They have bowel and bladder symptoms. They have bloating, they have nausea. They have loss of appetite and other complications that can fluctuate in severity. A woman with endometriosis, for example, one day may be able to function absolutely fine, but the next day cannot get up from her bed. And this is something that employers should be taking into account. This is overwhelmingly evidence in medical statistics, which my constituents tell me is being ignored by employers because these conditions are not listed in the guidance, which is what we're trying to fight for. I would therefore ask the minister, who I know is passionate about this topic and has been in touch with me about it, to consider for practical steps.
Firstly, updating the Equality Act 2010 guidance. It is issued by a minister under section six of the Equality Act, so no primary legislation is needed. Gynaecological conditions should be named among the existing examples of conditions which are recurring or fluctuating effects, with worked examples of what a flare could look like in a working day. Pain that stops a woman travelling, pain that stops a woman standing up or concentrating, heavy bleeding, fatigue or anaemia, or recovery from surgery. Secondly, I would ask the minister to look at the Ehrc guidance to set out in its employment code.
Examples of reasonable adjustments for these conditions, such as flexible and hybrid working, adjusted hours on bad days, access to facilities and rest breaks, time off for medical conditions and a phased return from surgery. As I'm listing these, it seems incredulous that women aren't allowed this and are having to fight with this. Of course, you should have a phased return after surgery, but the fact is, lots of women don't have that option in the workplace. A lot of these things would cost little or nothing, but would make the lives of those who are suffering so much easier.
Thirdly, I would ask the minister to give employees something tangible to take back to their managers or to HR. A simple standard workplace adjustments passport, backed by Acas guidance, would record what has been agreed so that a woman does not have to explain her condition over and over again, which is exhausting in itself every time her manager changes, and so that managers know exactly what is expected of them. Fourthly, I would build on the employment's right 2025. Large employers will soon have to publish equality action plans that include support for employees who are going through the menopause.
Those plans, which are going to be published, should extend to menstrual and gynaecological health and the government's Keep Britain Working Agenda and workplace health system should expressly include the women with these long term fluctuating conditions. And of course, these changes would not only help women with these conditions, but everyone living with a non-visible chronic condition whose effects come and go. This basic change could save jobs and so much money, and especially save so much anxiety for countless women across the country who are being disabled by endometriosis and not given a reasonable adjustments in the workplace.
And by doing so, we can be a government that ensures women have workplace protections and the right to reasonable adjustments for their condition. The minister will know I was a part of the Treasury, so the economy is always on my mind. So this is not just a question of fairness for me. This is actually about a strong economy and sound business. Endometriosis alone is estimated to cost the UK economy £8.2 billion a year in treatment in lost work and healthcare costs. The ONS found that women with endometriosis earned about £4,500 less over the five years after receiving a diagnosis.
The Fawcett Society found that 1 in 10 women who worked during the menopause has left a job because of their symptoms, and many others worked on reduced hours. The Pmdd project found that 9 in 10 reported that Pmdd significantly or or extremely affected their everyday lives, particularly employment. They can be perceived as unreliable, inconsistent or unable to manage their workload when in reality they are living with a recognised and most often severely disabling condition. I'm sure the minister will agree that women are a vital part of our workflows and our economy, and it's right that the law and guidance explains it, and it reflects the reality of their everyday lives.
Employment lawyers who act in these cases describe the same pattern again and again. Very senior women in whom businesses have invested year after year training client development are managed out after surgery or a period of sickness absence when a phased return, a flexible pattern of working, a modest change to their duties could have retained them and helped our economy. At the same time, the business lose their skills, their client relationships and everything that has been invested in them. It then pays to recruit and train a replacement, and very often pays again to defend a claim.
And those claims can take years. So at the end of June this year, there are 70,000 single claims waiting in employment tribunals, the highest number on record. The average claim takes well over a year to resolve, with some final hearings being listed for 2028 and 2029 with appeals of her case could run three years or more. Think about the damage to the economy, to the business, and particularly to the morale of all our women who we need back in the economy working for our country. It's three years of legal costs for both the employer and former employee, three years of uncertainty and anxiety for all the women, and three years in.
Neither the business nor the woman can move, crippling the economy, crippling the business and often crippling the woman's life. The cases that do reach the courts show what is at stake in South Gloucestershire Council versus handle, decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2024. A social worker with endometriosis, who the tribunal found was managing complex cases well despite her disability, had her placement ended because of the absences caused by her medical condition, her manager had suggested adjustments working from home and spreading her four day a week over five days. Neither was tried and an occupational health referral was not even considered.
The tribunal found that ending her engagement could not be justified, and an appeal tribunal agreed . In another case. Sorry. A tribunal accepted that a woman with endometriosis could not walk, stand or drive when a symptoms flared and the condition left her anaemic, exhausted and unable to sleep, it found she was disabled. Observing that nothing in the Equality Act requires a disability to be constant. This is exactly the point. The guidance should be made plain so that women do not have to waste time, effort and mental energy going to a tribunal to establish it. Reasonable adjustments are the most effective way to avoid all of this.
They keep women in work. They protect the employer's investment, they stop claims arising in the first place. And prevention is far cheaper than cure. So for for as long as our employment rights ignore the gynaecological conditions of millions of women in Britain, the injustice will continue. Making reasonable adjustment is simply the fairest thing to do. It is also economically the most sensible thing to do. Naming these conditions in the guidance would give every woman something concrete to point to, and every employer a clear basis on which to act. It would save money, it would save time, and most importantly, it would spare women, their families and their employers so much avoidable pain.
The benefits of doing so spreads beyond the workplace for all of us in society. It will improve mental health and the well-being of women by being seen, heard, protected and able to advocate for themselves. The guidance will also help DWP assessors who are who are rejecting claims from women with endometriosis and other gynecological conditions. So for me, this is a win win because it will protect women in the economy, in education, in healthcare, the workplace and beyond. So I'm urging colleagues in government to recognise what women experience every single day. And I believe it's time to end this discrimination once and for all.
But it said it had no plans to amend the guidance. And that's why I'm standing here today urging my colleagues in government to reconsider this decision, because when a woman's condition is missing from the guidance, she starts every conversation with her employer and also her HR department and every claim that she has on the back foot. And that's because courts and tribunals must take the guidance into account. HR departments and managers will use it as their checklist. It opens the door to legal protection, to fairer workplace adjustments, and a fairer system for millions of women across the country.
Last month, members of this House may have seen that the Appg on endometriosis published its Endometriosis Not in the Workplace report. And if everyone looks at the results, they are sobering. They are gathering evidence for more than 6000 employers with confirmed or suspected endometriosis and 250 employers, and the inquiry provides one of the most detailed pictures yet of the condition's impact on working life. These are some of the facts 97% of employees worked with severe pain, 94% believed employers lacked understanding of the condition. 62% were worried about losing their job, 47% had lost income and 39% were experiencing financial hardship.
49% had difficulties progressing in their career. After the condition, 28% had been forced to leave their job. Altogether, 49% had received no workplace adjustments at all, and 72% of employers said they had no training and no guidance on women's health conditions such as endometriosis. So it's I think it's fair to say that women with endometriosis have been failed by employment rights system, and it's damaging their lives, damaging their families, damaging the economy. With only 11% of employers in the UK having a menstrual health policy, employers are not making the reasonable adjustments to accommodate people with endometriosis who are then forced to suffer in silence, and this is a shocking statistic that highlights why there is such a widespread discrimination of women with endometriosis.
And that's why I think we need to have gynaecological conditions, which must be included as impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects. In the Equality Act 2010, guidance on the actual definition of disability, because I believe by doing so, we strengthen workplace protections for women with disabling gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, including fibroids, including PMOS Pmdd, severe menopausal symptoms and other menstrual disorders. One of the biggest challenges we have, and this is a lot that I've learned from my constituent as well, who suffers from this, is the unpredictable nature of these conditions. So women can experience severe pelvic pain, they can have debilitating fatigue, they can have heavy bleeding leading to anaemia.
They have bowel and bladder symptoms. They have bloating, they have nausea. They have loss of appetite and other complications that can fluctuate in severity. A woman with endometriosis, for example, one day may be able to function absolutely fine, but the next day cannot get up from her bed. And this is something that employers should be taking into account. This is overwhelmingly evidence in medical statistics, which my constituents tell me is being ignored by employers because these conditions are not listed in the guidance, which is what we're trying to fight for. I would therefore ask the minister, who I know is passionate about this topic and has been in touch with me about it, to consider for practical steps.
Firstly, updating the Equality Act 2010 guidance. It is issued by a minister under section six of the Equality Act, so no primary legislation is needed. Gynaecological conditions should be named among the existing examples of conditions which are recurring or fluctuating effects, with worked examples of what a flare could look like in a working day. Pain that stops a woman travelling, pain that stops a woman standing up or concentrating, heavy bleeding, fatigue or anaemia, or recovery from surgery. Secondly, I would ask the minister to look at the Ehrc guidance to set out in its employment code.
Examples of reasonable adjustments for these conditions, such as flexible and hybrid working, adjusted hours on bad days, access to facilities and rest breaks, time off for medical conditions and a phased return from surgery. As I'm listing these, it seems incredulous that women aren't allowed this and are having to fight with this. Of course, you should have a phased return after surgery, but the fact is, lots of women don't have that option in the workplace. A lot of these things would cost little or nothing, but would make the lives of those who are suffering so much easier.
Thirdly, I would ask the minister to give employees something tangible to take back to their managers or to HR. A simple standard workplace adjustments passport, backed by Acas guidance, would record what has been agreed so that a woman does not have to explain her condition over and over again, which is exhausting in itself every time her manager changes, and so that managers know exactly what is expected of them. Fourthly, I would build on the employment's right 2025. Large employers will soon have to publish equality action plans that include support for employees who are going through the menopause.
Those plans, which are going to be published, should extend to menstrual and gynaecological health and the government's Keep Britain Working Agenda and workplace health system should expressly include the women with these long term fluctuating conditions. And of course, these changes would not only help women with these conditions, but everyone living with a non-visible chronic condition whose effects come and go. This basic change could save jobs and so much money, and especially save so much anxiety for countless women across the country who are being disabled by endometriosis and not given a reasonable adjustments in the workplace.
And by doing so, we can be a government that ensures women have workplace protections and the right to reasonable adjustments for their condition. The minister will know I was a part of the Treasury, so the economy is always on my mind. So this is not just a question of fairness for me. This is actually about a strong economy and sound business. Endometriosis alone is estimated to cost the UK economy £8.2 billion a year in treatment in lost work and healthcare costs. The ONS found that women with endometriosis earned about £4,500 less over the five years after receiving a diagnosis.
The Fawcett Society found that 1 in 10 women who worked during the menopause has left a job because of their symptoms, and many others worked on reduced hours. The Pmdd project found that 9 in 10 reported that Pmdd significantly or or extremely affected their everyday lives, particularly employment. They can be perceived as unreliable, inconsistent or unable to manage their workload when in reality they are living with a recognised and most often severely disabling condition. I'm sure the minister will agree that women are a vital part of our workflows and our economy, and it's right that the law and guidance explains it, and it reflects the reality of their everyday lives.
Employment lawyers who act in these cases describe the same pattern again and again. Very senior women in whom businesses have invested year after year training client development are managed out after surgery or a period of sickness absence when a phased return, a flexible pattern of working, a modest change to their duties could have retained them and helped our economy. At the same time, the business lose their skills, their client relationships and everything that has been invested in them. It then pays to recruit and train a replacement, and very often pays again to defend a claim.
And those claims can take years. So at the end of June this year, there are 70,000 single claims waiting in employment tribunals, the highest number on record. The average claim takes well over a year to resolve, with some final hearings being listed for 2028 and 2029 with appeals of her case could run three years or more. Think about the damage to the economy, to the business, and particularly to the morale of all our women who we need back in the economy working for our country. It's three years of legal costs for both the employer and former employee, three years of uncertainty and anxiety for all the women, and three years in.
Neither the business nor the woman can move, crippling the economy, crippling the business and often crippling the woman's life. The cases that do reach the courts show what is at stake in South Gloucestershire Council versus handle, decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2024. A social worker with endometriosis, who the tribunal found was managing complex cases well despite her disability, had her placement ended because of the absences caused by her medical condition, her manager had suggested adjustments working from home and spreading her four day a week over five days. Neither was tried and an occupational health referral was not even considered.
The tribunal found that ending her engagement could not be justified, and an appeal tribunal agreed . In another case. Sorry. A tribunal accepted that a woman with endometriosis could not walk, stand or drive when a symptoms flared and the condition left her anaemic, exhausted and unable to sleep, it found she was disabled. Observing that nothing in the Equality Act requires a disability to be constant. This is exactly the point. The guidance should be made plain so that women do not have to waste time, effort and mental energy going to a tribunal to establish it. Reasonable adjustments are the most effective way to avoid all of this.
They keep women in work. They protect the employer's investment, they stop claims arising in the first place. And prevention is far cheaper than cure. So for for as long as our employment rights ignore the gynaecological conditions of millions of women in Britain, the injustice will continue. Making reasonable adjustment is simply the fairest thing to do. It is also economically the most sensible thing to do. Naming these conditions in the guidance would give every woman something concrete to point to, and every employer a clear basis on which to act. It would save money, it would save time, and most importantly, it would spare women, their families and their employers so much avoidable pain.
The benefits of doing so spreads beyond the workplace for all of us in society. It will improve mental health and the well-being of women by being seen, heard, protected and able to advocate for themselves. The guidance will also help DWP assessors who are who are rejecting claims from women with endometriosis and other gynecological conditions. So for me, this is a win win because it will protect women in the economy, in education, in healthcare, the workplace and beyond. So I'm urging colleagues in government to recognise what women experience every single day. And I believe it's time to end this discrimination once and for all.
17:21
17:21
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mrs. Jardine. A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the honourable member on an excellent opening speech, which has covered off so many of the aspects that we've spoken about for so many years. I think I started to raise the issues of endometriosis about a decade ago in this very room. And again, just like the honourable lady, this came to my attention by someone coming to see me in a constituency surgery, but actually then realised I had a close friend whose wife had suffered from this, from her teen years. And of course, what strikes you straight away is just that comment that so many people don't know about this condition.
And I think therein lies one of the great problems. I remember when I first started doing this, getting lots of comments about why you bring this up as a man, which I always found a particularly strange comment, because surely we're elected to represent all of our constituents, and certainly well over 50% of my constituents are women. But I think it spoke to a greater problem that people don't understand. Women's health needs and women's health needs are exceptionally different to men's. The reality is men cannot empathise, they can sympathise, but they cannot empathise because they're unlikely to their lives to suffer with chronic diseases from teenage years right the way through to elderly.
I mean, you can have endometriosis way after the menopause. This is not something to do with being of a fertile age. This is. And also endometriosis growing is not necessarily just linked to. Having a uterus, etc. it can spread to other parts of the body. The honourable lady outlined some of the problems, but I just want to get, if I can, just a little bit more graphic. And I'm sorry if Miss Mrs. Jardine, but I want to try and paint that picture of what some of these conditions might mean. Now, when you're getting into stage three, stage four endometriosis, there is probably a real chance that it's invaded your digestive system, and it can indeed be some of the times that it actually starts to really become apparent that you've got those problems.
And by this time, it's it's a long way down the line. Now, I'm sure everybody in this room has suffered from a food poisoning or an upset stomach. And I don't want to be too graphic, but you cannot get off the toilet. We all know what it's like and, and it's horrific thing, but just we stay at home, we take our salts and our fluids and we work our way through it for 24 hours. And we feel a bit rotten for a couple of days and then we go back to work. That's what happens. But this happens all the time when someone has reached that level of the disease that they don't know if they're sitting at work, that they suddenly have to rush to the bathroom.
It's one thing that I think people recognise, that people may get heavy bleeding, and how embarrassing that can be as a teenage girl through through having endometriosis. But the very fact that you may just soil yourself without realising is a great problem, and it needs sympathetic employers to be able to arrange an office space so that if someone's working with them, they can actually position things that there is that ability to go to the toilet quickly. There is an understanding from fellow employees and but also to make sure that employers recognise this. Now, I don't want to dwell on this too long because I know there's so many other people want to speak, but education does play an important point.
I didn't know, but it shocked me to be working with some girls who were born in the 21st century who didn't know about this. And if this is taught in schools to all sexes, then that understanding will come through. And because it's easy, if people don't know what a disease is to try and dismiss it and say, this person just takes time off work, women get heavy periods. Let's just, you know, they're just a malingerer. They're not doing anything. It does need to be a protected part of the disability bill spoken about this for so long because and I'm very proud to be the chairman of the board of the Endometriosis Foundation and our brilliant CEO, Carla Cressey, who's got stage four endometriosis has done so much to support people.
But the research we showed, you know, 90% of people have a mental health impact and 50% of women think about taking their lives. And unfortunately, maybe about 30 women a year do take their lives. This is how serious this subject is. And if I can just leave one message today, is that just think about it. Think about it. If you're an employer, think about a man that if you had to go to work every day and whilst you were sat at your desk, you don't know if just suddenly you may soil yourself. Just think about that and think about how you should be dealing with people who suffer from this terrible disease.
And I think therein lies one of the great problems. I remember when I first started doing this, getting lots of comments about why you bring this up as a man, which I always found a particularly strange comment, because surely we're elected to represent all of our constituents, and certainly well over 50% of my constituents are women. But I think it spoke to a greater problem that people don't understand. Women's health needs and women's health needs are exceptionally different to men's. The reality is men cannot empathise, they can sympathise, but they cannot empathise because they're unlikely to their lives to suffer with chronic diseases from teenage years right the way through to elderly.
I mean, you can have endometriosis way after the menopause. This is not something to do with being of a fertile age. This is. And also endometriosis growing is not necessarily just linked to. Having a uterus, etc. it can spread to other parts of the body. The honourable lady outlined some of the problems, but I just want to get, if I can, just a little bit more graphic. And I'm sorry if Miss Mrs. Jardine, but I want to try and paint that picture of what some of these conditions might mean. Now, when you're getting into stage three, stage four endometriosis, there is probably a real chance that it's invaded your digestive system, and it can indeed be some of the times that it actually starts to really become apparent that you've got those problems.
And by this time, it's it's a long way down the line. Now, I'm sure everybody in this room has suffered from a food poisoning or an upset stomach. And I don't want to be too graphic, but you cannot get off the toilet. We all know what it's like and, and it's horrific thing, but just we stay at home, we take our salts and our fluids and we work our way through it for 24 hours. And we feel a bit rotten for a couple of days and then we go back to work. That's what happens. But this happens all the time when someone has reached that level of the disease that they don't know if they're sitting at work, that they suddenly have to rush to the bathroom.
It's one thing that I think people recognise, that people may get heavy bleeding, and how embarrassing that can be as a teenage girl through through having endometriosis. But the very fact that you may just soil yourself without realising is a great problem, and it needs sympathetic employers to be able to arrange an office space so that if someone's working with them, they can actually position things that there is that ability to go to the toilet quickly. There is an understanding from fellow employees and but also to make sure that employers recognise this. Now, I don't want to dwell on this too long because I know there's so many other people want to speak, but education does play an important point.
I didn't know, but it shocked me to be working with some girls who were born in the 21st century who didn't know about this. And if this is taught in schools to all sexes, then that understanding will come through. And because it's easy, if people don't know what a disease is to try and dismiss it and say, this person just takes time off work, women get heavy periods. Let's just, you know, they're just a malingerer. They're not doing anything. It does need to be a protected part of the disability bill spoken about this for so long because and I'm very proud to be the chairman of the board of the Endometriosis Foundation and our brilliant CEO, Carla Cressey, who's got stage four endometriosis has done so much to support people.
But the research we showed, you know, 90% of people have a mental health impact and 50% of women think about taking their lives. And unfortunately, maybe about 30 women a year do take their lives. This is how serious this subject is. And if I can just leave one message today, is that just think about it. Think about it. If you're an employer, think about a man that if you had to go to work every day and whilst you were sat at your desk, you don't know if just suddenly you may soil yourself. Just think about that and think about how you should be dealing with people who suffer from this terrible disease.
17:22
17:22
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mrs. Jardine. It's a pleasure to serve under you, and I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The question she raises is an excellent one, because we can see very clearly that there is a troubling difference in the care delivered for women's conditions and those of the general population, and I have raised this with my local NHS board. Health is, as you know, devolved in Scotland. But equalities is not, and I'm open to any solution that will help the women and girls in my constituency get the health care that they need, when they need it.
When I met NHS Lanarkshire in November 25th, we discussed waiting lists. I was told that the board aimed to eliminate two year waits by spring. That's progress, I thought, relatively speaking, but there was a catch. The exception was gynaecology, so I wrote to them to ask what the plan was, and I was told that it was difficult and challenging, but they weren't able to share a plan, and nor did they confirm that ensuring women receive the same levels of health care as men was a priority. They are operating in very difficult circumstances, it is true.
In the SNP led Scottish Government must take their share of responsibility, but this exception is not the answer for endometriosis. The average wait in England is nine years and four months , and in Scotland it is ten years and two months. That is more than a decade of pain and more. As my honourable friend has described so well, and the dreams that young women so rightly have for themselves can be lost in this process, which is devastating. Many of us have heard somebody say, well, if men suffered from this, they would have found a cure. But there is an even more modest question that we also need to ask, which is, what do we need to do to make sure that women get the treatment that already exists?
Women are not born to endure. They are not born to accept pain or incapacitation as part of the feminine experience. And when they are ill, they shouldn't be dismissed. They shouldn't be told. And this happens at every stage of life, quite frankly, that it's their age. Or if it's really bad, they could take a paracetamol. And these examples are and have been far too familiar to too many women for far too long. So we all know that these problems run deep. And my honourable friend has cut to the heart of the issue. Much more needs to be done.
It shouldn't take a rewriting of the Equalities Act to make it happen. But she is right to ask the question and I thank her for it.
When I met NHS Lanarkshire in November 25th, we discussed waiting lists. I was told that the board aimed to eliminate two year waits by spring. That's progress, I thought, relatively speaking, but there was a catch. The exception was gynaecology, so I wrote to them to ask what the plan was, and I was told that it was difficult and challenging, but they weren't able to share a plan, and nor did they confirm that ensuring women receive the same levels of health care as men was a priority. They are operating in very difficult circumstances, it is true.
In the SNP led Scottish Government must take their share of responsibility, but this exception is not the answer for endometriosis. The average wait in England is nine years and four months , and in Scotland it is ten years and two months. That is more than a decade of pain and more. As my honourable friend has described so well, and the dreams that young women so rightly have for themselves can be lost in this process, which is devastating. Many of us have heard somebody say, well, if men suffered from this, they would have found a cure. But there is an even more modest question that we also need to ask, which is, what do we need to do to make sure that women get the treatment that already exists?
Women are not born to endure. They are not born to accept pain or incapacitation as part of the feminine experience. And when they are ill, they shouldn't be dismissed. They shouldn't be told. And this happens at every stage of life, quite frankly, that it's their age. Or if it's really bad, they could take a paracetamol. And these examples are and have been far too familiar to too many women for far too long. So we all know that these problems run deep. And my honourable friend has cut to the heart of the issue. Much more needs to be done.
It shouldn't take a rewriting of the Equalities Act to make it happen. But she is right to ask the question and I thank her for it.
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
Chair. So a few weeks ago I posted a video sharing some of what I'm learning about endometriosis, and the response was absolutely heartbreaking. My comments were full of people sharing their experiences, years of pain, of being dismissed by doctors, struggling to get a diagnosis, and then on top of that, trying to hold down a job to get their employers to understand. I heard about lives turned upside down by a condition that they have no control over and very little support with, and I hear the same stories from people in Gorton as well. And what gets me the most is that it does not have to be this way.
All that is needed is for women's pain and the pain of those who are assigned female at birth, to be taken seriously by the doctors that serve them, by the employers that they work for, and by the government that represents them. And yet, instead, as is so often the case throughout history, it ends up being down to the people most affected who are left to fight for the change that they deserve. Despite the pain and debilitating symptoms of endometriosis, they're the ones coming up with the ideas, solutions and plans. They are the experts and we all should be listening.
1 in 6 women with endometriosis leave the workplace due to their condition. Almost half say that they've struggled to progress in their careers because of endometriosis, and almost half hadn't received workplace adjustments. Almost half had lost income. And despite endometriosis affecting 1 in 10 women, it's rarely effectively taught at medical schools as part of the curriculum, leaving future healthcare practitioners without the necessary knowledge. Those with endometriosis in Gorton and Denton, and in every constituency across the country are losing money, missing out on opportunities and struggling to stay in employment. Not because they don't want to work, but because the support simply isn't there.
And we're talking about basic, practical help that could help make the difference between between someone staying in work and having to give it up completely. And good employers want guidance. They want advice on flexible working on time off for medical appointments, extra breaks or a phased return after surgery. Good employers want to help their staff so that their businesses can perform to their highest potential. We need a government that will finally listen to and act on lived experience by adding gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, to the Equality Act 2010. Guidance on the definition of disability.
These conditions are long term, often lifelong, and by definition they fluctuate and reoccur, meeting the criteria for disability. And there must be specificity specificity in the guidance to ensure employees disabled by debilitating chronic conditions such as this are supported with reasonable adjustments, and legally protected against workplace discrimination. And to Sean Paul, who has campaigned for so long and so hard on this, as well as the tireless work of countless other organisations, and to everyone for sharing their experiences and who are out there fighting for change. Thank you. This debate is titled The Potential Merits of Adding Gynaecological Conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance.
But I think the people living with these conditions would find it pretty shocking that we even have to debate the merits. The debate should be how much longer we can afford not to. Thank you.
All that is needed is for women's pain and the pain of those who are assigned female at birth, to be taken seriously by the doctors that serve them, by the employers that they work for, and by the government that represents them. And yet, instead, as is so often the case throughout history, it ends up being down to the people most affected who are left to fight for the change that they deserve. Despite the pain and debilitating symptoms of endometriosis, they're the ones coming up with the ideas, solutions and plans. They are the experts and we all should be listening.
1 in 6 women with endometriosis leave the workplace due to their condition. Almost half say that they've struggled to progress in their careers because of endometriosis, and almost half hadn't received workplace adjustments. Almost half had lost income. And despite endometriosis affecting 1 in 10 women, it's rarely effectively taught at medical schools as part of the curriculum, leaving future healthcare practitioners without the necessary knowledge. Those with endometriosis in Gorton and Denton, and in every constituency across the country are losing money, missing out on opportunities and struggling to stay in employment. Not because they don't want to work, but because the support simply isn't there.
And we're talking about basic, practical help that could help make the difference between between someone staying in work and having to give it up completely. And good employers want guidance. They want advice on flexible working on time off for medical appointments, extra breaks or a phased return after surgery. Good employers want to help their staff so that their businesses can perform to their highest potential. We need a government that will finally listen to and act on lived experience by adding gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, to the Equality Act 2010. Guidance on the definition of disability.
These conditions are long term, often lifelong, and by definition they fluctuate and reoccur, meeting the criteria for disability. And there must be specificity specificity in the guidance to ensure employees disabled by debilitating chronic conditions such as this are supported with reasonable adjustments, and legally protected against workplace discrimination. And to Sean Paul, who has campaigned for so long and so hard on this, as well as the tireless work of countless other organisations, and to everyone for sharing their experiences and who are out there fighting for change. Thank you. This debate is titled The Potential Merits of Adding Gynaecological Conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance.
But I think the people living with these conditions would find it pretty shocking that we even have to debate the merits. The debate should be how much longer we can afford not to. Thank you.
17:24
17:24
17:24
17:24
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My honourable friend for the member for Amsterdam and Highgate for bringing forward this very important debate. Seven years ago, I was sat in this very room for a debate on endometriosis workplace support, in which the much missed David Amos announced that the endometriosis Appg, APG would be launching an inquiry into the state of care. And I also would like at this point to thank the the MP for Wetherby and Easingwold for all the work that he has put in over these years. I wish I could say that I cannot believe we are having that that same debate again.
And yet I know from the countless emails I've received from women across the country about their experiences, that many of the issues identified by the Appg all those years ago still persist. One constituent recently reached out to me, having been repeatedly bedridden as a result of her pain. She spoke about a fruitless struggle to access health care that had left her untreated and worried about keeping her job down. Some changes have been made in the right direction, but we cannot ignore the evidence telling us that support is not reaching far enough. A recent endometriosis Appg call for evidence found that less than half of respondents with the condition had received any workplace adjustments, yet 80% of employers giving evidence supported changes to guidance that explicitly recognise the condition as meeting the definition of a disability.
Our workplaces are clearly willing to make adjustments, but the guidance is failing them as well as the people it is supposed to safeguard. The government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission must review the guidance so that it clearly reflects chronic and fluctuating conditions like endo. So I will ask the Minister to look carefully at the Appg findings and consider whether the guidance for employers should now be reviewed. I have two further questions. Will the Minister work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACRs on practical guidance that covers support before a diagnosis and the fair handling of short recurring absences?
Secondly, as a government, develop the workplace health system, will the Minister ensure that endometriosis and other fluctuating menstrual health conditions are part of that work? Women have waited long enough to be believed by their doctors. They should not have to wait any longer to be supported by their employers.
And yet I know from the countless emails I've received from women across the country about their experiences, that many of the issues identified by the Appg all those years ago still persist. One constituent recently reached out to me, having been repeatedly bedridden as a result of her pain. She spoke about a fruitless struggle to access health care that had left her untreated and worried about keeping her job down. Some changes have been made in the right direction, but we cannot ignore the evidence telling us that support is not reaching far enough. A recent endometriosis Appg call for evidence found that less than half of respondents with the condition had received any workplace adjustments, yet 80% of employers giving evidence supported changes to guidance that explicitly recognise the condition as meeting the definition of a disability.
Our workplaces are clearly willing to make adjustments, but the guidance is failing them as well as the people it is supposed to safeguard. The government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission must review the guidance so that it clearly reflects chronic and fluctuating conditions like endo. So I will ask the Minister to look carefully at the Appg findings and consider whether the guidance for employers should now be reviewed. I have two further questions. Will the Minister work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACRs on practical guidance that covers support before a diagnosis and the fair handling of short recurring absences?
Secondly, as a government, develop the workplace health system, will the Minister ensure that endometriosis and other fluctuating menstrual health conditions are part of that work? Women have waited long enough to be believed by their doctors. They should not have to wait any longer to be supported by their employers.
17:25
17:25
17:25
17:25
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Serve under your chairship, and I'm truly grateful to my honourable friend for securing this important debate. And everybody else who's worked and championed this, who who join us in the gallery. We all know that for far too long, women's conditions have been often dismissed. Not a priority. In some cases misunderstood. Some might say it's down to misogyny that's baked in within the system. But these conditions truly impact every lever of a woman's life. Right from very early girls teenage years, all the way to when you're supposed to be wise and full of wisdom. Not necessarily so in some cases, but the conditions are fluctuating.
And I think that's part of the reason why employers out there take the opportunity to not have to address reasonable adjustments. And in fact, reasonable, reasonable adjustments are often faced by unreasonable expectations from employees. The scale of the challenge remains significant. So I welcome in in Wolverhampton NHS trust that waiting lists are coming down and over 5800 people in Wolverhampton were waiting for treatment this summer, which is an improvement from 6462 the year before. But you can see the scale that we are still facing. I do welcome the government's action on the renewed women's health strategy, but I do call for levers across government departments to push faster.
Today's debate is more about it's more than just health care. It's also about employment and workplace protections. As we've heard too often, the support depends on whether an employer understands and has the resources to support what an individual is going through. That's really inconsistent and actually can lead to further harm for the for the individual. The Equality Act already provides important protections where a condition meets the legal definition of disability. However, many women find themselves in a grey area where their condition significantly affects everyday life. But the support remains inconsistent. And that is why I believe there is a strong case for explicitly referencing gynaecological conditions within the Equality Act guidance.
Clearer guidance would support employers to be better employers, to better understand conditions such as endometrium, endometriosis, fibroids, PMS and menopause. It would encourage those earlier conversations, it will reduce stigma, and it will support reasonable adjustments that are needed. And in many cases, those adjustments are straightforward. Whether that is flexible, working time off for specialist appointments, temporary changes to working patterns or maybe some flexibility with home working. So I ask the minister, will she work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, employers and women's health organisations to consider how Equality Act guidance can better reflect the realities faced by women living within.
With these conditions, women have waited long enough to have these conditions recognised. We are making progress in healthcare and that progress should be welcomed. But now we have an opportunity to ensure that the support extends beyond hospitals and GP surgeries
And I think that's part of the reason why employers out there take the opportunity to not have to address reasonable adjustments. And in fact, reasonable, reasonable adjustments are often faced by unreasonable expectations from employees. The scale of the challenge remains significant. So I welcome in in Wolverhampton NHS trust that waiting lists are coming down and over 5800 people in Wolverhampton were waiting for treatment this summer, which is an improvement from 6462 the year before. But you can see the scale that we are still facing. I do welcome the government's action on the renewed women's health strategy, but I do call for levers across government departments to push faster.
Today's debate is more about it's more than just health care. It's also about employment and workplace protections. As we've heard too often, the support depends on whether an employer understands and has the resources to support what an individual is going through. That's really inconsistent and actually can lead to further harm for the for the individual. The Equality Act already provides important protections where a condition meets the legal definition of disability. However, many women find themselves in a grey area where their condition significantly affects everyday life. But the support remains inconsistent. And that is why I believe there is a strong case for explicitly referencing gynaecological conditions within the Equality Act guidance.
Clearer guidance would support employers to be better employers, to better understand conditions such as endometrium, endometriosis, fibroids, PMS and menopause. It would encourage those earlier conversations, it will reduce stigma, and it will support reasonable adjustments that are needed. And in many cases, those adjustments are straightforward. Whether that is flexible, working time off for specialist appointments, temporary changes to working patterns or maybe some flexibility with home working. So I ask the minister, will she work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, employers and women's health organisations to consider how Equality Act guidance can better reflect the realities faced by women living within.
With these conditions, women have waited long enough to have these conditions recognised. We are making progress in healthcare and that progress should be welcomed. But now we have an opportunity to ensure that the support extends beyond hospitals and GP surgeries
17:26
17:26
17:26
17:26
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
Hampstead and Highgate on securing this debate. I speak as the chair of the Pmo's Appg and as a woman living with PMS and endometriosis. I feel like I am somehow won the cup when I got both of those somehow. 1 in 8 women suffer from PMS in the UK. Yet despite how common it is, it remains poorly understood, undiagnosed, underdiagnosed and too often overlooked. The World Health Organisation estimates up to 70% of women affected globally remain undiagnosed, and both those figures are women waiting for answers. For me, diagnosis took over 18 years. During those years, I developed an eating disorder.
I became bulimic. I experienced depression. I lost confidence. I passed out in sixth form on so many occasions. I lost the feelings in my leg and legs and when I went to the GP, he told me over and over again, it's all part and parcel of being a woman. Take some paracetamol and I share that because we must understand what delayed diagnosis actually costs. It reaches into your relationship with food, your mental health, your working life, and your sense of self. Failing to diagnose does not make the condition disappear. It leaves women managing its consequences without the explanation, treatment or support they deserve.
PMS affects more than fertility. It can affect metabolism , periods, mental health. It increases the risk of conditions, including type two diabetes. Early diagnosis provides an opportunity to manage those risks and offer support sooner. Instead, women can spend years questioning themselves when the system should be asking the right questions. Those failures do not fall equally, either. This condition disproportionately affects women from South Asian and black backgrounds and those on lower incomes. Get access to diagnosis and support remains inconsistent without greater awareness. Existing inequalities in health can translate into inequalities in employment, career progression and economic opportunity.
I can't tell you the amount of times I would have a sleepless, sleepless night before an exam or a driving test or anything important. Worried that that day I would be too ill to stand up and do it. A woman's income, ethnicity or postcode should never determine whether she is heard or helped. We must tackle racism, language barriers and unequal access to care for someone on an insecure contract. Attending an appointment can mean losing wages. Asking for flexibility can feel like risking a job. Advice to seek support means little if that support is beyond her reach.
And I ask the Minister for early diagnosis, access to psychological support, targeted action on inequalities and clear workplace guidance. Changing the name of PCOS to PCOS must be matched by changing women's experience. I cannot get those 18 years back, but we can stop another generation enjoying the same weight, the same pain and the same anguish. Greater awareness of PMS and endometriosis in the workplace can help ensure that women are supported, valued and able to thrive at work, rather than being forced to choose between managing their health and progressing in their careers. No woman should have to lose her health, her confidence , or her future before the system finally decides to believe her and acts.
I became bulimic. I experienced depression. I lost confidence. I passed out in sixth form on so many occasions. I lost the feelings in my leg and legs and when I went to the GP, he told me over and over again, it's all part and parcel of being a woman. Take some paracetamol and I share that because we must understand what delayed diagnosis actually costs. It reaches into your relationship with food, your mental health, your working life, and your sense of self. Failing to diagnose does not make the condition disappear. It leaves women managing its consequences without the explanation, treatment or support they deserve.
PMS affects more than fertility. It can affect metabolism , periods, mental health. It increases the risk of conditions, including type two diabetes. Early diagnosis provides an opportunity to manage those risks and offer support sooner. Instead, women can spend years questioning themselves when the system should be asking the right questions. Those failures do not fall equally, either. This condition disproportionately affects women from South Asian and black backgrounds and those on lower incomes. Get access to diagnosis and support remains inconsistent without greater awareness. Existing inequalities in health can translate into inequalities in employment, career progression and economic opportunity.
I can't tell you the amount of times I would have a sleepless, sleepless night before an exam or a driving test or anything important. Worried that that day I would be too ill to stand up and do it. A woman's income, ethnicity or postcode should never determine whether she is heard or helped. We must tackle racism, language barriers and unequal access to care for someone on an insecure contract. Attending an appointment can mean losing wages. Asking for flexibility can feel like risking a job. Advice to seek support means little if that support is beyond her reach.
And I ask the Minister for early diagnosis, access to psychological support, targeted action on inequalities and clear workplace guidance. Changing the name of PCOS to PCOS must be matched by changing women's experience. I cannot get those 18 years back, but we can stop another generation enjoying the same weight, the same pain and the same anguish. Greater awareness of PMS and endometriosis in the workplace can help ensure that women are supported, valued and able to thrive at work, rather than being forced to choose between managing their health and progressing in their careers. No woman should have to lose her health, her confidence , or her future before the system finally decides to believe her and acts.
17:27
17:27
Speaker 34
-
Speaker 34
Thank you, Mrs. Jardine. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I'd also like to congratulate the honourable member for Hampstead and Highgate on securing this really important debate, and I'd also like to join other members from across the House in congratulating and commending the campaigners, some of whom are in the gallery for the incredible work that they do this on behalf not just of themselves, but all women, I would say, across the country and indeed internationally. Millions of women face the difficulty and pain of managing gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids and Pmdd, and the list could go on and on and on.
It's obvious that more must be done to rapidly speed up diagnosis times and provide effective care and accommodations to those with these often incredibly debilitating conditions. The impacts of these conditions on women's everyday lives extend, as we've heard, to education, to employment and to fertility, with some women leaving work altogether because they can't obtain the support that they need. We can't indeed. We mustn't accept this as normal. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe there's merit in treating these conditions in the same way as cancer, as HIV and multiple sclerosis, which are deemed to be disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.
From the point of diagnosis, without the need to meet the functional test. I therefore urge the government to examine this further. But as we've heard, even diagnosis is appallingly slow and women's symptoms are too often normalised or dismissed across all health conditions. I've heard outrageous stories of women's persistent health concerns being dismissed with sometimes incredibly sexist comments attached. One young woman described to me fairly recently a particularly awful example, where she was explaining to a consultant how she felt physically sick because of her persistent stomach pain in the instance that she was describing. It was a case while she was out shopping with friends, only to be dismissed by the doctor, who replied, and I quote, oh yes.
I often feel sick when out shopping with my wife, with indeed the groans from the audience that actually happened with grossly outdated and misplaced attitudes like this. It's hardly surprising that it takes an average of almost ten years to receive an endometriosis diagnosis in the UK. Recent research by endometriosis UK has shone a light on the extent of the impact of this particular condition. In a recent report, the charity found that 97% of those surveyed worked while experiencing severe pain. It's no wonder that almost half of all those with endometriosis said it had made it difficult to progress in their career, whilst 28% had to leave their job altogether because of it.
That same survey found that employers overwhelmingly want to help, but with little guidance and facing the everyday pressures of running a business, the support for these women often just isn't there. This is costing women in pain, in missed career opportunities and ultimately in dignity. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have written to the Minister for Women's Health on several occasions to raise the urgent need to improve care for women with gynaecological conditions. The government knows that health related economic inactivity costs the UK £212 billion every year. Even if we only think about this in such crude economic terms, the action needed here pays for itself.
Indeed, one NHS Confederation report that found that for every £1 spent on obstetrics and gynaecology, the estimated return on investment was £11. It must surely follow that tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services should be a top priority. That is why it was so disappointing that the women's health strategy contained no specific, measurable, time bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care. Whilst the NHS ten year health plan did not include endometriosis, adenomyosis or fibroids in its prevention agenda, without clear direction from government, we risk consigning more women to even longer waits and prolonged unnecessary pain.
That is why I was proud Liberal Democrats introduced an amendment to the health bill that would have ensured that the average wait time for endometriosis and other women's specific conditions is no longer than the average wait time for other elective conditions in the NHS. This would be a meaningful step towards equality in women's health care. And finally, we know what gets measured gets done in the NHS. I hope the minister takes this away and conducts a serious examination of adding gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance. We owe it to these women to do all we can to tackle this injustice.
Thank you.
It's obvious that more must be done to rapidly speed up diagnosis times and provide effective care and accommodations to those with these often incredibly debilitating conditions. The impacts of these conditions on women's everyday lives extend, as we've heard, to education, to employment and to fertility, with some women leaving work altogether because they can't obtain the support that they need. We can't indeed. We mustn't accept this as normal. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe there's merit in treating these conditions in the same way as cancer, as HIV and multiple sclerosis, which are deemed to be disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.
From the point of diagnosis, without the need to meet the functional test. I therefore urge the government to examine this further. But as we've heard, even diagnosis is appallingly slow and women's symptoms are too often normalised or dismissed across all health conditions. I've heard outrageous stories of women's persistent health concerns being dismissed with sometimes incredibly sexist comments attached. One young woman described to me fairly recently a particularly awful example, where she was explaining to a consultant how she felt physically sick because of her persistent stomach pain in the instance that she was describing. It was a case while she was out shopping with friends, only to be dismissed by the doctor, who replied, and I quote, oh yes.
I often feel sick when out shopping with my wife, with indeed the groans from the audience that actually happened with grossly outdated and misplaced attitudes like this. It's hardly surprising that it takes an average of almost ten years to receive an endometriosis diagnosis in the UK. Recent research by endometriosis UK has shone a light on the extent of the impact of this particular condition. In a recent report, the charity found that 97% of those surveyed worked while experiencing severe pain. It's no wonder that almost half of all those with endometriosis said it had made it difficult to progress in their career, whilst 28% had to leave their job altogether because of it.
That same survey found that employers overwhelmingly want to help, but with little guidance and facing the everyday pressures of running a business, the support for these women often just isn't there. This is costing women in pain, in missed career opportunities and ultimately in dignity. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have written to the Minister for Women's Health on several occasions to raise the urgent need to improve care for women with gynaecological conditions. The government knows that health related economic inactivity costs the UK £212 billion every year. Even if we only think about this in such crude economic terms, the action needed here pays for itself.
Indeed, one NHS Confederation report that found that for every £1 spent on obstetrics and gynaecology, the estimated return on investment was £11. It must surely follow that tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services should be a top priority. That is why it was so disappointing that the women's health strategy contained no specific, measurable, time bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care. Whilst the NHS ten year health plan did not include endometriosis, adenomyosis or fibroids in its prevention agenda, without clear direction from government, we risk consigning more women to even longer waits and prolonged unnecessary pain.
That is why I was proud Liberal Democrats introduced an amendment to the health bill that would have ensured that the average wait time for endometriosis and other women's specific conditions is no longer than the average wait time for other elective conditions in the NHS. This would be a meaningful step towards equality in women's health care. And finally, we know what gets measured gets done in the NHS. I hope the minister takes this away and conducts a serious examination of adding gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance. We owe it to these women to do all we can to tackle this injustice.
Thank you.
17:28
17:28
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mrs. Jardine, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I am grateful for all those here today who have. And I welcome this opportunity to discuss this very important issue. And I thank all members for their contributions today. And I'd like to thank the campaigners that are here today for raising this and also the the ladies in the gallery studying from UCL for public health. That's wonderful. We need more women bringing these issues to the forefront of our public health agenda. So thank you for that. And this is something that is very close to my heart, Madam Chairman.
It's something that I've suffered from, and I suffered in silence for a very long time. And oftentimes you're told that it's just a lady's problem and you can just sort of continue on and nothing, you know, as take it, take a paracetamol, you'll be fine. And it is not the case and it is debilitating. And one often needs surgery, multiple surgeries. And it is a difficult one to explain to one's employers, one's even spouse or, you know, whoever you're with. It's a very difficult thing because you can carry on as a normal human being. And it is there some days completely debilitating your everyday existence.
So I am very sympathetic to this debate and the need for women's gynaecological issues to be brought to the forefront, forefront of public health. And I think that it's a particularly warm and welcome development that the NHS is recognising biological sex, because I think it is important for biological females with these particular endometriosis, ovarian issues, cystic, all the things that women, specifically biological females are suffering from, have been neglected over the years. And I feel that and I don't know, madam. Chairman, if this is just my experience, but it was very difficult in the NHS.
It was a very, very long wait list, or just told that perhaps I didn't have endometriosis and needed to go back to just taking some paracetamol to, to get over what I was, what was wrong with me. And indeed I did have endometriosis and it was not found out until I had surgery. And I know that there are so many women who are suffering from the exact same thing, who are being told, just wait, you'll be fine. It's just your own personal issue. You're just, you know, take a paracetamol, you'll feel better soon. And it actually just gets worse and worse and worse over time.
And I want to make sure that women have access to the same public health needs that, that, that everyone has. And those things have fallen through the cracks, Madam Chairman, over the years. And that is why I wanted to raise them today in this debate. And the reality is that women have to endure debilitating pain, uncertainty, or discrimination simply because of a condition that too often is misunderstood or dismissed, a reality where overall waiting times for appointments for gynaecological specialist is higher than they were the month before, the year before, since the last general election.
And women are waiting a very, very long time just to see a gynecologist, just to see just for those basic things to be checked. And then the referral process just takes years and years and years, and it's debilitating. And many women just give up. And the reality that so many women face, this level of, of waiting within the NHS is something that I know many across this House have have tried to, to change. And I'd like to pay tribute to David Amos for starting the Appg on endometriosis and really raising this for across the House this important issue and the conditions not just of endometriosis but of polycystic ovary syndrome and heavy menstrual bleeding, can have a profound impact on women's lives.
They can affect their ability to work, their education, their relationships and their mental wellbeing. And just recently, I heard a powerful story from a brave young woman called Sophia. Sophia shared with me that she is suffering from extreme pain that can affect her ability to attend school. She's in secondary school. This took a lot of courage for her to to talk to me about this, but she faces the refrain again and again of it's just period pain. You'll be fine. It's just period pain is a phrase that too many young women hear for conditions like endometriosis.
That is because our NHS has been too distracted by other realities to not put women's health at the forefront of of care and and prioritisation. And for women with endometriosis, the average wait for this diagnosis is around nine years. And this nine years of uncertainty, pain , and in many cases being told that their symptoms are simply part of being a woman.
I hope that we can work together today to bring forward a solution that will help put women's health at the forefront of care moving forward.
It's something that I've suffered from, and I suffered in silence for a very long time. And oftentimes you're told that it's just a lady's problem and you can just sort of continue on and nothing, you know, as take it, take a paracetamol, you'll be fine. And it is not the case and it is debilitating. And one often needs surgery, multiple surgeries. And it is a difficult one to explain to one's employers, one's even spouse or, you know, whoever you're with. It's a very difficult thing because you can carry on as a normal human being. And it is there some days completely debilitating your everyday existence.
So I am very sympathetic to this debate and the need for women's gynaecological issues to be brought to the forefront, forefront of public health. And I think that it's a particularly warm and welcome development that the NHS is recognising biological sex, because I think it is important for biological females with these particular endometriosis, ovarian issues, cystic, all the things that women, specifically biological females are suffering from, have been neglected over the years. And I feel that and I don't know, madam. Chairman, if this is just my experience, but it was very difficult in the NHS.
It was a very, very long wait list, or just told that perhaps I didn't have endometriosis and needed to go back to just taking some paracetamol to, to get over what I was, what was wrong with me. And indeed I did have endometriosis and it was not found out until I had surgery. And I know that there are so many women who are suffering from the exact same thing, who are being told, just wait, you'll be fine. It's just your own personal issue. You're just, you know, take a paracetamol, you'll feel better soon. And it actually just gets worse and worse and worse over time.
And I want to make sure that women have access to the same public health needs that, that, that everyone has. And those things have fallen through the cracks, Madam Chairman, over the years. And that is why I wanted to raise them today in this debate. And the reality is that women have to endure debilitating pain, uncertainty, or discrimination simply because of a condition that too often is misunderstood or dismissed, a reality where overall waiting times for appointments for gynaecological specialist is higher than they were the month before, the year before, since the last general election.
And women are waiting a very, very long time just to see a gynecologist, just to see just for those basic things to be checked. And then the referral process just takes years and years and years, and it's debilitating. And many women just give up. And the reality that so many women face, this level of, of waiting within the NHS is something that I know many across this House have have tried to, to change. And I'd like to pay tribute to David Amos for starting the Appg on endometriosis and really raising this for across the House this important issue and the conditions not just of endometriosis but of polycystic ovary syndrome and heavy menstrual bleeding, can have a profound impact on women's lives.
They can affect their ability to work, their education, their relationships and their mental wellbeing. And just recently, I heard a powerful story from a brave young woman called Sophia. Sophia shared with me that she is suffering from extreme pain that can affect her ability to attend school. She's in secondary school. This took a lot of courage for her to to talk to me about this, but she faces the refrain again and again of it's just period pain. You'll be fine. It's just period pain is a phrase that too many young women hear for conditions like endometriosis.
That is because our NHS has been too distracted by other realities to not put women's health at the forefront of of care and and prioritisation. And for women with endometriosis, the average wait for this diagnosis is around nine years. And this nine years of uncertainty, pain , and in many cases being told that their symptoms are simply part of being a woman.
I hope that we can work together today to bring forward a solution that will help put women's health at the forefront of care moving forward.
17:30
17:30
17:30
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Under your chairmanship, Mrs. Jardine. I will endeavour to talk at pace so I can cover everyone's point and respond accordingly. Can I start by thanking my honourable friend, the member for Hampstead and Highgate, for bringing forward this important debate on a serious issue faced by so many women and girls. I am sure we can all agree. You spoke extremely passionately and I wanted to personally thank you for your ongoing efforts in this campaign and to and to extend my thanks to campaigners here and acknowledged the challenges her constituent Sandy Powell, has has faced, leading to her to bring forward the petition to urge gynaecological conditions.
Apologies to the Equalities Act 2020 ten guidance. Thank you for sharing your stories and everybody's contributions. It's it's it's something that I'm personally very passionate about and the stats speak for themselves and I'm not going to repeat them. But we all know that behind every statistic is a woman potentially suffering in silence is a woman that is getting dismissed, is a woman that that needs support. And this government recognises the difficulties and pain that women and girls face in managing symptoms related to gynaecological conditions. As highlighted in this debate today, we know that menstrual and reproductive health issues can have a significant impact on the physical and mental wellbeing of women and girls, including participation in the workplace.
The struggle is real and I have felt it myself so I can relate to the opposition spokesperson and to the sponsor member. Just a personal thank you for your efforts inside this House as well, because I've definitely personally reaped the benefits from the campaigns that have happened internally. So I can vote by proxy, for example, when I've been struggling with my health as a government, we don't believe that anyone in this country should have to choose between managing their health and pursuing their career. This government is committed to protecting the rights of women against unlawful discrimination in the workplace, and ensuring they have access to redress.
As members will know, depending on the circumstances, the Equality Act already provides protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, age or disability. The Equalities Act definition of disability focuses on the most part on how a condition affects a person's day to day life, rather than listing specific conditions or impairments. This flexibility is important to allow the law to cover a vast range of conditions, as well as avoiding the risk of excluding changing, fluctuating or progressive conditions that impact individuals differently into in response to specific requests on guidance, she and members may be aware that government intends to produce guidance explaining how the law protects against combined discriminations, and we can, of course, consider how gynaecological conditions can form part of this, and I will ensure that that is considered effectively.
However, alongside this, and I know she made noises to this effect, she will agree and others will, that this issue can be addressed more effectively and quickly through ongoing efforts to help employers themselves take more effective steps to support health and wellbeing of their female employees, strengthening rights related to sick leave and flexible working, and improving how the health system addresses these conditions as well, of course.
Apologies to the Equalities Act 2020 ten guidance. Thank you for sharing your stories and everybody's contributions. It's it's it's something that I'm personally very passionate about and the stats speak for themselves and I'm not going to repeat them. But we all know that behind every statistic is a woman potentially suffering in silence is a woman that is getting dismissed, is a woman that that needs support. And this government recognises the difficulties and pain that women and girls face in managing symptoms related to gynaecological conditions. As highlighted in this debate today, we know that menstrual and reproductive health issues can have a significant impact on the physical and mental wellbeing of women and girls, including participation in the workplace.
The struggle is real and I have felt it myself so I can relate to the opposition spokesperson and to the sponsor member. Just a personal thank you for your efforts inside this House as well, because I've definitely personally reaped the benefits from the campaigns that have happened internally. So I can vote by proxy, for example, when I've been struggling with my health as a government, we don't believe that anyone in this country should have to choose between managing their health and pursuing their career. This government is committed to protecting the rights of women against unlawful discrimination in the workplace, and ensuring they have access to redress.
As members will know, depending on the circumstances, the Equality Act already provides protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, age or disability. The Equalities Act definition of disability focuses on the most part on how a condition affects a person's day to day life, rather than listing specific conditions or impairments. This flexibility is important to allow the law to cover a vast range of conditions, as well as avoiding the risk of excluding changing, fluctuating or progressive conditions that impact individuals differently into in response to specific requests on guidance, she and members may be aware that government intends to produce guidance explaining how the law protects against combined discriminations, and we can, of course, consider how gynaecological conditions can form part of this, and I will ensure that that is considered effectively.
However, alongside this, and I know she made noises to this effect, she will agree and others will, that this issue can be addressed more effectively and quickly through ongoing efforts to help employers themselves take more effective steps to support health and wellbeing of their female employees, strengthening rights related to sick leave and flexible working, and improving how the health system addresses these conditions as well, of course.
17:32
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
To the Minister, Mrs. Jardine, and I'm listening very carefully to what the minister is saying, and I don't doubt for one second that her belief in policy moving forward. But where I have my concern and it is just concern, is that by putting it into the act, then employers recognise it's specifically there, whereas saying that the act can deal with it is still a bit opaque. And I think that that's been one of the problems that's taken place, the specificity of what we want to bring in, or the honourable lady said, is to try and make employers recognize just how serious this situation is.
17:32
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I, I thank you for all that intervention and accept that making it clearer will absolutely help. I think it should be considered as part of the combined discrimination guidance, which is going to be considered to reassure members, and I do think it's important to stress what else the government is doing to address these important issues, because this debate has been quite healthy in reflecting, actually this being a wider issue and it not just being on legislation despite that being important. We want to encourage employers to implement workplace adjustments, which has been raised by several members in the in the debate to help women remain in work and thrive in their careers, something which this government is committed to, not just because it's the right thing to do, because equality, as so many have already pointed out, is a precondition to our economic success.
By creating more supportive and informed workplaces, we can help ensure that women with endometriosis and women experiencing other health conditions can remain in work, progress in their careers and reach their full potential. That is why there is a great deal of action being taken by this government to improve the support and protections available to women experiencing symptoms relating to gynaecological conditions. In April earlier this year. Mrs. Frost was. Apologies if I've got that wrong. Was appointed as the government's Women's Employment Ambassador. In this role, she will campaign on women's health throughout their life course, working with employers across the country to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health issues and wider challenges affecting women in work, and highlight the vital economic contribution women make.
The ambassador intended to launch the endometriosis Not in the workplace report and in her remarks, she emphasised that supporting women's health in the workplace is not only the right thing to do, but also vital in retaining talent, reducing inequalities and strengthening the economy. This work will also include engaging with Keep Britain Working , so Charles Mayfield's Independent Keep Britain Working review highlighted the scale of the economic inactivity due to ill health and disability, and the important role employers can play in helping people stay in work. During the Vanguard phase, we have worked with employers, providers, unions and people with health conditions to develop and refine approaches that will help people thrive in work, including promoting early conversation about health needs and supporting reasonable workplace adjustments for women's health conditions.
We. As we develop the workplace health systems, we are considering how health and work interact across different stages of life, including the impact of endometriosis and other long term fluctuating menstrual health conditions on people's ability to remain and thrive in work. We welcome the involvement of the endometriosis UK in The Vanguard, which provides valuable insight into the experiences of people living with these conditions and helps inform our approach, as well as taking steps to create more supportive and informed workplaces. The renewed Women's Health Strategy, which has been mentioned, published in April, represents a decisive shift towards addressing long standing failures in women's health outcomes, experiences and access to care.
Some of the stories shared during this debate are absolutely heartbreaking, and all of them have led to this important shift as part of this women's health strategy. It does identify endometriosis as a priority condition and states our commitment to improve the treatment and ongoing care for every woman affected through the plan. God got two minutes , okay, through the plan to make work pay. We are strengthening support for people and managing health conditions alongside their work. By enquiring by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests where it is reasonable for them to do so. We want to ensure all employers are supporting their employees health and wellbeing to benefit both them and their organisations.
That's why the government is is getting large employers to publish action plans, as the member mentioned, setting out how they will make meaningful changes to tackle the barriers women face throughout their working lives, including the the steps they are taking to improve menopause support, including endometriosis and addressing gender pay gap. Very important like to a very importantly, the EHC was mentioned as members will know this is an independent. This is independent of the government and will make its own operational decisions. Thank you very much for everybody's contributions. Sorry if I didn't get to your point.
By creating more supportive and informed workplaces, we can help ensure that women with endometriosis and women experiencing other health conditions can remain in work, progress in their careers and reach their full potential. That is why there is a great deal of action being taken by this government to improve the support and protections available to women experiencing symptoms relating to gynaecological conditions. In April earlier this year. Mrs. Frost was. Apologies if I've got that wrong. Was appointed as the government's Women's Employment Ambassador. In this role, she will campaign on women's health throughout their life course, working with employers across the country to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health issues and wider challenges affecting women in work, and highlight the vital economic contribution women make.
The ambassador intended to launch the endometriosis Not in the workplace report and in her remarks, she emphasised that supporting women's health in the workplace is not only the right thing to do, but also vital in retaining talent, reducing inequalities and strengthening the economy. This work will also include engaging with Keep Britain Working , so Charles Mayfield's Independent Keep Britain Working review highlighted the scale of the economic inactivity due to ill health and disability, and the important role employers can play in helping people stay in work. During the Vanguard phase, we have worked with employers, providers, unions and people with health conditions to develop and refine approaches that will help people thrive in work, including promoting early conversation about health needs and supporting reasonable workplace adjustments for women's health conditions.
We. As we develop the workplace health systems, we are considering how health and work interact across different stages of life, including the impact of endometriosis and other long term fluctuating menstrual health conditions on people's ability to remain and thrive in work. We welcome the involvement of the endometriosis UK in The Vanguard, which provides valuable insight into the experiences of people living with these conditions and helps inform our approach, as well as taking steps to create more supportive and informed workplaces. The renewed Women's Health Strategy, which has been mentioned, published in April, represents a decisive shift towards addressing long standing failures in women's health outcomes, experiences and access to care.
Some of the stories shared during this debate are absolutely heartbreaking, and all of them have led to this important shift as part of this women's health strategy. It does identify endometriosis as a priority condition and states our commitment to improve the treatment and ongoing care for every woman affected through the plan. God got two minutes , okay, through the plan to make work pay. We are strengthening support for people and managing health conditions alongside their work. By enquiring by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests where it is reasonable for them to do so. We want to ensure all employers are supporting their employees health and wellbeing to benefit both them and their organisations.
That's why the government is is getting large employers to publish action plans, as the member mentioned, setting out how they will make meaningful changes to tackle the barriers women face throughout their working lives, including the the steps they are taking to improve menopause support, including endometriosis and addressing gender pay gap. Very important like to a very importantly, the EHC was mentioned as members will know this is an independent. This is independent of the government and will make its own operational decisions. Thank you very much for everybody's contributions. Sorry if I didn't get to your point.