debates/debates2025-01-30a conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-30)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-30a conversation_22

Ian Lavery:This week saw DeepSeek throw the global tech market into utter meltdown, with the Chinese AI app spooking investors, to say the least. With huge national infra- structure projects required to underpin the UK’s place in the AI revolution, what does this turmoil mean for projects such as the Blackstone AI data centre in Cambois in Bedlingtonshire, in my constituency? \p Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend and I have previously talked about this great opportunity. The rapid development and breakthrough of new AI models such as DeepSeek tell us that we need to go further and faster to remove barriers to innovation and make Britain the most competitive market. We need to be developing the technology ourselves. That is why we have set out our new AI strategy and why we are scaling up our capacity, creating AI growth zones and putting in place every vehicle we can to support the growth of technology innovation in our country, because we will need it in future. \p Josh Babarinde: Our precious high street in Eastbourne is blighted by the dilapidated Debenhams building on Terminus Road, whose owner has left it empty for years, attracting antisocial behaviour and crime. Will the Minister meet me or support me to meet his colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Eastbourne borough council to discuss how we can use the new high street rental auction powers to force the owner to make that unit occupied again, so that we can regenerate our high street in the sunniest town in the UK? \p Gareth Thomas: I have already met the hon. Gentleman to discuss some of the issues facing the high streets in his constituency. If he thinks I am the most appropriate Minister for that discussion, I am happy to make sure that it happens. He may actually want to discuss this particular issue with colleagues in MHCLG, whose attention I will draw to the question, because they and their officials are working much more closely on the implementation of the powers he mentions. \p Victoria Atkins: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on avian influenza. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the Minister, I give Members a brief reminder that laptop use in the Chamber is not permitted. \p Daniel Zeichner: Avian influenza is once again posing a threat to both kept and wild birds across the country, and supporting birdkeepers, the public and conservation bodies to manage and prepare for avian influenza continues to be one of our main priorities. Following the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry and other captive birds this winter, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Animal and Plant Health Agency have stood up their well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and assist local communities’ recovery.

DEFRA’s disease control measures seek to contain the number of animals that need to be culled, either for disease control purposes or to safeguard animal welfare, and our approach aims to reduce adverse impacts on the rural and wider economy, the public, rural communities and the environment, including the impact on wildlife, while protecting public health and minimising the overall cost of any outbreak. Our approach to avian influenza considers the latest scientific and ornithological evidence and veterinary advice. Current policy reflects our experience of responding to past outbreaks of exotic animal disease, and is in line with international standards of best practice for disease control.

All birdkeepers are urged to remain vigilant and take action to protect their birds from avian influenza. Scrupulous biosecurity by all birdkeepers at all times is essential to protect the health and welfare of flocks. In response to the heightened risk levels and escalating number of cases, an avian influenza prevention zone, mandating enhanced biosecurity, is in force across England, Wales and Scotland. In addition, mandatory housing for kept birds is in force across the unitary authority of the East Riding of Yorkshire, the unitary authority of York, the city of Kingston upon Hull and all districts in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, North Yorkshire and Shropshire, to mitigate the risk of further outbreaks of disease occurring.

In areas where an AIPZ is in force, it is a legal requirement for all birdkeepers, whether they have pet birds, commercial flocks or just a few birds in a backyard flock, to follow strict biosecurity measures to limit the spread of, and eradicate, the disease, including—when mandatory housing measures are a requirement of an AIPZ—a requirement to keep their birds housed. The need for an AIPZ is kept under regular review as part of the Government’s work to monitor and manage the risks of avian influenza. Together with the devolved Governments, we will closely monitor the need to extend mandatory housing to other areas of the country.

While avian influenza is primarily considered a disease of birds, it can infect humans, although this is a very rare event in the UK and the risk to the general public remains very low. Nevertheless, protecting public health remains of paramount importance, and DEFRA and the APHA work closely with regional UK Health Security Agency health protection teams to monitor the situation and provide health advice to persons at infected premises and those who have been in close contact with infected wildlife as a precaution. As a further reassurance, the Food Standards Agency has confirmed that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk for UK consumers. Properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat.

DEFRA and the APHA will continue to work with birdkeepers, who are on the frontline of this terrible disease. Compensation is paid for any healthy kept birds culled. As the House will know, compensation was updated to involve earlier assessment of the number of healthy birds and swifter calculation of compensation. That allows DEFRA to provide earlier certainty about entitlement to compensation, better reflects the impact of outbreaks on premises, and leads to swifter payments to help to stem any cash-flow pressures. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am sure that the Minister has concluded his remarks. I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Victoria Atkins: This is a very difficult time for birdkeepers and farmers, particularly those whose birds have died or been culled, and all those who have had to upend their flocks and move them inside, given the impact that doing so can have on both the mental and economic resilience of individuals. I thank everyone who is involved in tackling avian influenza, and is working tirelessly to prevent the spread of this disease, including in my constituency.

I thank the Minister for his response. I regret that the Secretary of State has not made an oral statement on this important matter; particularly in the light of the revelation that a farm worker has been infected with avian influenza, I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have thought to update the House. However, we have managed to secure this urgent question, for which I am grateful. On the subject of the farm worker infected with the virus in the west midlands, first, how is this person? Have they recovered, and has anyone else been infected? What are the wider risks to human health?

Elsewhere, one of the largest and most modern egg-laying sites in the country has been affected, with more than a million birds being culled. Given the site’s significant role in processing the UK’s barn egg production, what discussions is the Minister having with the sector to mitigate the impact on supply? Will he please update us on his discussions with the devolved Governments about introducing similar restrictions to those in England? Of course birds, and indeed viruses, do not recognise borders. How is he ensuring that compensation is made without delay, and how much is it costing? Is the Department keeping the scheme under review, including the loss of profit for farmers and the conservation impacts for zoos housing rare and critically endangered species, such as the Bali starling at Battersea zoo, which I visited this week?

We are also concerned by reports that the avian influenza vaccination taskforce has stalled. Is that correct and, if so, why? Finally, DEFRA Ministers— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The shadow Minister is trying my patience. We have a lot of business to get through today, and time limits are there for a reason. I call the Minister. \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her important questions. First, I reassure her and the House that the individual in question is, in my understanding, making a full recovery, but obviously we want to ensure that no one is put at undue risk. The advice is clear: the only people at risk are those who are in very close proximity. People should follow the guidance and advice.

On mitigating sector supply, my understanding is there is sufficient supply within the system. Although the right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the point that it was a significant and large producer that was affected, we are confident that supply is secure. On working with the devolved Administrations, my officials are in regular contact, as I said in my opening statement. The situation is being constantly monitored.

The right hon. Member will be familiar with the compensation arrangements because they are the same as when she and her colleagues were in government. They are designed to control the disease, but of course they are also absolutely important to secure cash flow for farmers. \p Barry Gardiner: My recollection from previous bouts of avian influenza is that there were serious problems with delays and with compensation, because farmers who were trying to do a preventive cull of their birds had to wait for an inspection to take place, and if that inspection had not taken place, compensation would not be given. Therefore, some birds died from avian influenza that should have been culled, and some birds did not die but the compensation was not paid. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on exactly what the new arrangements for compensation will be. \p Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall the terrible outbreak a few years ago when exactly those questions were raised and, as the shadow Minister, I asked similar questions at the time. The compensation arrangements were changed by the previous Government in a beneficial way, and I am absolutely confident at the moment that the delays we saw before are not happening. But he raises an important point: anyone who has a suspicion of an outbreak should report it as soon as possible, and they should not be concerned that they will suffer detriment from so doing. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Danny Chambers: Farmers and vets will remember the 2022 outbreak, which was the biggest we had seen in the UK and which killed millions of birds worldwide, so this new outbreak is of huge concern for three major reasons.

First, there is the impact on animal welfare, not just the birds catching avian influenza and dying or being culled, but their having to be kept inside rather than being free range. Secondly, there is the impact on farmers, their businesses and their mental health. As with any notifiable disease, this is hugely stressful, and it is hugely disruptive to business models. What are we doing to ensure that compensation and support are given to farmers quickly? Thirdly, there is a huge potential impact on public health. While we fully understand that there is a low public health risk at the moment—this is a disease of birds—we have just come out of covid-19. We know that if someone is infected with human flu and potentially gets infected with avian influenza, there is a risk that it becomes more infectious to humans. What discussions is the Minister having with APHA and the Department of Health and Social Care to monitor the genotypes? \p Daniel Zeichner: Let me deal first with the second of those two questions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course there is concern, but I can assure him and the House that the advice from the UK Health Security Agency is that avian influenza is primarily a disease of birds, and the risk to the health of the general public is very low. However, of course we are monitoring it, and genetic testing and sequencing is available to us for that. He is right about the impact on bird keepers and on farmers. It is why the compensation scheme is in place and working. We absolutely recognise the pressures on people and the effect on their mental health. \p Ian Lavery: Has the Minister assessed the Conservative Government’s underspend of the agriculture budget? \p Daniel Zeichner: We have indeed assessed it. Of course, it is extraordinary that that happened. In terms of what we are doing, the system is well resourced to deal with these outbreaks, and we work in a cross-party way on that. \p Jerome Mayhew: This outbreak is concerning for the whole of Norfolk, and particularly for the bird-rearers in Broadland and Fakenham, but it highlights the critical importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in New Haw, and the plan for its full redevelopment. Do the Government agree that that redevelopment is long overdue, and if so, will they commit to supporting it? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend—and he is a friend—for his concern. Of course, this is of particular concern and interest to representatives from the east of England, and I share that concern. We have discussed the future of Weybridge and the investment many times before. I gently point out that the Conservative Government had the opportunity over 14 years to make that investment. Over £200 million has been allocated by this Government, and we will continue to make sure that the agency is properly resourced. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. \p Alistair Carmichael: I do not think anybody would disagree with the comments by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the redevelopment of the facility  at Weybridge, but I suspect that once avian influenza is in the wild bird population, as it is here, even the best facility in the world will struggle to contain it. On disease containment, I remember the absolutely heartbreaking experience of walking along beaches in Orkney and seeing dead body after dead body. Is the Minister engaging with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other major organisations so that he can at least be aware of the impact on the wild bird population? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, who is absolutely right. We have heard harrowing accounts in this Chamber of the experiences in Members’ local communities—the situation with wild birds is awful. Of course, officials and I are constantly in dialogue with those organisations, but the truth is that in the wild bird population there is not much we can do about it. \p David Mundell: I have one of the UK’s largest egg producers in my constituency. However, the other trend is that more birds are being kept in a domestic situation—hens, geese and ducks. How are the Government monitoring those who are not professional bird keepers and ensuring that such situations are also subject to the necessary control and regulation? \p Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The importance of biosecurity cannot be overstressed —that is the way to tackle this. He is also right to say that amateurs and small bird keepers are important, and that is why they were brought within the registration scheme, which is beneficial and welcome. \p Sarah Bool: Scientists at the University of Glasgow found last month that avian influenza can spread to horses without any symptoms. Will the Minister clarify how the Government are monitoring the spread of the virus among other species? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to be very careful about that. I can assure her that those are exactly the kinds of discussions that I am having with officials. We are tracking that and have the technology these days to look closely at what is going on. I will not go into the expert account on the Floor of the House of how the serotype works, but I am happy to put her in contact with officials if she needs more information. \p Chris Law: I thank the Minster for his update to the House about the spread of avian flu. I want to ask a couple questions. First, as this is happening in cities as much as in rural areas, how are people who live in cities being made aware that they should look out for dead or dying birds so that we can get a more accurate reflection of where it is spreading? Secondly, what discussions has he had with Departments of the Scottish Government to ensure that we have reliable and up-to-date data across these islands? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman makes strong points. I think there is general awareness of, and concern about, what is going on. It is important to say to people  that, if they have concerns and they see such things, they should report them. On our work with the devolved Administrations, we have a very strong structure that allows all the devolved Administrations to be involved so that we have a consistent framework. \p Ben Spencer: Again, we rely on the facilities at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, based in New Haw in my constituency, and we thank it for its work. A few weeks ago, I asked the Minister if he would visit the site with me to see for himself the work that needs to be done and the urgent need for massive investment in the site. Do we have to wait until the next urgent question or statement before he will take me up on my offer? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation. I have had numerous invitations. Last week, I was in Northumberland looking at rural crime, and this week I was at the Fenland SOIL—sustainability, opportunity, innovation, learning—conference. I will add the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to my list. \p Cameron Thomas: For my daughter’s second birthday, I took her to the wonderful Birdland in Gloucestershire, which has hundreds of different exotic and rare birds. Could the Minister please tell me how he is going to support that type of business model and how he is going to keep staff and visitors safe? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Everything we do to stop the spread will help businesses such as the one he described. Some specific rules and regulations also apply in those particular cases, which I can make available to him if he wishes. \p John Whittingdale: Does the Minister accept that avian influenza represents an existential threat to businesses such as Kelly Turkeys in my constituency? Paul Kelly has called this the covid of the poultry industry. Does the Minister accept that it is likely, as with covid, that the only way forward will be vaccination? \p Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As he will be aware, significant international trade issues are involved, but as we look to a world in which we seem to have more and more of these cases, that is certainly something that we keep under consideration. \p Alistair Strathern: I thank the Government for their strong and fast response, which I know will be a big reassurance for lots of the farming communities impacted. May I ask the Minister to provide a bit more detail about the support we are giving not just to those who are directly impacted now, but to those who are understandably very deeply concerned about what this may mean for their businesses over the coming months? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for his very important question. I can assure him that an entire apparatus is in place to ensure that all reassurance can be given to the kind of businesses that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) described. From an animal welfare point of view, we will ensure that everybody involved in the sector has the kind of  advice and support that is needed. If my hon. Friend has colleagues who wish to look at the advice, they should look at the webpages available on Government websites, which are significant and thorough. If people need advice, they should not hesitate to come to my officials or to me, and we will point them in the right direction. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his response to the urgent question. Poultry and egg production contributes significantly to the Northern Ireland economy—it is valued at some £600 million—so it is little wonder that the agricultural community has great concerns. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved nations, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, about putting in place the support that is needed, taking into account that wild bird cases have been found in the last two weeks in Northern Ireland? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am, as ever, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue as it impacts Northern Ireland. We have been developing a UK-wide response to this, and my officials are in constant contact with officials from his Administration. We will ensure that this UK-wide response continues to be in place, because it is very important that we work together on all these issues. I hope in the not-too-distant future to continue my tour of the country, and I very much look forward to taking up his long-standing invitation—not only to Stormont, where I have been before, but to his fishing sector—and the very warm welcome that I know I will receive. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The sitting is suspended.

Sitting suspended. \p Mims Davies: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the women’s health strategy. \p Karin Smyth: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to set out our commitment to the women’s health strategy and everything that this Government are doing to fix our broken NHS, clean up the mess that the Conservatives left after 14 years and get women treated on time again.

When we came into office we inherited record waiting lists. The gynaecology waiting list stood at just under 600,000 women. Let that sink in—600,000 women in pain, waiting to be cared for. Almost half the women on gynaecology waiting lists are waiting more than 18 weeks. That is why the Prime Minister kicked off 2025 with our elective reform plan, setting out how we will cut the longest waiting lists from 18 months to 18 weeks. Our new agreement with the independent sector will mean that, where there is spare capacity in the private sector, women will be treated faster for gynaecology care, paid for by the state.

The Government are also committed to rooting out the appalling inequalities in maternity care. We are supporting failing trusts to make rapid improvements, training thousands more midwives for the first time, and we will set an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap. We are piloting a training programme to help avoid brain injury for babies in childbirth and, if successful, we will crack on with rolling it out nationally this year. In October, we extended the baby loss certificate service to help mums and dads who have suffered the heartbreak of pregnancy loss.

Let me also address the issue of women’s health hubs. There was a target in last year’s planning guidance to roll out pilot women’s health hubs across the country by last December. Today, there are at least 80 hubs, and at least nine out of every10 integrated care systems have an open women’s health hub.

Let me correct some fake news. We are not closing these hubs; we are not cutting them. The target to roll them out was in last year’s planning guidance. It was achieved in 93% of integrated care systems, which is why the target is not repeated in this year’s guidance—it has been met in 39 out of 42 areas.

Today, we have slimmed down the number of targets for the NHS so that we can focus on fixing the fundamentals —the system that the previous Government broke. We are instructing the NHS to prioritise: cutting waiting times for operations, A&E and ambulances; making it easier for people to see a GP or a dentist; and improving the mental health of the nation. That will mean around 60,000 women with suspected cancer are diagnosed earlier and treated faster; more than 200,000 extra women will be treated within 18 weeks, as we drive down long waits; and fewer women will be forced to wait 12 hours in A&E. That is the difference that a Labour Government are making to women’s health. \p Mims Davies: For too long, a woman’s experience of the health service has been one of being pushed from pillar to post. Crucially, women’s voices have been ignored  and responses to their pain, suffering, poor sex lives and traumatic births have been too slow. Overall, women have a sense of being forgotten. Some 2.4 million more women were in work under our Conservative Government. Pain and suffering were affecting too many women and their ability to remain in the labour market, resulting in early retirement or not having their true career potential fulfilled.

We took direct action, crucially, by listening to women’s experiences. We had almost 100,000 responses to our call for evidence on the gender health gap. We appointed Dame Lesley Regan as the woman’s health ambassador, and Helen Tomlinson as the cross-government menopause ambassador to find out the experience of women employed in different sectors. We delivered and funded new women’s health hubs and created joined-up services in the community. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists estimates that removing the requirement of integrated care boards to have a woman’s health hub will impact 600,000 women on waiting lists in England, creating longer waits, disease progression that could be prevented, and resulting in more women attending A&E, unable to work, care or live a fulfilled life.

Labour’s manifesto said that it will prioritise women’s health. Women are now reported to be a lobby group, relegated to being unheard once again. Will the Minister confirm whether it is true that the targets to deal with women’s needs will be dropped? If so, what is her justification for that? Will she be delivering on the roundly welcomed women’s health strategy from 2022?

A total of 1,300 families gave evidence to the all-party group on birth trauma. What are the plans to drive up maternity safety standards across the country? Will there be a response to that? Will Dame Lesley Regan be sacked, will she remain the women’s health ambassador, or will she be replaced, as Helen Tomlinson was, by someone who seems more interested in selling books than in delivering on the ground for women? What steps are being be taken on sex-specific language in health communications and guidance— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The shadow Minister will know that there is a time limit, which she has exceeded. I have been very generous. I call the Minister. \p Karin Smyth: I addressed most of those points in my outline statement. I think the shadow Minister wrote her comments when the Opposition thought that we were cancelling things, only to find out that we are not cancelling things. I have made clear our commitment to the women’s health strategy and how we seek to instruct the system at a local level to serve the needs of women and particularly prioritise those waiting lists. As I have outlined, the targets have already been achieved. Unusually, I will give a bit of credit to the other side, because a lot of this was rolled out and it was good practice, and the system still thinks that it is good practice, so sometimes Opposition Members should take a win. We are committed to that, it is embedded in the system, and we look forward to outcomes being improved for women. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. \p Sarah Owen: The Committee report on women’s reproductive health, started under our fantastic predecessors, laid out how medical misogyny has left far too many women suffering. Women have been left undiagnosed for debilitating conditions such as endometriosis for an average of eight years—not for treatment, for diagnosis. Black women are four to five times more likely to die during childbirth, and the rate of maternal death in the UK has risen by 15% in the last 10 years. The leading cause of that is suicide, accounting for 39% of deaths in the first year postpartum. Does the Minister therefore agree that women, and women of colour especially, have borne the brunt too often of 14 years of disastrous health policies? How can the Government reverse this trend? \p Karin Smyth: I thank the Committee Chair for her question. I think she was congratulating the previous Committee and Chair rather than those who are now in opposition. I was very pleased to witness some of that work when we were in opposition, and she is absolutely right about it. The work of many women Members when in opposition, and, to be fair, of many women in the previous Government, have made sure that issues around endometriosis have risen up the agenda; indeed, we had a good debate in the Chamber recently. We are committed to taking forward the strategy. We think the health hubs, for example, are doing a good job, but there is a lot of learning to be done on them, and we will continue to do that. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Danny Chambers: Nearly 600,000 women are waiting for treatment on gynaecology waiting lists in England; the longest waits are leading to preventable diseases progressing and it is one of the worst specialties for long waits. The Care Quality Commission has investigated and reported that 65% of maternity units are not as safe as they should be. That high number could almost be considered a public health crisis, and it has led to the highest amount of negligent payouts due to avoidable injury and even death. This absolutely needs to be addressed.

Many women, such as my partner Emma, have had to fight for years to get just a diagnosis for endometriosis, let alone any treatment, having been told for years that the symptoms are completely normal and do not need investigating. In the Government’s— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I know I am being difficult on time limits, but the Liberal Democrat spokes- person should have one minute in an urgent question, which the hon. Gentleman has already far exceeded. Perhaps he will come up with a question in one sentence for the Minister. \p Danny Chambers: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, in one sentence: the Government’s manifesto rightly said that

“Never again will women’s health be neglected”.

Can we have assurances that we will not remove the ICB requirement to have women’s health hubs? \p Karin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight those long waits. That is why we particularly highlighted gynaecology for attention in the elective reform plan.  It is shocking that the last Government left 600,000 women on these lists, and moving back to making sure people wait no longer than 18 weeks will predominantly be helping those women.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to highlight the appalling maternity situation. The Secretary of State and my noble Friend Baroness Merron, who leads in this area, have met many families to discuss their experiences, and we know those experiences are unacceptable. We know there are big issues around staffing, and it is a priority to work with NHS England to make sure that we grow workforce capacity as quickly as possible so that we can be sure that those situations are safe. There are many debates in this place about the issue and we will continue to update the House. \p Rachel Taylor: Under the last Government, five times more research went into erectile dysfunction, which affects 19% of men, than went into premenstrual syndrome, which affects 90% of women. Women are waiting more than eight years for endometriosis diagnoses. GPs are not required to undertake a gynaecological rotation within their training. Women’s health must be put at the head of our agenda. Will the Minister assure women in this country that things will change under this Government? \p Karin Smyth: I absolutely will give my hon. Friend that assurance. The situation will change partly because there are more people like her and more women in this place. We have more women across all parties raising this issue and more women in senior positions in the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Crucially, we have women leading in science and research. Dealing with the misogyny around the system and in medical systems is also important for making sure that women lead this work. We want to make sure that the NIHR, which has a strategy to address this issue, rectifies the situation that she outlines. \p Mark Pritchard: The Minister will be aware of the Ockenden report back in 2022, which highlighted the tragic cases of more than 200 mothers and babies who were killed over a period of years at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. Donna Ockenden recently returned to the trust and said that she was surprised and disappointed to hear from those parents and families affected that the trust had not been communicating as well as it should have been and had not been updating the families in a timely manner. Does the Minister agree not only that communication is key, but also that reviews, such as those undertaken by Donna Ockenden, should have the remit to go back to check and monitor the progress of maternity services that are either improving or not? \p Karin Smyth: I completely agree with the right hon. Member. Donna Ockenden’s work is hugely valuable, and a lot of faith and trust has been placed in it, particularly by families. I do not know specific dates, but the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Baroness Merron, who leads on this work, have been discussing the matter with Donna Ockenden. I am happy to get back to the right hon. Member with the details.

On the specific point about the remit, I do not know the answer to that question. It is entirely sensible to look at progress and learn from mistakes. I know it is a  challenge system, and we have to learn from those areas. If there are specific things to report back to the right hon. Member, I will get back to him, but this issue is absolutely a priority. The Secretary of State is meeting families directly. We know and understand that we have to do much better on this for everybody. \p Julie Minns: Having listened to the shadow Minister, I am slightly tempted to suggest to the Minister that our women’s health strategy include provision for the treatment of collective memory loss. The shadow Minister completely ignored the fact that the Tories let our NHS fall into disrepute over the past 14 years.

I want to ask specifically about how our health strategy will deal with treatment and support for young people, particularly young women, suffering from depression and anxiety. That follows a tragic case in my constituency and a coroner’s report last week, which found that our local hospital was not able to support that patient. \p Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend is right to highlight some tragic incidents, and I know she will be working hard on behalf of her constituents. We are absolutely committed to the women’s health strategy. Clearly, that will be taken forward as part of the 10-year plan, and it is an important part of that. I met my noble Friend Baroness Merron yesterday and the team supporting that plan to make sure that we understand how those key issues are taken forward.

This is an opportunity, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that the consultation on that plan is still open for ideas. We are keen to hear in particular from young people to make sure that we get a true representation. These sorts of things are not often consulted on, so we encourage young people and people who are suffering from depression and mental health issues to contribute their thoughts about the system they face as part of our 10-year plan consultation. \p Christine Jardine: I am sure we all welcome the move to reduce waiting lists and recognise that the women’s health strategy is a 10-year plan. But given the enormous problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), does the Minister appreciate that, to many women who are having trouble accessing often fragmented gynaecological services, it will seem like a vital facility is about to be lost and that the Government’s promises of “never again” will sound hollow? What will the Government do to reassure all the women who are concerned about this move? \p Karin Smyth: I am not entirely clear what the hon. Member is referring to. I have been clear that we are committed to the women’s health strategy, and we will take it forward as part of the 10-year plan. Most of the—[Interruption.] If it was about the women’s health hubs, they are mainly there but in different forms and with different levels of services. We want to ensure that the systems reflect their local population needs. That is an entirely proper way to go about things.

As I said, unusually, we think that many of the hubs, which were rolled out as pilots under the previous Administration, are doing a good job in most areas—although not everywhere, so we want to learn from the pilots. Our commitment is absolutely to women. That is  why gynaecology waiting lists are particularly targeted: we had 600,000 women on them. Women should feel really assured about the support that the Government are giving them and their health, to prioritise their health. We are keen to learn more about women’s health hubs. They will be different in different places because they have different populations, and that is entirely in keeping with the direction of travel of the Government. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her work in raising the serious health inequalities that women across the UK face every single day. Does the Minister agree that we need more expertise in women’s health issues in primary care settings to ensure early diagnosis and that women get the treatment they need at the earliest point? \p Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about both the work of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and the importance of primary and community care recognising, listening to and supporting women through women’s health, as well as making sure that our knowledge and good practice is spread across the team. This is an area where different systems have women’s health hubs using different teams and different technology, and they have different links to secondary care colleagues and specialist colleagues. By listening to each other and working together, they are so good at spreading some of that good practice. \p Richard Holden: I welcome the Minister coming to the House to answer the urgent question, because the argument she is putting forward seems slightly confused. First, women’s health hubs seem to be working on the whole, and there are lots of them, so why remove the target for everybody to have them if we are already 90% there? Secondly, many of the hubs seem to be doing good work, and best practice is clearly emerging, so why cancel the target for the programme rather than spread that good practice throughout the system? I think the broad question from the Opposition is: why remove the targets specifically relating to women from the Government’s agenda going forward? It feels to many women and to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which has been in contact with me, that that downgrades the status of women in the NHS. \p Karin Smyth: I will try to be brief, but this is hard to explain—[Interruption.] No, this is to answer the right hon. Gentleman. Targets in the NHS have not been met since 2015, which was under his Government’s watch but, actually, this target has been met—there are only three places in the country that do not have a hub—so there is no target for them because that has already been met. The issue now is to look at the outcomes from those hubs to see how they are performing. We think, and the system thinks, that they do a good job. That is why they are staying, why we are committed to them, and why we want to learn from them. \p Mohammad Yasin: Bedford hospital once had a gold-standard home-birth service, but in recent months it has been run down within the wider  trust due to unfilled vacancies. Many of my constituents are concerned at the prospect of losing that service, which puts women’s needs and health choices first. Will the women’s health strategy ensure that women can access a consistent midwifery service that provides genuine choice for safe home births? \p Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about maternity services, which are inconsistent and not good enough around the country. It is a source of great alarm for many people. Maternity absolutely remains a high priority within the overall women’s health strategy. \p Lisa Smart: If you are black and having a baby, you are more than three times more likely to die than if you are white and having a baby. I am sure that the Minister and Members across the House will agree that that is a national disgrace. I was encouraged to hear the Minister mention a target for maternal mortality disparity in her opening remarks, but I would be grateful if she could confirm that the elimination of that disparity is the target and update the House on when the NHS plans to achieve that. \p Karin Smyth: The hon. Lady makes the point about using targets. This is something that is a high priority, but it is not happening. That is absolutely why I mentioned it in my opening comments—to ensure that that happens. \p Barry Gardiner: Forty years ago this month, my wife almost died of an eclamptic seizure because a general practitioner had failed to recognise the symptoms of pre-eclampsia. According to the most recent report on pre-eclampsia, four times as many women are dying of pre-eclampsia today than were dying in 2012. That is an absolute disgrace. If men got pre-eclampsia, they would have solved the problem many, many years ago. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Minister assure me and everyone else that the women’s health strategy will focus on pre-eclampsia, and try to finally find a solution? \p Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case and talks of an experience that he and his wife went through forty years ago, which highlights that it can sometimes take an unacceptably long time to get what is known as good practice through the system and to have that consistency for women and their families across the overall system. We absolutely need to ensure that maternity services understand best practice and that it is rolled out properly across the country. \p Greg Smith: In an earlier answer, the Minister rightly talked about the arrangement the Government have over spare capacity in the independent sector. My female constituents and women up and down the land want to know what that actually means in practice: what does that mean for the 260,000 women waiting more than 18 weeks for gynaecology treatment? How many treatments will the independent sector be delivering, and to what timescale? We need to get those women the treatment that they need. \p Karin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman can tell his women constituents what I hope everyone across the House will be able to tell their constituents: this Government inherited  600,000 women on those waiting lists, and we are committed—as said in our elective reform plan, which highlighted gynaecology in particular—to getting those waiting lists down from 18 months to 18 weeks in the lifetime of this Parliament. \p Cameron Thomas: I represent almost 40,000 women, and they and the men who love them would invite the Minister to state explicitly that the Government will not draw down their access to women’s health hubs or remove their women’s health targets. \p Karin Smyth: I have made that commitment several times from this Dispatch Box. We think the women’s health hubs are working across the country—I do not know exactly how the hon. Gentleman’s hub is working at the moment. Only three areas do not have a women’s health hub, and we expect them to get on with that and have one. We will ensure we have the learning from them across the country. \p Jerome Mayhew: The Minister got her tone wrong in dealing with this urgent question. If a Minister turns up late for a UQ, the least they can do is take the questions from the Opposition Front Bench seriously.

Amanda Pritchard, the CEO of NHS England, has said that the health service does not

“always have the needs of women at its heart.”

What message do the Government think scrapping women’s health targets will send? \p Karin Smyth: The chief executive is right that the previous Government did not have women’s health at the heart of their strategy, and that is why we do. \p David Mundell: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, may I ask the Minister about the very low take-up of pre-exposure prophylaxis among women in the UK? What steps are being taken to change that? Obviously, there are barriers such as stigma and low levels of information, but does she agree that PrEP should not just be made available in sexual health settings, particularly as we have had the roll-out of opt-out testing? \p Karin Smyth: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work he does in this area. He does an excellent job and makes an excellent point. I do not know the detailed   answer to that question—it is not directly my area—but I am very happy to make sure that we write to him. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for her answers. The women’s health survey for Northern Ireland closes tomorrow. Through it, the Department of Health back home is hoping to have a greater understanding of how government fails women. The results of this Northern Ireland-wide project will ensure the Department will be able to find the areas that are lacking, in particular endometriosis support. Will the Minister make contact with the Northern Ireland Assembly to discuss the health strategy and to share the results and the data, so that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly back home can work better together to make women’s health better across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? \p Karin Smyth: As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, I think the health needs of women in Northern Ireland and the waiting lists there are particularly problematic, so finding out anything our Department can to do support or share learning across the United Kingdom is a personal commitment of mine. I will absolutely make sure that we do that. I am happy to meet, talk or even visit, which I always like doing. \p Victoria Atkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this incredibly important issue of the women’s health strategy, and the fact that the word “woman” has been excluded from the updated planning guidance, could you help me understand this? As a common courtesy to both you and the House, when a Minister is unable to organise herself such that she can get to the Chamber on time, is it not courteous to apologise to those of us she has kept waiting before we were able to discuss this important subject? \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. She is, of course, correct that it is courteous to the House for an apology to be made. Five minutes of time was wasted this morning. I think the Minister would like to make a further point of order. \p Karin Smyth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I absolutely, unequivocally apologise. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the Minister. \p Joy Morrissey: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business? \p Lucy Powell: I shall. The business for the week commencing 3 February includes:

Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Tuesday 4 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025 and the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025.

Wednesday 5 February—Motions related to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 6 February—General debate on Government support for coalfield communities, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 February will include:

Monday 10 February—Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.

Tuesday 11 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 12 February—Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 13 February—General debate. Subject to be announced.

The House will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call Joy Morrissey, I think it appropriate to wish her a happy birthday. \p Joy Morrissey: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that the House will join me in offering thoughts and prayers for victims and their families following the collision this morning when an American Airlines plane crashed into the Potomac following a collision; but I believe that the Leader of the House will join me in rejoicing at the return of more of the Israeli hostages today.

It is an honour to respond to the right hon. Lady. Serving with her on the Modernisation Committee, I have observed the energy that she puts into bringing this House into the second quarter of the 21st century. We are lucky to have someone so persuasive in her position, someone who really listens to Members. [Hon. Members: “But—”] No buts, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I approach this session of business questions in that spirit. One innovation that would be very welcome would be a commitment from the Leader of the House to providing our dates for Opposition day debates, which we have still not received. Another extremely welcome innovation would be the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero finding time to reply to numerous letters sent by Opposition Members; perhaps the Leader of the House could persuade him to do so, but perhaps she would have more luck with the Chancellor.

As each week passes, our constituents face more and more negative consequences from the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget. Last week the Office for National Statistics revealed that there had been a staggering 47,000 drop in employment in December, the sharpest fall since the pandemic. Job vacancies have also collapsed. The day before the Chancellor’s Budget, in which she launched her attack on British businesses, there were 858,000 job vacancies in our economy; now the number has fallen to just 740,000, a drop of 14% in just two months. I know that she is proud of being the first female Chancellor, but would it not be even better for her to be known as the Chancellor who was brave enough to change course? Because of her Budget, business confidence has collapsed. Because of her Budget, growth has collapsed. Because of her Budget, employment is falling and unemployment is rising. Because of her Budget, UK gilt yields are at an eye-watering level. Because of her Budget, mortgage rates are now rising, despite her promise that she would bring them down.

We have seen a glimmer of hope with the Chancellor’s U-turn on her non-doms policy, which has caused some of the UK’s biggest taxpayers to flee her socialist nightmare. It is a welcome U-turn, but I feel for the Leader of the House and for Labour Members. I cannot imagine that they ever thought they would be explaining why a Labour Government had U-turned on punishing non-doms, but not on punishing pensioners. Will the Leader of the House seek to persuade the Chancellor to be bold, change course again, and spare British pensioners, farmers, businesses, workers and households from more economic pain?

May we have a debate in Government time to explore the many areas in which a Chancellor U-turn would indeed be welcome? If not, will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on punishing pensioners, and reinstate their winter fuel payment? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to spare family farms that have put food on our tables from her tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to save businesses that create jobs, wealth and growth in this country from her catastrophic national insurance tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on her 1970s-style tax and borrowing spree, to protect the households that now face rising mortgage costs because of her? That is a task that I hope the Leader of the House will agree is in the interests of the House, its Members, and the people of this country. \p Lucy Powell: All our thoughts are with those affected by the air crash in Washington DC. The scale of this tragedy is still unfolding, and we send our deepest sympathies to all those involved and those still carrying out the rescue operation.

This week saw the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. No one could ever forget visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau, as I did with young people from my constituency  with the Holocaust Educational Trust. We must never forget. I join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) in welcoming the further release of hostages in Israel and Gaza today.

Members will have noticed that Mr Speaker is not in his Chair today. I can assure them that he is not taking up a new acting role on the set of “Emmerdale”. He is instead celebrating the life of another northern legend, at the funeral of Lord Prescott.

I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to business questions, on her birthday. I very much welcome working with her on the Modernisation Committee. I have found her contributions to be greatly valuable and enlightening, and I know she does a really good job as a Whip and a constituency MP, supporting colleagues across the House. Given her contribution today, she could perhaps give a few tips to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), when he returns, because she has taken a very business questions-style approach. I will follow up with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if there are issues with correspondence.

The hon. Lady raised issues around the economy. I will gently remind her of a few stats. Inflation is down now, thanks to this Government. Wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years. We have created more than 70,000 jobs since we came into office, and business investment is at its highest level in 19 years. PwC has just rated the UK the second best place in the world to invest after the US. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD both predict that Britain will be Europe’s fastest-growing major economy in recent years.

This Government are getting on with the job, and it has been another week of delivering the change that people voted for. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will be introduced today, with real action to tackle small boats and smuggling gangs, in contrast to the Conservatives’ costly Rwanda gimmick. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill gets its Second Reading next week. Despite promises from the Conservative party, it failed to bring that forward. That important piece of legislation will address the huge cost of fraud in our welfare system.

We have taken major strides to get growth going, taking the difficult, bold decisions that the hon. Lady asked for, many of them on issues that have been raised in business questions over recent weeks. They include the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, creating the UK’s answer to silicon valley; the redevelopment of the huge site around the Old Trafford football ground, which even I can welcome, as a City fan; and, thanks to the tireless campaigning of Mr Doncaster Airport himself, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), their airport is set to become thriving once again. We are backing airport expansion across the congested south-east.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) will be over the moon that we are investing in Cornwall’s mineral industry, which he has raised with me many times. We are giving the go-ahead to the lower Thames crossing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) has long championed and raised with me. We are supporting Port Talbot and Teesside through the advanced fuels fund and Wrexham and Flintshire through the advanced  manufacturing investment zone. We are building nine reservoirs—the first in 30 years—to provide water for new homes.

We are reviewing the Green Book, to enable better public investment and growth outside London and the south-east. We are taking difficult decisions, some of which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised, because we had to fix the foundations to get our country growing again, so that we can invest in the public services that people desperately need and voted for at the last election. \p Dawn Butler: Brent is known as the reggae capital of Europe. Bob Marley wrote some of his best hits there, and we have Janet Kay and Carroll Thompson, who celebrate their birthdays this week, too. Today, in the Jubilee Room, we will be honouring one of the lead singers of Boney M, Liz Mitchell. As people will know, the band’s hits include “Daddy Cool”, “Rasputin” and “Rivers of Babylon”. \p Adam Jogee: Sing it! \p Dawn Butler: I would sing it, but my voice is a little bit croaky today.

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Liz Mitchell? Maybe we should have a debate in Government time about music and how it can be a unifier and bring about community cohesion. \p Lucy Powell: I congratulate Brent on being the reggae capital. We can all recognise some of the great hits that my hon. Friend mentioned, and I am pleased that she is hosting an event today in the Jubilee Room for Liz Mitchell of Boney M. I cannot think of a decent pun on “Daddy Cool”, but my hon. Friend is definitely “Brent cool”. I watch her social media and TikToks, and she probably has a glittering career ahead of her in that regard. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: May I echo the words that have been spoken about the unfolding tragedy in Washington DC? My thoughts go out to all the victims and their families.

When I am out and about talking to people on the doorstep in my Chelmsford constituency, the issue of crime often comes up. That is not because Chelmsford is a criminal hotspot—far from it—but because of the often frustrating low-level crime that takes place, which concerns my constituents. They often say that they want to see more bobbies on the beat. They want to see more uniformed police patrolling our streets, making their presence felt, and reassuring the community by building relationships and deterring wannabe criminals. Much of that presence is provided by police community support officers, who work with police officers and share some of their powers. They do genuinely wonderful work that frees up precious police officer time for other and perhaps more complex policing issues. In short, they are very welcome and an important part of our communities.

In Essex there are 99 PCSOs, but not for much longer. Essex police have just announced that they are getting rid of all of them, as they face a £12.5 million budget shortfall for 2025-26. I doubt that Essex police will be the only force to consider such drastic action,  and I am sure that I am not alone in being extremely concerned about the implications of that decision. Will the Leader of the House consider asking the Home Secretary to make a statement on the effect on our communities, and on what can be done to salvage the situation before the experience of all these dedicated individuals is lost and society suffers as a consequence? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for sending her thoughts to those affected by the air crash in Washington DC. She, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and I are all members of the Modernisation Committee, and we represent three different parties. It is great to work with her on that Committee, and on the House of Commons Commission. As a new Member, she has really got to grips with some of the difficult issues that we face in this place.

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the challenges that her constituents face with bobbies on the beat in her area. She will know that the funding for Essex police will increase by £25 million next year, but I absolutely share her view that strengthening neighbourhood policing is vital for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. We are committed to providing an additional 13,000 neighbourhood officers and PCSOs nationwide, but local decisions are a matter for local police. She can rest assured that after years of cuts to police forces, we are determined to recruit extra officers. I will certainly make sure that the Home Secretary has heard her question, and that she gets a full response about what is happening in her local area. \p Ian Lavery: Flexible Engineered Solutions International in my constituency is an excellent example of a strong and successful business. It delivers projects in oil and gas, and in renewables. Last week, it hosted clients from Rio de Janeiro, and the Brazilians travelled on the newly reopened Northumberland line. They travelled 5,600 miles, and the new line was the last leg. It was fantastic. Can we have a debate in Government time on the strategic importance of good local transport infrastructure that allows people from places like Brazil easy access to constituencies such as Blyth and Ashington? \p Lucy Powell: I am delighted that, after 60 years of closure, the Northumberland line was finally reopened last December. I would have loved to have been a passenger on that train, and to have heard how the conversation between my hon. Friend and the Brazilians flowed—or not, as the case might be. He is absolutely right that vital transport infrastructure, especially in our regions and in constituencies like his, is the bedrock of ensuring economic growth, prosperity, rising wages and good jobs for his constituents. I am delighted to support his call for that today. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: I am sure the whole House will express condolences to the victims at the Kumbh Mela in India who sadly lost their lives or were badly injured.

In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 4 February on apprentices and Apprenticeship Week. On Thursday 6 February, there will be a debate on open access to rail services, followed by a debate on debt cancellation for low-income countries. On Tuesday 11 February, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on the cost of energy. On Thursday 13 February, there will be a debate on HIV Testing Week, followed by a debate on the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

After the recess, on Tuesday 25 February, there will be a debate on maternity services, which we have heard about this morning. On Thursday 27 February, there will be a debate on rural crime, potentially followed by a debate on mental health support in educational settings.

We have a veritable queue of debates for the Chamber, so it is a bit disappointing that there will be a general debate in Government time next week. We have debates lined up that will take us through to the April recess. Will the Leader of the House give us an early indication of when the estimates day debates will be held? I ask because we have to consider applications for, and advertise, debates to be held in the week commencing 3 March.

Yesterday, I met representatives from Balochistan, Sindh and the Muttahida Qaumi movement in Pakistan. They recounted to me atrocities too horrible to describe, committed against minority communities. We give Pakistan millions of pounds in aid, money that appears to be diverted away from the communities that desperately need it. Can we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Development on what will be done to make sure that our aid is concentrated on areas of Pakistan that desperately need it, and that human rights triumph and the money is used effectively? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for informing the House of the important debates that his Committee has allocated for the coming weeks. I think we have been very generous in allocating Backbench Business time in recent weeks, and we will continue to be so. We have been doing our best to announce business as far in advance as possible—sometimes three weeks in advance—which is unprecedented in recent times. I will ensure that he is made aware of when the estimates day debates are likely to be.

The hon. Gentleman raises important issues about Pakistan. As he will know from his very good attendance at business questions, the subject is regularly raised with me and other Ministers. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has recently raised a number of these matters with the Government of Pakistan, and I think it would make a good topic for an update statement to the House. I will ensure that Ministers have heard that call today. \p Julie Minns: Four Carlisle men, Rae Daly Armstrong, Ivan Cooke, William Lewis Johnston and Charles Ross, were among almost 500 casualties from the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit who served in the second world war. The casualty rate for that very small unit was the second highest in the war. When planning the debates and events in this House that will mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, will the Leader of the House give particular consideration to that small unit, which suffered such great losses during the war? \p Lucy Powell: I am sure the whole House will join my hon. Friend in putting on record our thanks for those involved with the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and its important work. As she will be aware, we have funding for a huge number of activities to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war. The Minister responsible will make a statement shortly about how that funding will be allocated and what activities will be involved. I will ensure that the Minister hears my hon. Friend’s pleas for commemoration of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit to be part of those activities. \p Roger Gale: I thank the Leader of the House for her further commitment to the development of aviation in the south-east, which I am sure will extend to the development of Manston airport in my constituency. It already has a development consent order and is, in common parlance, shovel-ready. During the debate on the Climate and Nature Bill last Friday, I raised the subject of public funding for the Drax power station, an environmentally wholly unacceptable operation. At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) again raised the issue of Drax and pointed to a KPMG report that suggests that the funding for Drax had been claimed illegally. Can we have a debate on that report and on the funding of Drax in Government time? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the Government’s commitment to alleviating passenger congestion in the south-east, and for his local airport’s commitment to doing that, which I am sure we all welcome. He raises some serious matters, which were mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, about the Drax organisation and whether public funds have been used appropriately. This Government take such reports incredibly seriously, and I will ensure that the House is updated in due course. \p Adam Jogee: I too wish the shadow Minister a happy birthday. In October 2024, people from across Newcastle-under-Lyme came together for the unveiling of a wonderful statue of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Queen’s Gardens. There has been much talk of Heathrow airport in recent days. As our nation will mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of the late Queen in April 2026, will the Leader of the House back my calls to rename Heathrow after Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II? What a wonderful tribute that would be to a lifetime of service to the country and the Commonwealth. \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that excellent idea with me. He is absolutely right that we need to appropriately mark the late Queen’s extraordinary 70-year reign in a very big way, given all that she contributed to our public life and national identity. He will be aware that the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Committee has been set up to consider how best we could do that, and I will ensure that his suggestion is fed into that committee. \p Richard Holden: Yesterday, I re-established the all-party parliamentary group on freedom of speech. I am sure Members on the Government Front Bench will welcome that, given their  recent slight changes of opinion on free speech in higher education. Will the Leader of the House find space in Government time for a broader debate on freedom of speech, given that her neighbour, the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), is the deputy chairman of the APPG? In addition, will she clarify what she said at the start of business questions about the lower Thames crossing getting the go-ahead? My understanding is that the development consent order has not yet been passed; in fact, it has been delayed twice. That clarity will be important for people in constituencies like mine, who are eagerly awaiting the Government’s actions in that area. \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are committed to free speech and to making sure that everybody has the ability to express themselves freely and without recourse. He might want to join my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), to apply for a Backbench Business slot. We have had a number of urgent questions and statements to the House on those matters, but I will ensure that we are updated.

On the lower Thames crossing, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Chancellor gave her commitment to that project in her speech yesterday. There is, as always with such matters, the quasi-judicial process that has to be gone through, which is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport, but I will ensure that he is kept updated on that. \p Barry Gardiner: Today, Lord Ericht has ruled that the consent for the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields was granted unlawfully by the previous Government because they had failed to properly account for the effect on the climate of burning the fossil fuels that would be extracted. Can we have a debate on the future of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields and on the UK joining the countries that formed the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend will know that we have been clear that we will not challenge the judicial reviews in this case. We will consult on new guidance that takes into account the Supreme Court’s ruling on environmental impact assessments to enable the industry to secure jobs and invest in the economy of the future. We aim to conclude that by the spring of this year and I will ensure that the House is updated. \p Claire Young: The My Name’5 Doddie Foundation has told me that, aside from funding, motor neurone disease research needs a better regulatory framework to encourage investment into this country and to make it easier for UK citizens to take part in overseas trials. That research benefits not only the one in 300 who will develop MND but those who develop other neurodegenerative conditions, such as the many forms of dementia. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement to the House on that issue? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue, because people are still suffering, as are the families of those affected by MND. We need more research. We have some great campaigners, such as Kevin Sinfield, who have raised a huge amount of  money. The hon. Lady is right that access to trials and research is critical. I will ensure that she gets a ministerial update on what the Government are doing. \p Louise Jones: Constituents in the village of Killamarsh in my constituency, a community of just over 9,000 people, do not now have any access to cash—not even an ATM—in the village. Will the Minister grant a debate on access to cash in semi-rural communities and make sure that my constituents’ voices are heard? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue for her constituents. It gets raised with me many times in business questions, because access to cash and making sure we have banking hubs in all our communities, which this Government are committed to doing, is critical to thriving market towns and high streets such as those in her constituency. We have already opened more than a hundred banking hubs, and I will ensure that she is updated, including on the banking hub in her constituency. \p Luke Evans: A rail freight interchange is being proposed near Hinckley and Burbage in my constituency. Before Christmas, the Planning Inspectorate passed its judgment on it and the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), said she was “minded to refuse” the application. However, in an unprecedented decision, the Department extended the call for further information, which closes in a couple of weeks’ time. After yesterday’s speech from the Chancellor, there is growing concern among my community that the project might be greenlighted.

In the light of that, while I know that the Leader of the House cannot comment specifically on that case, will she write to the new Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), to make sure that all protocols are followed as they are written? May we have a debate in Government time on having a joined-up national strategy on rail freight interchanges and where they are placed? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what I am sure is a huge issue for his constituents. He is right that I cannot comment on the specifics of the case, but I know that the Secretary of State for Transport takes her quasi-judicial role in such cases extremely seriously and is mindful to ensure that due process is followed in all circumstances. I will raise the issue that he has raised with me with Ministers today. It is vital that we upgrade rail freight capacity in this country. We are now at capacity in many places. Interchanges with other services are vital, and I will ensure that he is updated. \p Joe Powell: Yesterday, it was reported that a former constituent of Kensington and Bayswater, Roman Abramovich, owes up to £1 billion in UK tax—potentially a bigger case than even Bernie Ecclestone. Does my right hon. Friend share the country’s anger at people such as Roman Abramovich using complex corporate structures and British overseas territories to dodge tax while others pay their fair share, and will she ensure that time is made to scrutinise whether  His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has all the resources it needs to pursue the case and recover as much money as possible for the Treasury? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right to raise tax evasion, tax avoidance and, in some cases, illegal tax avoidance—industrial-scale tax avoidance such as in the case he raised. Obviously, I will not get into individual cases, but the gap is still too wide. Just a few years ago, the tax gap between what was being avoided and what was being collected was a staggering £36 billion. We are recruiting 5,000 new HMRC compliance officers and aim to close the tax gap over the coming years. \p Chris Law: This week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation forecasted child poverty levels across England and Wales for the next five years. The results are stark: child poverty rates are forecast to increase in both Labour-run Wales and Labour-run England. However, there is hope and a way forward. Child poverty rates in Scotland, which are already estimated to be the lowest in the UK, are set to drop further, with the SNP Scottish Government’s Scottish child payment recognised as a driving force in that reduction. Can we have an urgent statement from the UK Government on extending the Scottish Government’s approach to child poverty, including the Scottish child payment, to the rest of these islands to ensure that a reduction in child poverty is not confined solely to Scotland? \p Lucy Powell: This Government are absolutely committed to tackling child poverty. We inherited a very challenging context from the previous Government. The child poverty taskforce has been set up, and has funding. Its urgent work has begun, and we will publish the child poverty strategy in the spring. The hon. Gentleman mentions the SNP’s plans to end the two-child cap in Scotland, but he will know that there is not a single penny to back that up. It is a promise in the never-never land, trying to make politics out of this issue. I suggest that he takes seriously what we are doing to tackle child poverty, rather than making party political points. \p Paul Waugh: Rochdale Get Together After Serving is opening a brand-new military veterans and community hub at R-KIX sports centre this Saturday. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the local businesses and charities that donated computers, carpets and even new windows for this new hub, which will support job searches and provide skills help? Will she congratulate in particular Royal Navy veteran Adam Trennery on his excellent initiative, which will help all veterans in Rochdale? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Adam Trennery and all those involved in the Get Together After Serving team. It sounds like a really great initiative to support veterans in his constituency. The Government take these sorts of initiatives very seriously, and I thank him for raising it. \p David Mundell: Could the Leader of the House bring forward a statement on smart meters and their roll-out? She may be aware that there was a geographic divide in the United Kingdom in the original roll-out, whereby properties essentially north of the M62 were  supplied with data by something called the radio teleswitch service. The service is due to be switched off in June, but over 165,000 properties in Scotland still rely on it, of which 3,745 are in my Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency. It appears that the roll-out of the new meters will not be able to meet the timescale of the switch-off, and it is important that we hear the response from Ministers to that. \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. Member raises a very important matter, and I thank him for doing so, because we recognise how important it is to have a smooth transition for consumers away from the radio teleswitch service. I am concerned to hear what he says about that being off track for many of his constituents. We will continue to work closely with Ofgem and the RTS taskforce to ensure that the deadline is met, but I will absolutely ensure that Ministers come to this House regularly and update him and other Members on progress. \p Rachel Taylor: My constituent Clare Rogers came to my surgery after she lost her son to a ketamine addiction. Clare told me of the severe pain and neurological damage he suffered. A crisis of ketamine usage among our young people has become apparent, and we must look to mental health and addiction services because they are ultimately the ones that will treat addiction, prevent relapses and give people a chance to turn their lives around. Will the Leader of the House provide time for Members to discuss this issue, which goes across the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, so that our young people understand the harms of ketamine usage and so that we can put this issue to bed? \p Lucy Powell: I am saddened to hear the case that my hon. Friend raises. She is absolutely right that ketamine is extremely dangerous, and the rise in its use across many of our towns and cities is deeply concerning. This issue has been raised with me a number of times in these sessions, so I will ensure that a response is made available for all Members about how the Government are tackling it. \p Lisa Smart: I ask this question of the Leader of the House on behalf of my constituents and neighbouring constituents from Cheadle, because their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), is on paternity leave following the birth of beautiful baby Poppy last week. He, his partner Lou and Poppy are all doing well, and I am sure the whole House sends them our very best.

Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove has a reported repairs backlog of £130 million, yet it does not qualify for the new hospital programme. Will the Leader of the House encourage Health Ministers to come to the House to update us with a statement on what the plans are to repair those hospitals that do not qualify for the new hospital programme? \p Lucy Powell: I join the hon. Member in congratulating the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on the birth of his daughter Poppy last week, and I thank her for stepping in to do some cover for him.

I am very familiar with Stepping Hill hospital and can appreciate the state of disrepair it is in and how much it is in need of capital investment. The hon. Member  will know that this Government inherited a hospital building and capital investment programme that was, frankly, a work of fiction: it had no money backing it up and deadlines that were never ever going to be delivered. We have now turned it into an actual plan of action for those hospitals, but I will ensure that she gets an update on Stepping Hill hospital and what more can be done. \p Jim Dickson: I thank the Leader of the House for her warm words earlier about the work many of us have done to get the lower Thames crossing greenlit by the Chancellor yesterday—something the Conservatives simply failed to do over 14 years.

I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in the devolution White Paper to a strong new right to buy and maintain beloved community assets. Stone parish council in my constituency has been attempting to purchase the freehold to the Lads of the Village pub for some time. The pub has been an important part of Stone village since 1793, playing a significant role in community life. Despite offers from the parish council at full asking price, the owner has refused to negotiate or sell. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time about how we protect vital community assets like this one? \p Lucy Powell: I take this opportunity to once again congratulate my hon. Friend on all his campaigning and all the times he has raised with me and other Ministers the lower Thames crossing—I am sure he is pleased with this week’s announcement.

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming some of the measures outlined in our devolution White Paper around community ownership and the right to buy, so that communities like his can take on and restore, or bring back to life, vital community assets like the one he describes. I am sorry to hear that the owner of the pub in his constituency is not engaging in the way they should. \p Clive Jones: The Secretary of State for Health made a promise to the House that the Government will recruit an extra 1,000 GPs. In a recent statement, he said they have already recruited hundreds of GPs. We have asked for evidence of that claim, but the Minister of State for Care has not been able to provide us with a specific figure. Will the Leader of the House inquire with her colleagues as to whether hundreds of new GPs have been hired, so that we can see what progress the Government are making? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is vital that we recruit more GPs. We have been left a terrible situation with the NHS workforce. That is why workforce planning was at the heart of our recent 10-year plan for the national health service. I will absolutely ensure that Health Ministers and the Secretary of State for Health regularly come to this House to update us on progress, and I will get him a correct figure, if I can, as soon as possible from the Department of Health and Social Care. \p Chris Murray: My constituency has some of Britain’s most beautiful beaches, beloved by swimmers and the local community in Portobello and Joppa. Groups like the Porty Water Collective are fighting hard to protect the  beaches from sewage overflows and sewage-related debris washing up on them. The UK Government are taking big, important steps to fix England’s sewage crisis, but in Scotland, water is devolved to the SNP Government, we do not monitor sewage overflows as much as in England, and local groups cannot access what little data there is. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time so we can solve Scotland’s sewage crisis? \p Lucy Powell: The beaches around my hon. Friend’s constituency do indeed sound beautiful, and I am sure he regularly gets his kit off to go for a swim in the sea there. He is right that it is unacceptable that sewage is still flowing into the waters and seas of Scotland and that we do not even know the extent of it. The Scottish Government, as he says, are responsible for Scottish water and should frankly get their act together. We have brought forward legislation that will start to take action on this matter, and the Scottish Government should follow suit. \p Tessa Munt: King Lifting Ltd is a west country firm that operates mostly mobile cranes across the UK. The company holds a Home Office licence for sponsorship, but cannot employ the heavy crane operators it needs. The work is not for everyone because it involves long stays away from home working on major infrastructure projects, such as wind farms, High Speed 2 and our nuclear sites. Operators qualify as individuals not through the company and must also be experienced. Every time King Lifting advertises, it gets dozens of applicants, almost all from abroad, and the company trains and tests heavy crane operators to meet the UK’s high standards. Please may we have a debate on adding crane operators to the UK immigration skilled workers eligible occupations list? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member is absolutely right that skills are at the heart of all these industries that are vital to creating the new jobs and industries of the future through our mission to be a clean energy superpower by 2030. The Government want to take more action to ensure that those who live and work in this country have access to such opportunities by having a much stronger emphasis on skills development and work opportunities through reforming the Department for Work and Pensions and jobcentres, but I will have a look at the issue she raises and ensure that she gets a response. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Unless questions are short and answers are on point, we will not get everybody in. I call Mark Sewards. \p Mark Sewards: Greenhill primary school serves the small Armley and Bramley parts of my constituency. Its excellent work was recognised in its most recent Ofsted report this month, which states that the school has improved rapidly and pupils are safe. I have seen that excellent work at first hand, including through the Solar for Schools programme. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the school for its amazing Ofsted report, and grant a debate in Government time on the need for solar energy programmes in primary schools? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Greenhill primary school for its achievements in that regard. He is absolutely right that schools could do more to provide sustainable energy for themselves through Solar for Schools—a school in my constituency has embarked on that. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is keen on that issue, and I will ensure that he is updated. \p Jim Shannon: In Kyrgyzstan, President Sadyr Japarov has signed two new laws—the religion law and the amending law—imposing stricter regulations on religious communities in that country. Those laws, effective from this Saturday, introduce more stringent requirements for registration, impose bans on unregistered religious activity and increase state control over religious practices, so freedom of religious belief is impeded. The laws introduce heavier fines for violations, raising concerns about the restriction of religious freedom there. As the climate of uncertainty and fear among believers rises, will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those actions, and will she speak to her Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues about any policy implications? \p Lucy Powell: Once again, the hon. Gentleman raises an important breach of freedom of religious belief—in this case in Kyrgyzstan. I will of course raise that with the Foreign Office and ensure that he gets a full reply about it. \p John Slinger: This week, I visited Rugby Art Gallery and Museum, which is managed brilliantly by Sally Godden and her team, and I met Rugby Artists and Makers Network painters Jan Clark and Aish Magesh, ceramicist Belinda Edwards, and spinner Angela Dewes. Does the Leader of the House agree that any support given to such municipally run galleries, or to creative entrepreneurship such as Art at the Alex—a former pub run by Chris Pegler and Steve Davies—is much needed to allow artists to showcase their talent, strengthen our community, inspire the next generation, boost the local economy and, importantly, make a living through their artistic endeavour, and will there be time for a debate on that? \p Lucy Powell: The Government are absolutely committed to municipally run galleries such as the one that my hon. Friend mentions. The culture sector and the cultural offer are at the core of making our towns, villages and cities vibrant places where people want to live and work. I join him in welcoming that., \p Irene Campbell: In my constituency, the Isle of Arran has been connected to the mainland through harbours at Brodick and Ardrossan for 190 years. I have mentioned before the Save Ardrossan Harbour group, which is fighting hard to keep the ferry sailing from Ardrossan. Although I welcome the new ferry that is currently sailing from Troon to Brodick, I am concerned that fewer sailings are timetabled. I have been made aware of an island constituent who has had to reschedule a health screening on the mainland three times as they are unable to make the journey and return home on the same day. Had the ferries still been sailing from Ardrossan as usual, that would not have been a problem. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate to discuss the fact that the SNP  Government and other stakeholders need to sort out the ferry situation as soon as possible to provide clarity for the people of Brodick? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is a real campaigner on this matter, which she has raised with me a number of times. She knows that the SNP Government have wasted over £5 billion of taxpayer’s money on pet projects, including ferries that did not sail. They have had a massive boost to their budget as a result of the UK Government’s Budget, and their excuses really have run out. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Kinneil Estate, which is home to a UNESCO world heritage landmark and where James Watt tested his steam engine prototype, attracts thousands of visitors to Bo’ness. Kinneil Museum, which is operated by Falkirk council and supported by the fantastic Friends of Kinneil, provides space to learn about local history dating back to Roman times. It is, however, threatened with closure, which risks damaging local tourism and the preservation of local heritage. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time to debate the importance of local heritage centres? \p Lucy Powell: What my hon. Friend raises is particularly concerning given that it relates to a UNESCO world heritage site. Heritage is of course a devolved matter, but we take it very seriously indeed, and it would make an excellent topic for a debate. \p Nusrat Ghani: Questions are getting even longer. I said short questions, please. I call Connor Rand. \p Connor Rand: Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a severe progressive muscle-wasting disease that affects around 2,500 people in the UK, including Felix from my constituency. Felix’s mum, Lisa, has told me about Givinostat, a promising new treatment that could be transformative. However, not all NHS trusts are signed up to the early access programme for the drug, even though it is free. That needs to change, so could we have a debate or a statement on Duchenne muscular dystrophy and how we can improve access to treatments for it? \p Lucy Powell: As my hon. Friend says, that treatment is free to patients and the NHS under the early access programme, but whether local trusts can cover the cost of administering it is a matter for them. I know that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence aims to publish guidance on the use of Givinostat in the NHS shortly, and we will update the House as soon as possible. \p Chris McDonald: On 16 January, WHSmith in Stockton announced its closure, putting at risk our town centre post office. I am leading a campaign with local Labour councillors to find an alternative location. Does my right hon. Friend agree that post offices provide vital services for towns such as Stockton, and will she consider a debate in Government time on this important issue? \p Lucy Powell: Post offices play a vital role for our communities, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to stand up and call for their services to continue in his constituency. He will know that there is such a debate this afternoon—he may wish to raise those issues then. \p Natasha Irons: Last week, I received letters from year 5 pupils at St Thomas Becket Catholic primary school in my constituency. They raised concerns about deforestation and highlighted the alarming decline of tropical rainforests by 50% and the unacceptable use of child labour by the industries driving deforestation. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a statement on what progress the Government have made on their pledge of £239 million of funding to halt and reverse deforestation in forest-rich nations, and will she join me in thanking the pupils of St Thomas Becket school for raising that important issue? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking those students—year 5 pupils are often the toughest of audiences. She will know that the UK supports a variety of programmes aimed at preventing deforestation, and we are a major contributor to Brazil’s Amazon fund. I am sure that that would make a good topic for a debate. \p Douglas McAllister: Yesterday the Bank of Scotland announced the closure of its Alexandria branch in my constituency. Branch offices are essential to ensure access to cash and face-to-face banking for the most vulnerable and for many small businesses in my constituency. Does the Minister share my concern about the loss of such vital services and recognise the urgent need for the Government to roll out more banking hubs, and will she raise with Government colleagues the need for a banking hub in Alexandria and West Dunbartonshire? \p Lucy Powell: Banking hubs are critical to communities such as that of my hon. Friend in West Dunbartonshire. The Government are committed to rolling out our 350 banking hubs—more than 100 are already open. I think that would be an extremely popular topic for a debate. \p David Williams: This week, the YMCA released its annual report, revealing the devastating cuts to youth services over the past 14 years. Spending in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire has been cut by more than 90% since 2010 and funding is not equitable: in Stoke-on-Trent, spending per young person is 10% less than in inner London. Families in my constituency deserve better. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate the need for adequate and equitable funding for youth services? \p Lucy Powell: It is a source of national shame that youth funding decreased by three quarters under the previous Government—one of the deepest cuts made to any public services. There was no real strategy for young people, and we are seeing the consequences of that. The Government are determined to turn that around, and we will work with my hon. Friend to do that in Stoke-on-Trent. \p Paul Davies: I am delighted about the recent announcement at the creative industries growth summit of new funding for West Yorkshire. This funding will enable local leaders to address the specific needs of local creative businesses, which is a priority for Mayor Brabin, and it will benefit towns such as Holmfirth, home to the Picturedrome. Could we have a debate in Government time on what further support can be given to local creative and entertainment venues? \p Lucy Powell: Culture and Holmfirth go hand in hand. Many of us of a certain age will remember “Last of the Summer Wine”, filmed in Holmfirth. I recently went to Compo’s chippy, and I can say that it does great fish and chips. West Yorkshire is one of the priority areas for our creative industries sector plan, and we are working closely with the fantastic Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, who is a real leader in this regard. \p Andy MacNae: This week, I met a constituent, Bradley Price, who has recently taken up a degree apprenticeship with Nuclear Transport Solutions. We talked about the excellent transferable skills he is gaining and the great career options open to him. There is no doubt that high-quality apprenticeships like that can be the right route for so many school leavers, yet it seems from talking to pupils in Rossendale and Darwen that awareness of the range and quality of such opportunities is remarkably low. I welcome the announcement of a Backbench Business debate on apprenticeships, but would the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on raising awareness in schools about apprenticeships? \p Lucy Powell: I wish Bradley good luck with his degree apprenticeship. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that degree apprenticeships offer a real career opportunity for many of our young people, and they are still not as widely known about as they should be through careers advice in schools. He raises a really important point, with which this Government wholeheartedly agree. \p Andrew Ranger: Wrexham is a thriving hub of business, and the continued investment in the Wrexham and Flintshire investment zone is very welcome indeed. Companies such as Wrexham Lager, Kellogg’s and JCB, among others, are exporting from Wrexham around the globe. However, too many businesses have had to give up on exporting due to the huge increase in costs from red tape introduced under the previous Government. Such things are critical if we are to achieve the growth we want, so will the Leader of the House please consider providing parliamentary time to debate how we can ensure that these businesses get the support they need? \p Lucy Powell: I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes—in fact, he has done—the much deserved announcement this week of an investment zone for his constituency of Wrexham. He is absolutely right that businesses face far too much red tape, especially because of the botched Brexit deal by the last Government, and this Government are committed to reducing that. \p Claire Hughes: Since last year, all parents in England who have experienced the heartbreak of losing a pregnancy have been able to apply for a certificate that formally recognises their loss. An agreement was made in principle with the previous Secretary of State of Health to extend the scheme to  Wales, but discussions were paused before the general election. Would the Leader of the House consider writing to the relevant Ministers to ask them to meet me to discuss how this scheme could be extended to Wales, so that baby loss certificates are made available without any further delay? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important topic. She is absolutely right that baby loss certificates in England have provided recognition and comfort to many families who have been bereaved by baby loss. I think her call for the scheme to be extended to Wales is absolutely right, and I will make sure she gets some contact with a Minister to discuss it further. \p Nusrat Ghani: Saving the best contribution to last, I call Sureena Brackenridge. \p Sureena Brackenridge: In Wolverhampton North East in the past five years, we have lost banks from Wednesfield High Street and all banking facilities in the Scotlands and Three Tuns areas. Can the Leader of the House make time for a debate on banking hubs to keep banking on our high streets? \p Lucy Powell: I think that is the fourth time banking has been raised with me today, which just goes to show how vital having access to cash and banking hubs is for communities such as those in Wolverhampton. That is why this Government have committed to opening 350 hubs; over 100 are already open. I think that would be an extremely popular topic for a debate. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary David Lammy, Pat McFadden, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Hilary Benn, Secretary Ian Murray, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Jo Stevens and Dame Angela Eagle, presented a Bill to make provision about border security; to make provision about immigration and asylum; to make provision about sharing customs data and trailer registration data; to make provision about articles for use in serious crime; to make provision about serious crime prevention orders; to make provision about fees paid in connection with the recognition, comparability or assessment of qualifications; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 3 February, and to be printed (Bill 173) with explanatory notes (Bill 173-EN). \p Alex Sobel: I beg to move,

That this House has considered proportional representation for general elections.

Before I speak on the matter at hand, I note that today is the funeral of one of my party’s and our country’s greatest politicians, John Prescott. I send my thoughts to his family and friends. They include some who would otherwise have been with us today; equally, some of us here would have wished to be there.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time in the Chamber for this crucial debate, and the many colleagues from across the House, and from every nation and region in the UK, who co-sponsored or supported the application. It is right that the House should provide time to consider proportional representation for general elections to this place. Just last month, the House voted in favour of PR for the first time ever, by giving leave to bring in the ten-minute rule Bill on the subject moved by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who I see in her place.

That historic vote was an indication of the strength and breadth of feeling among Members on both sides of the House that our first-past-the-post electoral system is not working. It is desperately in need of an upgrade, and we need seriously to consider the alternatives. The last time we did so was through the Jenkins commission in 1998, when elections produced results in which the numbers of seats more closely matched the numbers of votes than they do now. My hope for today, and it is one I know many others share, is that Members can explain why so many colleagues and so much of the public at large have reached the conclusion that it is time to think again about our electoral system. In doing so, I want to encourage the Government to be bold and to be honest about how unrepresentative British general elections have become. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful opening speech. Turnout at the general election in July last year dropped to below 60%, which means that two in every five people did not participate. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows we need change, so that more people engage in our democratic system? \p Alex Sobel: Absolutely. The turnout and engagement of voters in general elections should be a matter of concern for everybody in this place and in the country at large.

The truth is that first past the post is failing on its own terms. It is becoming less and less representative and producing more and more random results; there are more outliers and more MPs are elected on less than 30% of their constituents who voted. In reality, some MPs represent constituencies in which perhaps 85% of those they represent did not vote for them. These are the lowest figures since the beginning of universal suffrage.  The numbers do not lie, and they can no longer be ignored. The public know it, our parties know it and we in this place know it.

These growing failures of representative democracy—the widespread feeling that ordinary people do not have a fair say over who speaks for them or how they are governed—are feeding the record low levels of trust in politics and faith in democracy, and that should worry all of us. The Government have a responsibility to face up to those problems and address them before the next general election, starting with the launch of a national commission for electoral reform. The 1997 Government were brave enough to undertake this work at a time when confidence in the electoral and political systems was much higher and those systems were less stressed than they are now.

Let me begin by looking at last year’s general election. Most people got neither the party they voted for into government nor the candidate they voted for as their local MP. Labour won a historic majority, and like other Labour MPs whose seats are perceived as safe in the living memory of all party members and probably all parties, I travelled around the country to work in many marginal constituencies where we needed to get votes to win. However, this speaks to the failure not to the success of our system. The 2024 general election was a culmination of years of falling vote share for the winning party, and we—the Labour party—won on just one third of the national vote.

Of course I always work extremely hard for my party to be in government, and I am delighted that almost 10 million people voted for us. However, 19 million people voted for other parties, and we must admit that they are the vast majority of those who took part in the election. They did not get to influence the kind of Government the country has, and it can no longer be acceptable to have a winner-takes-all culture on the basis of a third of the country’s vote. That erodes our democracy.

One of the arguments of supporters of first-past-the-post elections is that people are not really voting for a Government, but just for a local MP. Let us take this at face value. Only four out of 10 voters got the local MP they voted for at the last election, and six out of 10 did not get the MP they voted for. We have a system that ignores those six out of 10 people. We are now in an unprecedented situation where 554 MPs—85% of us—were elected by less than 50% of the voters who turned out to vote. I am one of the lucky few who received over 50% of the vote, so this debate and the changes I am proposing are not of personal benefit to me. Some 266 MPs—41%—were elected with less than 40% of the vote. A few colleagues— I am not sure any are in the Chamber—were even elected with less than 30% of the vote. When most people’s representatives in Parliament do not reflect how they voted, it feeds the all-too-pervasive sense that Westminster is some distant, unresponsive institution in which voters have no real voice.

Like all first-past-the-post elections, 2024 was one in which some votes and areas mattered more than others. A system that forces parties to prioritise small groups of votes in a handful of marginal seats also forces them to neglect large parts of the country—where to go, who to speak to both directly and through the media, and the policies put forward. People in non-battleground seats, which make up the majority of seats at every first-past-the-post election, never have the resources spent on  them that are spent on marginal seats. Candidates and activists are directed away from those perceived safe seats to marginals, meaning less contact in those seats. That is usually reflected in the turnout of safe seats compared with marginal seats, as voters are generally well aware of the relative importance of their constituency. It is hugely corrosive to our trust in politics, and we end up with most people and communities up and down the country saying that they feel “invisible to politicians”, to use the words of the Brown Commission. People can tell when they are being ignored. They can also smell unfairness a mile away.

First past the post means that people’s votes are not equal in value. Sometimes, I fear that we in this place are used to that gross unfairness in elections and have become numb to it. But for millions of people, their stake in national politics is the vote that they get to cast in a general election every few years. When they see that a party won 2 million votes and got four MPs, or a party won 4 million votes and got five MPs, it is clear to them that the system is not fair. It drives voters either into the margins or away from voting at all. If we in Westminster are content to say, “That’s just the way it is”, it is no wonder that hardly anyone trusts politics. \p Florence Eshalomi: My hon. Friend may be aware that an Electoral Commission poll from 2023 found that more people were dissatisfied with our democratic election system than were satisfied. Does he think that looking at changing our current voting system would make more people feel satisfied? \p Alex Sobel: I am coming to that exact point shortly, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.

The 2024 general election was a stark illustration of the problems with our voting system, and it is important to understand that it was not a one-off. These problems have been getting worse for decades, and that is set to continue if we keep the system as it is. We have gone from 97% of people voting for Labour or the Conservative party in the 1950s, to just 58% doing so in 2024—a record low. In the first-past-the-post system, that produces hugely volatile and erratic results—electoral chaos theory, as Professor Rob Ford has called it.

Back in the mid-20th century, parties needed close to 50% of the vote to win a majority of seats, but that threshold has been falling to new lows for decades— 39% in 1974, 35% in 2005 and, as I said, one third last year. There is every reason to think that this trend will continue. That a party, even an extreme one, can win a huge majority with less than a third of the vote is not just senseless but dangerous. If we do not address this now, I fear that election results will become even less representative. Governments and MPs will be elected with lower support than ever, and there will be increasingly chaotic and random results. That will drive trust and engagement still lower. That is unsustainable, and I think the Government know it.

Labour’s official policy on first past the post is set out in the final national policy forum document that the party produced in the previous Parliament, which set the policy platform for our manifesto. It stated:

“The flaws in the current voting system are contributing to the distrust and alienation we see in politics.”

I agree, as do almost all the parties on the Opposition Benches. We know that the public agrees—two thirds want the flaws in the voting system to be addressed before the next general election, according to Survation. The long-running British attitudes survey found record majority support for changing to PR, with those who trust politics least the most likely to support change. Are they not the people we need to engage? Just this month, YouGov found that support for PR hit an all-time high, with support for first past the post at an all-time low.

Every single MP in Great Britain has been contacted by constituents in recent days asking them to support PR in this debate. I have received hundreds of emails, even though my name is on the debate. The Prime Minister has made it clear that restoring trust in politics is a key priority, calling the fight for trust

“the battle that defines our age”.

If the Government are to win the battle, they must address our flawed voting system—one they know is driving distrust and alienation in politics, which means that millions of people’s votes do not count, and which most people do not want to continue with. That is why I urge the Government to take this first step by establishing a national commission for electoral reform, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which I chair.

The Government have said that there is no consensus on a new system, but that is exactly why there is a great opportunity to set up a process that begins to build consensus: a national commission to examine the issues that first past the post is causing, and to recommend a fair and democratic alternative. \p Paul Holmes: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case, though one that I fundamentally disagree with, as he will hear later. He has just outlined his own Government’s position on proportional representation. We have already had an answer on that, so where can he go now? On 2 December 2024, when asked by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), the Deputy Prime Minister said that this Government would not set up a national commission and would not examine proportional representation any further. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do to make the Government change their mind? \p Alex Sobel: I have just said that the first step would be for the Government to set up a national commission. This debate is the first step for the APPG to try to persuade the Government to set up that national commission. We are on a journey. Not everything the Government announced at the start of the Parliament is what they are still announcing. Change is possible.

The commission could draw insights from the experience of devolved bodies and other democracies. It could allow citizens, as well as experts, to contribute to evaluating the options and finding a way forward that would command public trust and confidence. None of this need distract from Government’s core mission of delivering their manifesto priorities, but it would demonstrate beyond doubt that they are serious about giving a stronger voice to millions of people who feel increasingly excluded from British politics. \p Marie Goldman: When I was out knocking on doors in my constituency in last year’s general election campaign, lots of people reminisced  with me about a previous general election when the Liberal candidate came just 378 tantalising votes short of the incumbent Conservative. They spoke very fondly of that candidate, which might not be surprising, except the election that they were recalling was in 1983—over four decades ago.

I also remember speaking to an elderly, lifelong Labour voter who was lending me his vote for the very first time because he had to do something different. When I thanked him for placing his trust in me, he told me not to take too much from it, because his entire life he had never voted for a candidate who had won. I will always remember that conversation. As I walked away, I said, “Well, we’ll see about that.”

Until last July, for 74 years the constituency of Chelmsford, in its various shapes and sizes over the years, had never been represented in Parliament by anyone other than a Conservative. In fact, it had been 100 years since Chelmsford was last represented by a Liberal—something I am extremely proud to have corrected. It should not have to be this way. I hugely admire the tenacity of that erstwhile Labour voter who lent me his vote, hoping against all the evidence of his lifetime that this time it might make a difference.

No wonder turnout in elections is often so painfully low. Our antiquated first-past-the-post system can be incredibly demoralising, even for a committed political campaigner like myself. Believe it or not, I do not like having to ask people on the doorstep to lend me their vote so that, together, we can game the system to get the change that we want. Would it not better if people could cast their vote in a way that let them set out their preferences? They would know that all would not be lost for them if their first preference candidate did not win, as their vote could be transferred to someone else that they also would not mind seeing elected. The turnout in last year’s general election, as has already been alluded to, was 65.9% in Chelmsford, slightly better than the national turnout, which was a pretty poor 59.7%. In Manchester Rusholme, the turnout was just 40%. But these are dizzying heights compared with the turnout in local elections. \p Richard Holden: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is talking about a preferential voting system, rather than a proportional voting system. Does she understand that there is quite a big difference between those two options, and obviously today’s debate is about proportional representation? \p Marie Goldman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive. There are preferential systems that can lead to proportional results. In fact, we see that in many places that use preferential systems.

In the election in May 2024 for the police, fire and crime commissioner in Essex, the turnout was barely 25%. So why are people not voting? Surely part of the issue is simply that they do not believe that their vote counts. They do not believe that they can make a difference. Although I do not completely agree with that, I certainly agree that the first-past-the-post system makes it harder.

There are also other things in our electoral system that make it harder, and I do not think that we should be talking about changing our voting system without  also talking about them. For example, the introduction of voter ID was supposedly designed to enhance trust in our elections, but the evidence suggests that there have been some other consequences. In the 2024 general election, 4% of people who did not vote said that the voter ID requirement was the reason that they could not do so. Additionally, 0.08% of those who went to the polls were unable to cast their ballot because they did not have the correct ID. Those may seem like small figures, but if we put them into rough numbers, rather than percentages, we can see that, with about 28.9 million people casting their vote, the number of people who showed up who could not cast their vote because they did not have the correct ID was approximately—unless I have got my maths wrong—23,000 people. That is an incredibly high and quite shocking number.

Let us think about that for a moment—23,000 people could not vote because we wanted to stop voter fraud. Of course that might be a good idea if there was lots of voter fraud going on, but the Electoral Commission’s own website says:

“In the past five years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. Of the 1,462 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2019 and 2023, 11 led to convictions, and the police issued four cautions.”

Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Voter registration is another area where improvements are needed. Research shows that as many as 8 million people across the UK are not registered correctly at their current address. This affects key groups such as young people, private renters and recent home movers who may not realise that they are missing from the register until it is too late. Although the current system allows for late registration before elections, this puts unnecessary pressure on electoral services and risks leaving some people unable to vote on polling day.

We can see the impact that even small barriers to voting can have. Imagine what would happen if we broke down those barriers and got rid of them. We must recognise that barriers to participation, including voter ID, voter registration and the voting system itself, are dangerous to our democracy. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to fix this and thereby to strengthen democracy and democratic engagement in our country. \p Steve Race: I will be very brief in so as not to repeat the arguments that have already been made in such a good style by hon. Members across the House. I too wish to take this opportunity to put on record my support for electoral reform, to ensure that the composition of our representatives better reflects the wishes of voters and that voters can exercise more choice.

The Labour party has a long and proud history of supporting the objectives of proportionality and choice in other legislatures across our United Kingdom and, of course, in other elections. Until recently, voters were able to offer a nuanced view, utilising the supplementary vote system in mayoral elections. Sadly, that level of choice was rescinded by the last Conservative Government. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) pointed out, that was just one step taken by the Conservative party in its Elections Act 2022, alongside the introduction of the need to show identification when voting, which has left many people feeling locked out of voting altogether. \p Florence Eshalomi: Another change put forward by the previous Government in the Elections Act was in relation to postal votes, which, again, has disenfranchised many people. Does my hon. Friend believe that if we are to look at electoral reform, we should consider some of the consequences of the changes that were made by the previous Government? \p Steve Race: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

As I was about to say, whether it be the inequity of allowing the older person’s bus pass to be used as ID but not the young person’s bus pass, or leaving out entirely the ability to use a veteran’s ID card or a train driver’s licence, the Act was largely unnecessary and introduced many retrograde measures designed to restrict access to our democracy, rather than to encourage participation. \p Paul Holmes: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman. He says that the Elections Act restricted people’s ability to vote. Can I therefore ask him what measures he would put in place to stop the restricting of genuine voters from voting when their vote is taken away by fraud? \p Steve Race: As has already been pointed out, the level of voter fraud in this country was minuscule— \p Paul Holmes: So that’s okay then. \p Steve Race: It is not that it is okay, but we have introduced legislation that has essentially restricted many, many more people from voting than otherwise would have happened. \p Richard Holden: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Steve Race: I will make some progress, if I may.

I am pleased that this Government have legislated to allow the use of the veteran’s ID card, and I ask that they look at a wider range of suitable ID, including train driver licences, in any future review. Preferably, though, we should return to the traditional British approach of not demanding ID to have access to a vote.

On the issue at hand, I want to recommend to colleagues the outcome of the Jenkins Commission of 1998, which designed an elegant solution to the issues that our democracy faces when it comes to representation. Jenkins, one of the great social reformers of this place to whom many of us still owe a great debt of gratitude, proposed a hybrid system that kept many of the benefits of first past the post, such as the strong relationship that an MP has with a defined and manageable area, but with additional proportionality through the additional member system. Constituency MPs would be elected through the alternative vote system to add choice into the system.

Versions of that system are now in operation for elections in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the London Assembly, so this is not theoretical and voters understand it perfectly well. This is proof that a Labour Government can and do deliver much-needed social reform and always has.

Although I do not support electoral reform in the sense of pure PR, I absolutely accept that politics is about priorities. This Government have a huge task to do—three things all at once, I believe, which is not something that many Governments have faced before.  We must stabilise our public finances, get the economy growing in a sustainable way, and rebuild our public services. That is a mammoth task, but it is what the public demanded when they elected our party with a landslide last year. I can well understand that these issues take priority over time for electoral reform. I do not think that I could look my constituents in Exeter in the eye if I knew that we were spending much time—and it would be much time—in this place discussing how to be elected, rather than addressing their immediate concerns.

As I have mentioned, there is much that we can do to make the current system more democratic and accessible, so I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for a commission to look into this issue and find a way forward. Therefore, although I remain an electoral reformer, I also welcome the Government’s current focus on supporting the development of a stronger economy, grabbing the opportunities that are on offer for my region, and delivering jobs and investment in places such as Exeter, while also working and legislating hard to fix our roads, end our homelessness and housing crisis, clean up our waterways and rebuild our health system. \p Cameron Thomas: It is an honour to sit on the fair elections all-party group, which is so well chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). It is also an honour to take up this fight in this House with the Liberal Democrats for whom electoral reform has been a central tenet for decades.

In order to be here today, I had to resign my commission in the Royal Air Force where I had, for 23 years, defended our country and our interests overseas. However, I came to recognise that the most crucial way to defend our democracy was to do so here while backing proportional representation. Throughout the 2024 general election campaign, residents across Tewkesbury constituency frequently expressed their frustrations with an electoral system that was certain to condemn them to another five years of the same Conservative Member of Parliament whichever candidate they voted for. Tewkesbury had been represented by my predecessor for 27 years, and it was the view of many residents that Tewkesbury would never experience change because our broken electoral system would see this safe Conservative seat won by the Conservatives at an eighth consecutive election. \p Richard Holden: Does not the hon. Gentleman’s presence in this House demonstrate that the system does work, and can deliver change in individual seats? \p Cameron Thomas: No, for two reasons: the Liberal Democrats defied the odds, but there are many other smaller parties who are not adequately represented; and, as I will come to later, 58% of voters across the country did not get the MP they voted for, and that is true even in my constituency.

At the general election, Tewkesbury did see change, but only through the coming together of several unique circumstances, and despite first past the post. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), I was loaned the trust of Labour, Green and Conservative supporters. The general election may have been won by Labour and returned Liberal Democrats in record numbers, but let us not delude ourselves: the country voted tactically  in record numbers for whoever would remove the catastrophic, nepotistic and morally bankrupt Conservative Government of 2019.

July’s election brought the briefest respite before frustrations rose once again. This is the most disproportionate House of Commons in British history, with Labour MPs in 66% of seats but with the lowest vote share—some 34%—of any winning party since 1945, and 58% of UK voters did not get the MP they voted for. I have previously described first past the post as “barely democratic”, and these figures vindicate me.

Public apathy towards politics is reflected in a steady decline in general election turnouts since the 1950s, from over 80% to less than 60% in 2024. If we want to arrest this decline, people must feel that their vote matters. The only way to ensure that the next election returns a representative Parliament is to transition to a proportional representation electoral system.

I have occasionally been challenged by those who say that proportional representation would increasingly return hung Parliaments, and would lead to bickering and chaos, rather than functioning government. This challenge falters when those people are presented with the fact that the previous Government and their 80-seat majority were elected through first past the post. Never in the field of British politics was so little achieved by so many. They scrambled from controversy to controversy, fighting among themselves while undermining our institutions and allowing our public services to crumble.

Today, our friends in the United States are living with the inevitable result of their two-party system. Far-right populists have seized the previously conservative Republican party, neutered the media and dismantled many institutional safeguards. We must recognise that we face the same threat, as our Conservative party—the most successful election-winning machine on earth—continues its lurch to the right and brings fringe opinions into the mainstream. It can happen here, and we must have a fair electoral system to mitigate that.

Liberal Democrats were elected in record numbers in 2024 on a pledge to deliver proportional representation. Labour Members want proportional representation, and the public increasingly want proportional representation, so I say to the Government: let us come together and do something historic. Let us put aside our individual and party political interests for the many. Let us do the right thing. Let us change our country for the better and deliver proportional representation. \p Andrew Ranger: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on something that is fundamental to fixing the foundations of our country. It is worth repeating that public trust in our political system is in crisis. Fewer than one in three Britons believes that the UK is a well-functioning democracy. As has been said, we should be clear that this has not happened overnight. It is a consequence and reflection of a political system that is outdated, broken and in desperate need of reform, which has led to a steady decline in general election voter turnout. The election in 2024 was the second time in history—and the second time since 2000—that turnout fell below 60%, and it has not been above 75% since 1992. Even the Brexit referendum got only a 72% turnout. That is not a great endorsement of the system we have.

Even more concerningly, astoundingly, in a recent survey, 25% of people aged 16 to 25 stated a preference for a dictatorship in place of our current representative democracy, because they believe that the current system does not deliver and that their voices are not heard. \p Florence Eshalomi: My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I have long supported reducing the voting age to 16—a change for which there is cross-party support. Does he agree that if we give young people a say by giving them the vote, they will not have some of those views, because they will feel engaged and involved in the political process? \p Andrew Ranger: I absolutely agree and will come on to that later. Young people believe that the system does not deliver, and that their voice is not heard. These statistics should be of concern to us all, regardless of political persuasion, and it is clear that the status quo has to go.

Of 43 countries across Europe, 40 have proportional representation of some kind, including in Scandinavia, where voter turnout regularly exceeds 80%, a level we have not achieved since 1950. Three of these 43 countries are found in the UK: Scotland, Northern Ireland and of course Wales have operated a form of PR since devolution in 1997, and in Wales, for our next set of elections next year, we will move to a full PR system, which I fully support and campaigned for. The Welsh system shows that rather than being something to be feared, PR enhances our democratic system. Voters can head to the ballot box knowing that their chosen party will receive fair representation, in accordance with how they perform. It is time for Westminster to follow suit. It cannot take two more decades for the Commons to catch up. Trust in politics and politicians is at one of its lowest ebbs; the introduction of proportional representation is a crucial step in rebuilding that relationship.

I welcome the measures that the Labour Government are taking to rebuild trust. They are making it easier than ever to register to vote; embarking on significant House of Lords reform; introducing a devolution revolution; and showing clear intent to clean up politics for good. This is fundamentally an argument about fairness. Everyone’s vote should be equal, and should count. Surely for the Government, with their huge commanding majority, now is the time to be bold and brave, and to introduce proportional representation. The first stage would be to establish a national commission for electoral reform, so that the Government can get on the front foot and show that they are serious about addressing our unrepresentative voting system and stemming the rise of disengagement and distrust in politics. It would be an opportunity to bring the public, as well as experts, into a conversation about how voters can best be represented, and to propose a fair and equal voting system, fit for modern Britain, in which everyone’s vote and voice counts. \p Richard Tice: As we have heard in this Chamber, trust in politics is very important for a functioning democracy, but sadly the data shows that trust is collapsing. At the last general election, we faced the second lowest turnout in the last 100 years, with just six in 10 people voting. That tells us that far too many people do not think voting matters, whereas I hope we can all agree that every vote matters.  That is why I pay tribute to the excellent lobbying group Make Votes Matter for proposing and promoting this issue. It is so important. How can we have a situation where only six in 10 people vote?

We have the most unrepresentative Parliament in living memory. The governing party has about 34% of the votes cast, but 63% of the seats in this great House. What sort of system is that? It is completely unrepresentative. My good party had 14% of votes cast, yet we do not have even a mere 1% of seats in the Chamber. As for the other smaller parties, the Green party had just under 7% of votes cast, but has about 0.5% of the seats in the Chamber. That is so damaging to trust in democracy.

We have 823,000 votes cast for every Reform seat; for the Labour party, it is a mere 23,000 votes for each seat. Voters still come up to me and say, “How does this work?”. People get confused, because as hon. Members have said, we have one system for the general election and another in the devolved nations. Why can we not have a single simple system that we know works, and that is used in so many democracies around the world—a variant of proportional representation? Not only does our system lead to misrepresentation when it comes to seats in the House, but its quirks mean that we have no representation on any Select Committee, despite having 4 million votes—14% of the votes cast. Trust in democracy collapses when something is as patently unfair as that.

This issue is so important, and we know we can do better. It is marvellous that Members from the Labour party recognise that. Indeed, at the Labour conference a couple of years back, its members passed a motion to that effect. Fairness is vital. If we do not have it, we have complete misrepresentation of the views of the people on critical issues, such as immigration and net zero, because we end up with a uni-party approach. It cannot be good for democracy if people feel that all their views cannot be represented. They think, “What is the point of bothering? I will carry on with my life.” We all know that more engagement from many people of all ages—young, medium and old—is vital for a functioning and true democracy. \p Luke Akehurst: I thank the hon. Members who secured this important debate. I have been debating on this subject outside the House for, unbelievably, nearly 40 years, so I have had some time to assemble my thoughts on it. During that time, I have often heard people argue for or against proportional representation or first past the post based on the immediate advantage for their political party. I urge against such an approach to questions of democracy and electoral systems. One benefit of engaging in this debate for so long is that I have been able to see the political cycle change over time; an electoral system that might benefit a party at one point may work to its disadvantage later. The party that gets a massive boost in seats from first past the post in one election may get a disproportionate kicking from the electorate under another system. The volatility of the modern electorate makes that particularly pertinent.

The core bedrock of support for both major parties is a far smaller group of voters than it ever used to be, and demographic and political change is accelerating that. No party—mine included—should think that the current  coalition of voters that it has assembled is here to stay, and that it should design its preferred electoral system around maximising the number of seats that that coalition of voters can win. \p Gagan Mohindra: What is the hon. Member’s view on his Government’s proposal to reduce the voting age to 16, given that we were all elected by voters aged 18 and above? \p Luke Akehurst: I think that is a different subject to the one we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will proceed on the subject of proportional representation.

We do not know how voters would behave if they were confronted with a different voting system. We cannot say that because Labour got 34% of the vote in 2024 under first past the post, it would therefore have got 34% if the 2024 election had been run under a proportional representation system. Voters change their behaviour to fit the voting system. There might also be new parties that would grow under a different voting system.

With tactical voting in its current form, we do not know how many Labour-identifying voters back other parties for tactical reasons in particular seats—the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned voters who had spoken to her about doing so. We do not know how many supporters of other parties voted Labour for tactical reasons, or what the net impact of unwinding those factors might be on each party. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my hon. Friend for his long campaign on this important issue. All of us have probably knocked on doors and spoken to voters who have said that they have never voted because their vote would not count. Does he believe that if we had a different voting system, people would be able to see that every single vote at the ballot box makes a big difference to who is elected on polling day? Does he share my concern on that? \p Luke Akehurst: I do share my hon. Friend’s viewpoint, and I will come to that later in my remarks. We do not know how much turnout would increase in areas where it is now depressed because the outcome under first past the post appears to be a foregone conclusion. My hon. Friend anticipated the next thing I was going to say.

The current fracturing of the party system, with five parties getting more than 5% of the vote—the number is higher in Scotland and Wales—is probably here to stay. That means there are more marginal seats, more three or even four-cornered fights for marginal seats and more Members of Parliament elected on relatively low vote shares by historical standards. Ironically, that improves the range of viable choices for voters in many seats, and their chances of influencing the result in a meaningful way, because there are fewer safe seats. However, it is trying to pour a multi-party system into an electoral system designed for two parties, so it inevitably leads to more and more disproportional results, where the relationship between vote share and number of seats completely breaks down.

For instance, as has been mentioned, the Liberal Democrats got 72 MPs despite receiving more than half a million fewer votes than Reform, which got only five MPs. I do not blame the Liberal Democrats or my party  for seeking to maximise seats rather than votes—that is the game we are supposed to be playing with our current system—but it is difficult to go out to the public and objectively defend such surreal disproportionality. It increases public cynicism about their ability to influence politics.

My motivation for supporting a move to a more proportional voting system is therefore not that I think it will provide an immediate or long-term advantage to the party that I have dedicated my life to campaigning for, and I hope that Members of other parties would not be motivated by assuming that proportional representation will accrue immediate narrow party advantage at Labour’s expense. On the contrary, as a social democrat, my approach to any critical question is based on the core principles of social justice, democracy and equality. That leads me to support a more proportional voting system, just as it leads me to egalitarian and redistributive answers to social and economic policy questions.

We should design an electoral system based not on whether it benefits us as individual politicians or our own parties at a specific moment, but on whether it delivers just and equitable outcomes that can logically be defended. In particular, we should apply the philosopher John Rawls’ theory of justice and try to measure the impact of each electoral system on the most under-represented party and the most under-represented voter, and argue for a system that treats parties and voters as fairly and equitably as possible and that gives voters as equal influence as possible over who represents them and who governs the country. \p Gagan Mohindra: The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time and has made some valid points, although I may not agree with all of them. Does he believe that to ensure the electorate is fully represented, we need to go to the Australian model of forcing all constituents to go to the ballot box? \p Luke Akehurst: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. I have looked at compulsory voting, which was advocated at one point by Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. I am open to the suggestion, but basically that is about forcing people to vote when we should be trying to enthuse them to vote through both how we do politics and how the system works.

All voters should have equal value wherever they live in the UK, but first past the post condemns millions of voters to living in electoral deserts where just one party dominates all Commons representation. There is no region or nation where that system reflects the diversity of the votes cast, and between different regions and nations it can benefit different parties. We need a system that sends to this place a mix of MPs from each region and nation who represent their political diversity and balance. First past the post privileges and makes powerful a relatively small number of swing voters in a small number of marginal seats, while giving little political power to the majority of voters in safer seats. That distorts our political process. Policies, campaign spending, where politicians visit, where activists travel to, messaging and advertising are all focused on swing voters in marginal seats, while elections in some safe seats can be quiet affairs.

When parties are in opposition, first past the post makes them narrower based. In recent Parliaments when Labour was down to a small parliamentary party, it  often appeared to be a sectional voice for big cities and university towns, which was unhealthy, even though we had millions of votes but few MPs in demographically different parts of the country. Now, the Conservative parliamentary party may appear to be dominated by rural interests as its votes in urban areas delivered few MPs. Both situations are unhealthy.

Support for proportional representation is now the consensus position at a grassroots level in the Labour party: polling says that 83% of grassroots members support it, and the vast majority of constituency Labour party members backed it when our annual conference voted in favour of electoral reform. In fact, I think it is the topic on which the largest number of local Labour parties has ever submitted motions.

Mixed Member systems used in places such as Germany and New Zealand prove that the undoubted merits of the constituency system, such as having a voice and champion for a specific geographical area in Parliament and giving voters greater access to us as local representatives, can be combined with a proportional element to produce stable and effective Governments—and, I would say, Governments who pursue the social democratic values that my party stands for. I hope that it will not be too long before the Labour Government align their stance on our voting systems with our guiding values of equality and democracy. \p Lisa Smart: I am a Liberal Democrat, a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections and a sponsor of the debate. It is a genuine delight to see hon. Members on both sides of the House talking about this issue, which is one of the founding principles of my party. I believe firmly, though, that we will bring about the change that our country needs only on a cross-party basis, which is why working on the APPG with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who opened the debate, and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) is a delight. I look forward to working with them to deliver the change that we need.

The case for electoral reform is urgent and undeniable. First past the post is a system that no longer functions as a fair or effective mechanism for translating the will of the electorate into parliamentary representation. It is collapsing under its own weight. The time has come to take the first step in addressing this failure with the establishment of a national commission for electoral reform.

As colleagues across the House have mentioned, the 2024 general election was the most distorted in British history: Labour secured 63% of the seats with just 34% of the vote, while the Green party and Reform UK won almost 21% of the vote between them and received only nine seats. I will disagree with both those parties often and vigorously on different issues, but I defend their right to be represented when a number of people vote for them. Those results do not constitute fair representation; they represent a systemic failure.

The consequences of such an electoral mess are huge. The Electoral Reform Society has shown that 58% of those who voted in 2024 ended up with an MP they did not vote for, and that 85% of MPs were elected with under 50% of the vote, myself included. As others have mentioned, it now takes 24,000 votes to elect a Labour MP but 824,000 votes to elect a Reform UK MP.

Broader trends confirm the growing inadequacy of first past the post. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, voter turnout has fallen from 84% in 1950 to below 60% in 2024 and trust in politics is at an all-time low. A system that continues to distort electoral outcomes so significantly will only worsen this crisis. \p Harriet Cross: We all recognise that trust is important in politics, and we are responsible for building that trust. One way in which we build trust is by being accountable, and the current system gives us accountability to our constituents within the defined area of our constituency. How would first past the post help build the accountability of a named person—a single MP—in that defined area? \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intervening. I think her question was probably about how PR would deliver accountability, not how first past the post would deliver accountability. I very much agree that accountability and the constituency link are really important. I am glad that the debate has not nerded out excessively on which is our favourite form of PR, but there are many systems operating in the different nations of the United Kingdom that deliver that constituency link. I very much agree that that is an important part of our democracy.

PR provides a clear alternative to what we are currently doing. It ensures that seats broadly match votes, that every voter has a meaningful say and that Governments represent the majority of the electorate. We already have proportional representation in the UK, just not here in Westminster. In Scotland’s Parliament, 93% of voters have at least one representative they voted for, while in Westminster that figure stands at just 42% according to the Electoral Reform Society. PR in different forms is already used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in the vast majority of democracies worldwide, so why not here? Evidence shows that PR leads to higher voter turnout, more representative Governments and more stable policymaking.

For a long time, the question of electoral reform has been viewed as an abstract debate—indeed, with people arguing over d’Hondt versus single transferrable vote—rather than one that is integral to democratic legitimacy. It is neither sustainable nor responsible to continue governing under a system where a party can form a large majority on barely a third of the vote. It is reckless to maintain an electoral model that so consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored. If these trends are allowed to continue, it is not difficult to see how turnout will fall further, results will become even more distorted and political instability will grow.

I am a Lib Dem—I outed myself earlier—and I enjoy speaking with and listening to voters. I am also a fan of a bar chart on my leaflets. \p Gagan Mohindra: Are they accurate? \p Lisa Smart: I am delighted to report that my bar charts have been measured and are accurate to the millimetre. \p Luke Akehurst: rose— \p Lisa Smart: I would be delighted to give way on that subject. \p Luke Akehurst: Does the hon. Lady accept that one of the great advantages of moving to a proportional voting system would be that there would be no need to put any bar charts on any leaflets—it would be highly misleading to do so—that there would be no “two-horse race” graphics or squeeze messaging, and everyone would be able to vote for the party they really wanted? \p Lisa Smart: I could not have been more delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I wonder if he has been listening in to the Hazel Grove constituency Liberal Democrat executive meetings. I agree with the him, though. When thinking about how to vote, I would much rather—as, I imagine, would a number of voters—talk about values, principles and policies, instead of a rather grim-looking canvasser pointing earnestly at a bar chart, worried about who might get in if the vote splits. PR would be better for our politics and better for our communities.

There is widespread and growing support for change, both in Parliament and across the country. A national commission for electoral reform would provide the necessary first step towards finally addressing the failures of first past the post—a step that must be taken well before the next general election. To ignore the urgency of this issue would be to further undermine our democracy.

Governments are not always known for doing things that they do not see as being in their best interest; however, like a number of colleagues across the House, I argue that proportional representation is in our whole country’s interest, and that is why I urge the Government to act. The public are watching, and the demand for fair representation cannot be ignored forever—our democracy depends on it. \p Nusrat Ghani: We have to get everybody in, so we are going to have a speaking limit of five minutes. I call Jas Athwal. \p Jas Athwal: Although I do not want to upset the camaraderie going back and forth across the Chamber, this is debate, and this is democracy. I am sure we can all agree that no voting system is perfect; we are choosing between imperfect systems. That is a fact. We must decide based on what works best for our country, and PR is not the panacea that everybody is talking about today.

In 2011, we put the question to the British people. They overwhelmingly rejected the alternative vote system, choosing to stick with first past the post. \p Tom Hayes: On Monday morning, I visited the year 10 citizenship class at St Peter’s school in Bournemouth, where I spoke with several young people, including Ozzie, who was only just born at the time of the last vote. He asked me whether I agreed that too many people feel their vote does not count, that too many younger people feel disconnected from democracy, and that the continuation of first past the post will leave more people—particularly younger people—disconnected from democracy. \p Jas Athwal: I thank the hon. Member. The other thing I would like to say is that when we are over-reliant on statistics, it says something. I will come on to statistics as well, if I am allowed.

I have had the privilege of living in my constituency for half a century—more than 50 years. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunities that Ilford has given to me. A staunch Conservative constituency has now become a staunch Labour constituency, although, over the years, I have seen many MPs from both parties. Of course, that is how the democratic process works.

Like hon. Members across the Chamber, I am devoted to my constituency. Each and every day, I serve my neighbours, fighting for investment in Ilford, representing their views and ensuring that I speak up on the issues that matter most to all of them. Only last week, in this Chamber, I raised the issue of democratic backsliding and human rights in Pakistan, a subject that is incredibly important to many of my neighbours, who have friends and families in the region.

I am accountable to the people of Ilford South, and I take my role and my relationship with my constituents seriously. Under a PR voting system, the personal and local links that I so value with my constituents would be lost. A PR system would make it harder for local concerns to be represented and addressed. It would take politicians away from our communities and hollow out the vital relationships between representative and constituent. The British Academy’s analysis of closed PR systems suggests that under PR, politicians are not beholden to their constituents—the tie is loosened and accountability is degraded. \p Gagan Mohindra: Like the hon. Gentleman, I come from a local government background. Does he agree that when voting for a councillor, as he was, constituents are more likely to vote for individuals than parties and to do so based on the effectiveness of that individual rather than just the party branding? \p Jas Athwal: I think it is about being pragmatic in our response, being pragmatic with our residents, and making the right decisions. \p Olly Glover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Jas Athwal: I will made some headway, because I can see the clock ticking.

Another key weakness of PR systems is that they almost inevitably create coalition Governments. We know what happens there. No one votes for coalition Governments. Instead, they are created by agreements hammered out in dark rooms, behind closed doors—they are Frankenstein Governments, which undermine the popular vote. When voters cannot predict the consequences of their votes, coalitions circumvent the will of the people, and when creating an effective Opposition becomes an impossibility, democracies fail. Colleagues should be careful what they wish for: they may get a better vote share and better representation, but they may not get better outcomes, which is what is important to our constituents.

It is our duty in this place to protect the democratic process. It is also our duty to effectively govern to the best of our ability, deliver the promises of our manifesto  and create the change that our constituents voted for. PR systems create unstable Governments with weak foundations and constant compromise.

We are all too aware of the consequences of Government instability and the impact that can have on people’s lives—promises broken, legislation delayed, injustice prolonged. Look at our neighbours in Europe. In Belgium, the federal elections in 2019 paralysed their political system, leading to more than 500 days of deliberation, compromise and bartering before they finally formed a Government. It took almost two years of debate before a seven-party coalition was created—a coalition nobody voted for. The role of government is to change people’s lives, to legislate and to act. Instead, PR systems grind Governments to a halt. Contrast that with the first 100 days of this Government, though hon. Members sitting on the other side of the Chamber may not like the decisions made.

Effective democratic systems ensure accountability and enable delivery. On those two tests, PR systems fail. \p Siân Berry: I associate myself with the comments of many other hon. Members today, and thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for introducing the debate.

This debate comes at a crucial time. We are in a world characterised by democratic decline and falling trust in institutions. Without public belief in making change through democratic debate, political pluralism and representation from people who listen to them, we have a society vulnerable to exploitation by populist division and tyranny. First past the post adds to these risks. Those who seek to distort our national conversation from outside, using money and influence to pursue their own agenda, can see dangled in front of them the huge prize of what is virtually absolute power if they can achieve the slimmest of margins to reach first place in a volatile system. A two-party system, which first past the post assumes, is, in fact, long out of date.

As other hon. Members have said, the most recent UK general election was the most disproportionate on record. Not only did 58% of voters not receive an elected official of their choosing, but the election was one of the most disproportionate elections to a primary chamber anywhere in the world. People are voting in historic numbers for parties other than the Conservatives and Labour, representing different views across the political spectrum and bringing in points of view from across our island’s different nations, yet this Parliament does not come close to correctly reflecting that shift. We have a Parliament that is highly misrepresentative of the public’s preferences and a Government with a huge majority but only 33.7% of people’s preferences. That seems unbalanced and unrepresentative to me.

I am not here to make arguments that are only in my own self-interest. Proportionality is not the goal here; a better politics is. It is not just parties, but minority groups and the interests of groups who might be ignored, face discrimination or are geographically spread out, and whose interests do not often get a fair look-in when a large majority in this House is elected by only swing voters in marginal constituencies.

Like other Members from different parties, I was for many years a member of the London Assembly, elected under PR to scrutinise and hold to account a Mayor  elected within a modified alternative vote system. I came here to this building to give evidence to the relevant all-party parliamentary group of the time in that capacity. I talked about how, as a London-wide member, working alongside constituency Members, my role was often to listen to groups who were not necessarily getting the ear of their constituency Member or the Mayor, and who were trying to highlight issues that were happening to people like them in pockets all around London. \p Gagan Mohindra: Will the hon. Member explain how constituency casework would be done? As constituency MPs, we all represent a defined area of the population. Is the hon. Member suggesting a two-tier system, where she will instead just sweep up from the constituency MP? Is she effectively asking for two tiers of MPs? \p Siân Berry: Yes, exactly. I am describing the different kinds of work that different kinds of Members in the additional member system can do and how that benefits equality and representation. I am not making a party political point at all. I think members from other parties in the London Assembly can give examples of ways in which they have reached out and heard from people in different parts of London who have brought issues to prominence in the Assembly. In the case of the Green party, we can talk about council estate residents, private renters, young people, disabled people and older people, and the way that bringing their voices into the Assembly had a positive influence on the London Mayor’s policies and made him a positive advocate for helping to reduce the number of demolitions, for rent controls, for toilets on the London tube, and for youth services. That is very positive. \p Paul Holmes: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Siân Berry: I will press on, because I have one more point to make.

That shows a contrast with the current system for general elections, where people believe that the national politics conversation does not necessarily involve them. We find that millions of people around the country are never canvassed or courted on the doorstep at all. They are taken for granted, and that is really poor. As the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley said, the Members for those seats are called to other parts of the country, when they would prefer to be knocking on doors in their own.

On solutions, we urgently need an independent national commission on electoral reform. I want that done by the Government as soon as possible. The commission should look at how local councils and other bodies can be elected, too. We have an opportunity, presented by imminent local government reorganisation—the creation of combined authorities and potentially very large councils—to shift to a more proportional system, potentially using multi-member wards and the single transferable vote. That is the system used in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. It is incredibly simple for voters to cast their preferences. The election counts are extremely exciting—almost like the final stages of “Strictly”—and it delivers remarkably proportional results. It delivers candidates based on consensus, not division. Importantly, it delivers for many people: not only hardworking representatives in the administration but  people whose job it is to listen and represent them from opposition parties. That could help with the potential remoteness of the uber councils that are being talked about. That should be looked at by the commission as well. I will end there. \p Andrew Lewin: I want to start by putting on record that I am a long-standing advocate of a more proportional electoral system for our general elections. My belief is that any system to replace first past the post needs to balance two core features: to preserve the vital link between a Member of Parliament and a constituency; and to consider a top-up mechanism, whereby additional seats are allocated in direct proportion to votes cast.

No model is perfect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) said, there is a lot of merit in the additional member system used in Holyrood. I do not want to focus my remarks today on the intricacies of alternative systems, or even the principled argument for reform in too much detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and others have already made that case with conviction and I suspect that others will do so later. I want to focus on how we could build consensus for electoral reform, and what timeframe is both desirable and realistic.

One thing we must avoid is the spectacle of a new Westminster Government winning power and then legislating quickly to change to the system if they believe it to be in their self-interest. We saw a version of that in the last Parliament. The Conservative Government had a minority of MPs in London, but legislated through the Elections Act of 2022 to change the London mayoral system back to first past the post, a system that they believed would suit them well. For Westminster elections, nothing would do more damage to trust than if something similar were to happen. Any suggestion that the winner gets to set the rules of the next contest would be dangerous.

Where does that lead us? I am afraid, inevitably, it leads to a referendum. Speaking as someone who voted yes to AV in 2011 and remain in 2016, it is fair to say that I make the case with some trepidation, but I believe it must be made. If we are to change an electoral system that has been in place for over 100 years, it would require a national conversation and a clear and direct mandate from the electorate. I do not believe there is a mandate for a referendum in this Parliament, but there is an opportunity to build consensus across multiple parties to be ready for the next Parliament. That could be the defining work of the independent commission which has been referenced.

The year 2031 is likely to be midway through the next Parliament. It would also be 20 years since everyone in the United Kingdom was last asked to endorse a change in the electoral system. That referendum was rushed. The alternative vote system proposed appeared to be the first choice of nobody and, I am afraid for those of us who supported it, its rejection by voters was emphatic. Much has changed in our politics since then, but all of us who support a fairer system need to learn from 2011 and seek to build a case for change in a much more considered way. I believe we have the time—the time to build consensus on the best proportional system for  Westminster; time to make the case within each of our parties that a referendum is the only way to earn a mandate for meaningful electoral reform; and time to propose a date and make the case for it. It might seem distant today, but 2031 is a generation on from the last referendum and that strikes me as a fair time to ask the question again. \p Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is giving a typically brilliant speech—we used to talk to each other in the boardroom of Clarion Housing Group, where we worked together—and his idea of a referendum is interesting. If a referendum were held and the result was 52:48 to keep the current system, would he expect the Liberal Democrats to keep asking that the question be put again and again and again? \p Andrew Lewin: That feels like more of a question for our in-office chats from a few years ago. I will not comment on the potential reaction of another party, but I will say that I would abide by all referendum results even though that would be three in three and a pretty bad track record for me.

It is time to propose a date and stick to it. First past the post has endured for more than 100 years. If we are to convince a majority of the public that a more proportional system will better serve their interests in Westminster, as I think it will, six years is not so long to wait. Despite my track record, I remain optimistic that, if we had a referendum, third time around I could finally be on the winning side. \p Olly Glover: I thank the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing a debate on this important topic.

I will endeavour not to repeat the remarks that have been made so eloquently by other Members, but I must start by also thanking the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for referring to the question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago: that is perhaps as close to fame as I will get in this Chamber. He was right to observe that the Deputy Prime Minister requires persuasion on this point, although hopefully the eloquent and articulate contributions of Members on both sides of the House will help to achieve that and gain her support for the APPG’s request for a national commission on electoral reform.

For me, there are three key arguments in favour of proportional representation. First, there is currently a clear gap between how people vote and the outcome—namely the Parliament that they get, and thus the Government—and they do not necessarily feel invested in the result. Let me address the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). The 2024 general election was, probably for the first time, quite a proportional one for the Liberal Democrats in its ratio of vote share to the number of MPs we have. Indeed, if I may be perfectly candid—at the risk of incurring the wrath of my colleagues—in parts of the country where we have more proportional systems, we do not always perform quite so well, so we are certainly not campaigning for this change on the basis of self-interest. It has, in  fact, been a very long-standing Liberal Democrat and, indeed, Liberal commitment, and I will say more about that shortly.

Secondly, the current system is not engaging people. As has already been mentioned, turnouts are declining. In 2024, a record low of 58% voted for the two largest parties, Labour and Conservative, while one in three said that they had voted tactically for someone other than their preferred candidate or party member. Indeed, when many voters were telling me on the doorstep that they would be voting tactically for me, I pledged to commit myself wholly, so that I would not have to ask them to do that again in the future, and that is partly why I am here today. \p Cameron Thomas: My hon. Friend speaks of low turnout. I would be grateful for his opinion on whether a switch to an electoral system of proportional representation would be to the deficit of any particular parties in the House, and whether that is reflected in their turnout at this debate. \p Olly Glover: There is certainly a clear variation in the representation of parties in the House for this debate. However, I agree with other colleagues who have said that while we do not necessarily know how people will vote if they are given a more proportional voting system, that is all the more reason for us to have one, so that people can feel they can vote with their hearts and not with their heads or, indeed, on the basis of a bar chart of whatever level of accuracy—[Interruption.] I should emphasise that mine are always spot on.

Thirdly, proportional representation would deliver less adversarial and more inclusive and discursive politics, which has the potential to improve policy, governance and tone—things which many people find frustrating in our current system. Parties would no longer be able to govern alone with as little as a third of the vote, and would have to do so with others. That is not a problem but a benefit of moving to a proportional system, because Governments would represent a majority of voters and would have to work together to represent the various platforms of the parties concerned.

The United Kingdom is highly anomalous in retaining first past the post. Very few other European countries do so. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) made a point about coalitions. I hope he is equally condemnatory of coalitions that Labour has had with other parties—for example, the coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s, and, in Wales, the need to rely on minority support from either the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru at various times.

As for those who scaremonger or are worried about the stability of countries with proportional representation, let us consider some examples from Europe. The hon. Member for Ilford South cited Belgium. Well, Belgium has a better GDP per capita than we do, and, if I may defend a nation that is so often mocked, the only real crime of the Belgians is preferring mayonnaise to ketchup on their chips, rather than their electoral system. Let us consider Norway, a highly prosperous nation that has made wise decisions such as creating a sovereign wealth fund from its precious oil resources, something from which this country would have benefited had we done the same. Switzerland, which also has proportional representation and regular coalition Governments, has  the most punctual railway in Europe, and 100% of it is electrified compared to our derisory percentage somewhere in the 30s. Poland, a new democracy with 30 years of the fastest economic growth in Europe, also has proportional representation and coalition Governments. I put it to the House that we have very little to fear, and a great deal to gain.

As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party have called for fair votes for a century, and we continue to lead the campaign for fundamental reform of the electoral system. I will go where my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove did not, and say that it is wrong to suggest that preferential and proportional systems prevent individual accountability. The single transferable vote system is highly proportional and also, critically, retains voters’ ability to vote for individual candidates or not, if they choose. I agree with Conservative Members who have described that as an important principle. Reform is needed to address the need for fair representation in politics, and to improve the engagement of members of the public. Not to take action would further erode trust in politics and politicians, and would increase the risk of people voting for more extreme options next time out of frustration with the current system. \p Anna Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for opening the debate so eloquently, and I am grateful for the many excellent contributions that we have heard from Members on both sides of the House.

As a member of both the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform and the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I consider it a real privilege to be speaking in this debate. Back in 1996 I was a United Nations volunteer in Bosnia, which was holding its first elections after the Dayton peace agreement; I was there to make sure that those elections were free and fair. It was very moving to be involved in ensuring that the postal ballots of people whose lives had been so disrupted by ethnic cleansing were received and were counted. That underlined for me the importance of giving everyone the chance to vote, and to know that their vote counts.

It pains me that here we are, in Britain in 2025, and those things are not true. We have heard many other Members talk about the disengagement with politics today, which I think is reflected in turnouts—not everyone is voting—and we have seen some of that further undermined by the last Conservative Government, who denied people votes through the introduction of voter ID. Independent oversight is also important for free and fair elections, yet the Electoral Commission has again been weakened. Many aspects of our democracy have been undermined, with the result that people do not feel confident that their vote and their voice count. As we have heard, millions have found themselves unrepresented in this Parliament, with six out of 10 voters ending up with a local MP for whom they did not vote.

We have heard today about the extent of tactical voting. I was elected in a marginal seat up in Shipley. We have been told that across the country, one in three people voted tactically. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), I spent a great deal of time on the doorstep trying to persuade people who would otherwise have voted Liberal Democrat, or indeed  Green, that we needed to join forces, and asking them please to lend me their vote. While I am extremely grateful to the many voters who did indeed lend me their votes, and whom I now stand here and represent—and, of course, I would love it if they voted for me again at the next general election—I would prefer them to vote for their first preference, as, indeed, would they.

That is true of marginal seats, but we have also heard today that in safe seats many people feel disenfranchised, concluding that it is not even worth voting for the party they would otherwise support because it will not make a difference. Even those who are voting for the party that is winning those safe seats feel that they are under-represented, because if there is a very large majority, many of those votes are still represented by only one person in this place. For all sorts of reasons, people do not feel that their vote counts, and this is breeding distrust in politics. Just 12% of people in this country trust political parties. We have to reverse that. People must feel that their voice counts, and it does not help when political parties campaign only in marginal seats.

I turn to the benefits of PR, for which I am a strong advocate. I saw as a young politics student in Germany how PR led to more stable government. In my work in health and social care, I saw Governments elected under PR in the Netherlands and Germany pursuing long-term strategic policies on key issues such as social care reform, on which there is much common ground between Members from across the House. It was consensual and collaborative politics.

We know that the public do not like the heckling and braying that is common in this place on a Wednesday lunchtime. Some of our best debates are those in which we are in some agreement—for example, on climate and nature, or on violence against women and girls. I hope that with a system of PR, we would have better politics, and that is why I support the establishment of a national commission for electoral reform. The Government could get on the front foot, show that they are serious about addressing our unrepresentative voting system, and stem the rise in disengagement and distrust in politics. We could bring the public with us and rebuild trust in our democracy. \p Clive Jones: I thank the Members who secured this debate. They have brought to the House a very important issue that I and many of my constituents care deeply about.

The UK’s history of electoral reform is one of slow, gradual change. There is much frustration now with our politics, and I am sure that soon it will lead to greater demand for electoral reform. British history is full of us taking the right and necessary steps, only for people on the wrong side of history to decry them as the end of the world as we know it. Examples of that are giving Catholics the vote in 1829, making the ballot private in 1872, and granting women suffrage in 1928. When we look upon the past, we laugh at how silly the country used to be. Who is to say that the way we view the past is not the way future generations will view us?

As a young teenager in the February 1974 general election, I was—and continue to be—filled with frustration and a sense of unfairness by our electoral system. The Liberal party won 19.3% of the vote—more than half the votes the Conservatives got—but it won only 14 seats,   versus the Tories’ 297. Under proportional representation, the Liberals would have won 123 seats, the Labour party 236 and the Conservatives only 240. This obvious unfairness in our system still drives my personal politics today.

We need to fundamentally change our electoral system. It is undemocratic that under the UK’s electoral system, not all votes count in the same way. First past the post feeds public disillusionment in politics because it leaves millions of people feeling that their votes are irrelevant, just like those in our past. Although the injustice may not seem as obvious as the injustice of withholding the right to vote on the basis of faith, wealth or gender, the system essentially withholds the right to vote based on geographic location. With so many voters now so disillusioned with the first-past-the-post system, will the Minister commit to being on the right side of history, and deliver the change in our electoral system that the nation really needs? \p Tim Roca: I thank those who secured this debate on a really important issue. I hope all of us here are committed to the fundamental principle that we should have a functioning, representative democracy; and that elections should reflect the will of the people, and endow this place with the democratic legitimacy to make laws and form Governments that govern the country in the best interests of the people.

Principles are tough, but we have to stick to them. I am conscious, as I argue in favour of proportional representation and electoral reform, that had there been a different system in the election last year, the natural consequence would have been more Members in the mould of the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), and for Clacton (Nigel Farage). We have to take the rough with the smooth and accept that legitimacy is important, and that the will of the people should be reflected in the number of seats that parties secure in this place.

Members have very ably made the point that the system simply does not reflect the will of the people. At our most recent general election, 58% of people who voted ended up with an MP they did not vote for. Some 554 Members of this House were elected with less than 50% of the vote. The trajectory is that turnout is declining, and the legitimacy of this place will inevitably start to decline as well. Decades ago, parties used to need close to 50% of the vote to win a majority; last year, the Government secured 34% of the vote. It is possible that there will be Governments in the future who secure even less of the popular vote.

We have known that this system is failing for many, many years. It has been discussed historically a number of times—we had the Jenkins commission; there was a royal commission in 1910; and there was a Speaker’s Conference in 1917. In fact, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was where we got closest to reform. Not only did it secure votes for women, but the initial draft of the Bill legislated for an alternative vote in single-Member constituencies and PR in multi-Member constituencies. Of course, single-Member constituencies are relatively new; for the majority of the history of this place, we had multi-Member constituencies.

As Members can tell, I was looking back through the history of how PR has advanced, or not, in this place. I was very taken with an argument made by Herbert  Fisher, a Liberal President of the Board of Education 100 years ago. He had a florid way of speaking, but I thought I would repeat his words:

“I see before me and around me prosperous and popular heroes of many a stricken electoral field, members who have entered into every home, subscribed to every fund, and by a thousand and one meritorious processes have acquired what is known as the ‘intimate touch’ with their constituencies. It is very natural that such hon. Members who have laboriously perfected themselves in the polite art of electoral intimacy should be unwilling to see any relaxation or change of system.”—[Official Report, 13 May 1918; Vol. 106, c. 66.]

It is natural, when we have been put in this place by a system, to be reluctant to change it. We need to be bold and make the case for electoral reform, even though the system we want to replace is the one that got us here.

Sadly, a century on, we have made very little progress. I am glad that the debate is being held today, and I endorse the arguments made for a national commission. We are so behind other countries in this respect. It has been pointed out that we are in the minority of democratic countries in having a first-past-the-post system—130 other democracies use PR or a mixed-Member system. I hope that through this debate and the hard work of Members who continually raise the issue and call for a commission, we can eventually put a proposal to the people of this country, so that they can ultimately make a decision. I was very taken by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who talked constructively about how we get to that point. I hope that the decision will be taken to adopt PR—the system that is, in the words of Churchill, when it comes to addressing

“constitutional injustice…incomparably the fairest, the most scientific and, on the whole… in the public interest”—[Official Report, 2 June 1931; Vol. 253, c. 102.] \p Rachel Gilmour: How we vote and how we select who governs this country is, by nature, a topic of huge national significance, and one that is too often pushed to the sidelines. I have been a member of the Liberal party, now the Liberal Democrats, since I was 17. Fighting for a fairer system of electoral representation is key to my political mooring and my party’s fight for a fairer democracy for the British people.

I am the mother of four children. I have one daughter. She is as clever as she is beautiful. Last year, she produced a report on voting systems across the world, including in Russia, South America, Africa, America, the European Union and here. Her analysis showed incontrovertibly that proportional systems are much fairer, including for women, those who are disabled and those from an ethnic minority. This is not just about the bar charts or the figures; it is about real fairness. In the most recent election, we saw a Government elected to power on the lowest vote share for over 20 years, with the lowest proportion of the electorate’s support since 1918. Just 20% of registered voters cast their ballot for the Labour party. Four out of five voters either voted for somebody else or did not vote at all.

One of the so-called merits of the first-past-the-post system is that it is designed to deliver a clean winner, but this is illusory. Reaching back through the annals of British electoral history, we see that 1931 was the last time a governing party secured over 50% of the vote share. The towering majorities secured under our system  were delivered not on the basis of a representative vote, but through the quirks and idiocies of a flawed system. When first past the post does not deliver a towering majority, it delivers exactly the sort of instability that it is designed to avoid. Did the 2017 election produce a clear winner, leading to a strong and stable Government? The former Member for Maidenhead could answer that one for us.

For too long, the parties of red and blue have taken the British people for granted. In last summer’s general election, Labour and the Conservatives returned their lowest combined vote share in the age of universal suffrage, yet their combined seats still dwarf those of all other parties in this place. Some 57.8% of voters had to settle for an MP they did not vote for, including my constituents. That hardly seems right or fair. The evidence of a broken system is clear for all to see. What on earth has happened to true majority rule?

Another argument in support of the first-past-the-post system relates to its simplicity. I agree that our democratic process should be simple, but what is simpler than people being able to vote for the party that they believe in, rather than feeling that they have to vote tactically? The system is not fair, and it is not proportional. I and my colleagues in my party will continue to fight hard to raise awareness about its unfairness, not because it is the politically expedient thing to do—as has been pointed out, we did rather well under first past the post at the last general election—but because it is the right thing to do.

If anyone’s argument against a fairer electoral system is that they might disagree with whom the British people vote for, I would ask them to consider why they make such an argument—because it is not out of service to the British people. \p Joe Powell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), for securing this debate.

As Members have mentioned, we met thousands of voters face to face in the general election campaign, and by far the most depressing conversations I had were with the many people who had lost trust in our Government institutions, our politicians and our democratic process. I absolutely do not think the voters are to blame for that loss of trust, which is partly due to the last decade, in which a chaotic Government lurched from crisis to crisis; to corruption scandals; and to the decline of local services. That drove a lot of people to opt out of the election, resulting in the poor turnout figures to which Members have referred—the lowest for 20 years. I do not think that is because of apathy; alienation from our political system is a fundamental threat to our democracy.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) that we should not for one minute think that electoral reform alone will solve this issue. The central task of this Government is to deliver rising living standards, rising wages and improved public services. That will help restore the electorate’s faith in politics, and faith that the Government will deliver on things that people care about. \p Gagan Mohindra: How does the hon. Gentleman think his party is doing on those criteria? \p Joe Powell: We have record levels of investment, record rises in wages and the fastest-growing economy in Europe. The upgrades from the International Monetary Fund and the OECD speak for themselves.

The issue that we are focusing on today, fixing our democratic plumbing, matters too. The Prime Minister said that restoring trust in politics is the

“battle that defines our age”,

and I believe that we can earn that trust by ensuring that people feel heard and have a say in decisions that affect their lives. \p Paul Holmes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? \p Joe Powell: I will make a bit of progress.

We need to ensure that the voice of the people matters. That is the foundation of my belief in electoral reform: if done right, with appropriate models for different levels of government, it can help to rebuild faith in our democratic system so that we do not end up being more polarised, with more alienation, which leads to extreme politics and populism.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) that today is not the time to go into models, but I think we can retain the constituency link and expand choice, as in the Australian model, which gives local winners a degree of preference from a majority of the voters in their district through ranked choice voting. An excellent analysis from Lewis Baston on Sam Freedman’s website explains how the Australian model could be appropriate for us. It is easily understood and encourages engagement across the spectrum, beyond the swing voters that otherwise become the predominant focus of elections.

Although I support electoral reform for Westminster elections, there is a straightforward policy change that the Government should consider immediately: restoring the ranked choice voting system for mayoral elections. That system worked perfectly well in London and other mayoralties, because it allows voters to express preferences and ensures that winners have broad support. Its removal was a regressive and self-interested step—it failed in London—by the previous Government, who actively tried to reduce voter choice and participation. I hope the Government will consider restoring that system in any future elections Bill that is being discussed.

Finally, I will briefly address another threat to our democracy that the APPG for fair elections is focusing on: the role of foreign billionaires in distorting political discourse, and the risk of overseas donations into our politics. There are still far too many loopholes in our electoral financing rules, leaving us vulnerable to foreign interference. I hope the Government will consider implementing reforms to address these serious issues in any future elections Bill, because if we are serious about defending democracy, we need transparency and safeguards against those with deep pockets who seek to warp our democratic institutions.

Our current system is failing to command public trust. That is the foundation of my belief in electoral reform. If we continue down this path, we risk losing something far greater than individual elections; we risk  losing people’s faith in democracy itself. I am confident that our Government will deliver on their key missions, which will go a long way towards restoring the public’s trust and confidence, but our democratic plumbing matters too, and it is time for an upgrade. \p Noah Law: As the Member of Parliament for St Austell and Newquay, I represent a constituency that exemplifies the rich diversity and complexity of political identity in Britain. I will use it as a geographical case study for today’s debate.

From the fishing communities of Mevagissey and the supposed surfers’ paradise of Newquay, which is actually quite a multifaceted town, to the clay country villages near St Austell, many of my constituents share a Cornish identity but are also shaped by a complex mix of cultural, social and economic factors. Such diversity should be reflected in our politics, but that is often not the case under first past the post. The current electoral system obscures the complexity, oversimplifies the intricate patchwork of overlapping political identities, and denies many voters the choice to express them.

Too often, our electoral system functions to maintain and reinforce rigid political boundaries that do not always reflect the nuanced and diverse beliefs of our communities, which entrenches social division rather than fostering the kind of constructive, consensus-building politics that we need in modern Britain, and which we in Cornwall are quite used to. \p Desmond Swayne: May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the opposite is the case? Our system requires coalitions to be formed. Political parties are broad coalitions in order to overcome that disadvantage and get over the electoral hurdle. In systems that are proportional, parties can secure electoral representation and be much more choosy about their ideological base, in the expectation that they will still get sufficient parliamentary representation. As a consequence, parties make their coalitions after an election, stitched up around a programme that nobody voted for. \p Noah Law: The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about the nature of coalition building, which takes place in both systems. \p Claire Young: Following up on that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in our current system, people vote for what can actually be very loose coalitions? Our electoral system forces us to have very large coalitions in order to form a Government, but voters do not know which parts of those coalitions they are going to get after an election. \p Noah Law: Both the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) raise important points about the imperfections in all systems, and about being mindful that coalition building is a feature of all systems.

In St Austell and Newquay, my constituents are as diverse in their perspectives as they are in their daily lives. Many feel a deep-rooted connection to Cornish culture, heritage and even nationhood. Socially and economically, they navigate very different realities. Some  are tied to the rural economy, others are engaged in tourism and trade, and many have livelihoods shaped by the seasonal nature of coastal life. Others have stronger ties to the industrial economy, which is seeing a much-needed resurgence—in some ways, that means that having a Labour MP in the area is long overdue.

Although Cornwall is, in many ways, a conservative part of Britain, we have a shared belief in fairness, economic justice and the principle that hard work should be rewarded. These shared values must be reflected in our system. The consensus building we do through this patchwork should be the by-product of a system rather than simply the result of the good will and shared values we have in Cornwall.

Under the current system, many voters feel that their vote fails to express those nuances, which can lead to disengagement, disillusionment and a sense that the political system does not serve them. Moreover, the political boundaries fostered by the first-past-the-post system make social integration more difficult, often deepening ignorance, polarisation and division. Sadly, a winner-takes-all system does not encourage dialogue or co-operation, but entrenches an adversarial style of government in which short-term victories are prioritised over long-term solutions.

By contrast, a more proportionate system would ensure that political views are not distorted or diluted in the same way. It would allow for greater plurality, meaning that every vote carries more weight, no matter where in the country it is cast. Moving to such a system would enhance our democracy and ensure that Parliament better represents the broad spectrum of views held by the electorate.

Just because I deny the primacy of first past the post, it does not mean that I think change should come overnight, without serious discussion or without being the democratic will of the British people. The electoral reform we seek is a significant undertaking and must be done in a way that strengthens rather than undermines our democratic institutions. If we truly believe that every vote matters and that politics must reflect the diversity of this country, we must be willing to have that serious conversation.

The political identity and plurality of St Austell and Newquay deserve recognition in our electoral system. No matter their chosen industry, cultural identity or economic status, my constituents should have confidence that their votes are represented and included in our democracy—one that acknowledges the full spectrum of views in our community. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and all members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections for securing this important debate.

It has been an exciting few months for the cause of fair votes in Parliament, and I am pleased to see Members of so many political parties advocating proportional representation in today’s debate. At the end of last year, I was delighted that a Bill I had introduced to this  House, calling for the establishment of proportional representation, was voted through to Second Reading. I thank every single Member who backed that Bill. It was the first time that Parliament voted in favour of PR, and I am determined that we will achieve that goal in this Parliament.

But I must also express my disappointment. Despite the Bill receiving the House’s express support on First Reading, it has not been given parliamentary time to allow it to progress through the legislative process. \p Paul Holmes: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Sarah Olney: People across the country are fed up with first past the post. The 2024 election was the most disproportionate in history, with the Government winning two thirds of the seats on one third of the vote—the second biggest majority of seats for any Government since the second world war on the lowest share of the vote ever recorded for a winning party. I think we can all agree that such distorted results are not healthy for our democracy. \p Paul Holmes: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Sarah Olney: It is no surprise that we are seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. This is reflected in the fact that turnout at the 2024 general election was the second lowest since 1918, at just under 60%. More than 40% of registered voters in the UK thought so little of the political process that they did not think it worth expressing a preference for one candidate over another.

Trust in politics will not improve if the public keep getting Parliaments that do not represent the balance of votes cast. This Parliament is the one that least represents how the country voted of any in history. \p Paul Holmes: Will the hon. Lady now give way? \p Sarah Olney: I will not give way. \p Paul Holmes: Why? \p Sarah Olney: There was no Back-Bench speech from any Member of your party, and you will have your opportunity in a minute. \p Paul Holmes: Very democratic of you. \p Sarah Olney: Your Back Benchers could have spoken in this debate.

There are many urgent and pressing challenges facing the UK today, but it is essential that the vast majority of its citizens actively support the mechanisms by which decisions are made to address them. Increasing levels of disengagement threaten our ability to respond both to immediate challenges and to long-term issues.

The Liberal Democrats believe, and have always believed, that a fair voting system is the essential bedrock of a functioning democracy. Democracy has proved to be the most effective and enduring of governing systems because it relies on a broad base of support across the population. A faulty voting system that delivers a majority  Government on a minority vote undermines democracy and its ability to deliver effective government. In the face of growing worldwide threats to democratic Governments and institutions, the UK urgently needs to reassert the value of participative democracy as an essential component of peaceful and prosperous societies.

I am glad to know that support for electoral reform comes not only from Liberal Democrat Members but from across the House. I am pleased that Labour Members, in particular, agree that we need proportional representation, after their conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of PR two years ago. More importantly, recent polling shows that a majority of the British public is now in favour of scrapping first past the post and moving to proportional representation.

I welcome the establishment and the work of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which launched last year with the support of more than 100 MPs. Its report, “Free But Not Fair”, highlights many of the structural issues that have led to the decline of public trust in politics and engagement with elections.

I thank everybody for their contributions. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is not in her place, but she made some important interventions. This issue may come under her remit as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, so I hope she will consider giving it more attention.

I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Hazel Grove, for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their excellent contributions. I was particularly struck when my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham talked about how, in the past, we discriminated by wealth, gender and religion in selecting who could vote, whereas we now discriminate by geography. That is one of the key things we would overcome by replacing our voting system.

The Liberal Democrats share the pain of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). In 2017, we won 12 seats with 7.5% of the vote; in 2019, we won 11 seats with 12% of the vote; and in 2024, we won 72 seats with 12.2% of the vote. Just because, by some miracle of first past the post, we now have a proportion of seats that represents our proportion of votes, it does not dilute in any way our support for a more proportional voting system. I am glad we have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his Reform UK colleagues.

We must take urgent action to protect democratic processes and institutions in the UK from threats both here and abroad. We need to listen to the warning bell sounded by the general election that the citizens we seek to serve, and who must abide by the laws we pass, are becoming disenchanted with the political process. If we want to continue to be a beacon of democracy across the world, we must ensure that it serves its purpose both in giving a voice to the people and in delivering prosperity and stability. We cannot do the latter if we fail at the former.

First past the post is a broken and unfair system. Last summer, the Labour party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote. This system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial  political climate, where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped. The Liberal Democrats have long championed proportional representation, advocating for a voting system where every vote truly counts. We must modernise our electoral system, creating a fairer process to engage voters, listen to the needs of constituents and rebuild trust in politics.

Winning a vote in Parliament for my Bill creates a historic precedent: for the first time, MPs have backed a proportional voting system in the Division Lobby. It would be an outrage were this Bill not given the opportunity to progress further through the House and to become law, so I urge the Minister to schedule an opportunity for the Bill to be read a Second time, in Government time, and to offer Labour MPs a free vote on the Bill. \p Paul Holmes: I am grateful to Members from all parties for their thoughtful and interesting contributions to the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important discussion and the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for introducing the debate in the way that he did.

For us as a nation, this is an important discussion to have. We may not recognise that we should be proud of the peaceful and democratic way that we govern ourselves, despite our various, often heated, disagreements, as hon. Members might have seen earlier in the debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I am not afraid— \p Rachel Gilmour: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way? \p Paul Holmes: I will give way. \p Rachel Gilmour: I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. It does at least show that he has some sense and knowledge of what democracy means. \p Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for that wonderful intervention. Members should know that she and I are very good friends.

Unlike the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I am not afraid to stand up for the courage of my convictions and for the arguments that I will make. Unlike Members of the Liberal Democrat party, I am prepared to take interventions and have a genuine debate, \p Desmond Swayne: May I interrupt this community lovefest, and ask my hon. Friend to reflect on the experience of Israel, where tiny religious parties are perpetually in government, exercising disproportionate influence and influencing policy in a way that is at variance with the wishes of the majority? \p Paul Holmes: My right hon. Friend is correct that there is a vast and quite radical system that elects the Israeli Government, where a number of extreme politicians on both sides of the aisle— \p Richard Tice: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way? \p Paul Holmes: No, I will not. I will finish responding to my right hon. Friend. \p Richard Tice: I will make another intervention. \p Paul Holmes: Well, I have not finished making my point yet and I intend to do so. The electoral system in Israel elects people from extreme wings, from both sides of the aisle, who have a disproportionate impact on the policies and outcomes of the Israeli Government. \p Luke Akehurst: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way? \p Paul Holmes: Not at the moment, as I will make some progress.

Over the past several hundred years, our country has undergone myriad complex and contentious reforms that have revolutionised our systems of governance. Those changes have often been made in a piecemeal fashion over many centuries, from Simon de Montfort’s Parliament of 1265, in which representatives from towns and the shires were summoned together to discuss matters of national concern, to the great Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, permitting the expansion of suffrage, to the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which extended the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21. Those evolutionary changes have allowed us, as a country, to forgo frequent domestic upheaval and civil wars, which are a feature of other less stable systems.

I know I am in a minority of one this afternoon—apart from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal)—but the Conservative party has long championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives—[Interruption.] \p Sarah Olney: Where are all the Conservative representatives? \p Paul Holmes: I say to the hon. Lady, who intervenes from a sedentary position, that my colleagues in the Conservative parliamentary party are out in their constituencies, campaigning and standing up for their constituents, not focusing on a debate about an outdated system that will never last.

The Conservative party has championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance, and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. Indeed, we continue to do that even after our historic and momentous defeats of 1997 and 2024. The party has continued to support first past the post, as evidenced by the submission to the Jenkins Commission in 1998, because we believe the way to win elections is to gain the trust of the public, not to gerrymander the system when things get tough.

Voters have already shown their preference for first past the post, as shown by the decision made by 13 million people who voted against the proposals set out in the 2011 voting system referendum. I know this is not popular among the parties in opposition, but I believe we should respect the results of referendums. \p Luke Akehurst: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way? \p Paul Holmes: Let me just finish this point. Some 68% of people voted no in that referendum, so the result should be respected for at least a generation, as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) said in his thoughtful contribution. In 2011, the alternative vote was supported by a majority of voters in a mere 10 of the 440 local counting areas.

The debate raises some pertinent questions for other Members. Only seven months after they won a resounding and historical vote in a landslide victory under the first-past-the-post system, Labour MPs suddenly want to do away with the system that has provided them with their victory, and smaller parties want to gerrymander the system because they did not get as many seats as they wanted. Perhaps that is because Labour Members are already struggling at having to work directly for the constituents that put them in their places, because they are suffering from the biggest and most profound instance of buyer’s remorse since this Government took office.

I say gently to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who outlined the possibility of a two-tier system where members can pick and choose what they focus on for their constituents, Members of this House elected under this system take on every issue for their constituents. My constituents in Hamble Valley have a direct link to me, and I will not pick and choose what issues I take up. Members in this House generally do not do that; we stand up for our constituents on all the issues that they think are important in this country and in their constituencies.

In a debate about our electoral system, the Liberal Democrats have once again shown that they are not worthy of having the word “democrat” in their name. They once again outlined that they have an opposition to voter ID, which guarantees safe and fair voting systems in this country and stops people from being able to take votes from people who are genuinely entitled to vote in this country, and they outlined that they now want to gerrymander the system to get more votes themselves.

I gently say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that she said that a lack of turnout meant the results of the election were not as valid as they should be. She is entitled to that opinion, which is perfectly reasonable, but her Bill on proportional representation passed with the votes of 62 MPs in this House, out of a total electorate of 650 MPs, by a majority of two. Taking her proposition, does that mean her Bill is less entitled to pass than other Bills because of the turnout of MPs voting on that outdated proposition?

Under proportional representation, direct accountability is often lost in the complexities of coalitions and backroom deals. Advocates of PR stress the need for the party share of the legislature to mirror the share of the popular vote, but that is the wrong test. It is more important to look at the share of the vote and the share of executive power. Over time, PR leads to a highly disproportionate relationship between votes cast and the share of executive power, which is unhealthy for democracy. First past the post ensures the brutal and efficient removal of governments when a ruling administration loses popular support, and they are rightly booted out and replaced with a new government facilitated often by a clear mandate from voters. \p Richard Tice: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way? \p Paul Holmes: I will now. \p Richard Tice: That is most generous of him. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost all other major democratic nations across the world use PR? Does that not prove that far from being outdated, it is contemporary? \p Paul Holmes: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting to the House that just because other people do it, we should follow suit, then he needs to go away and think about his policy proposition again. This country —[Interruption.] Let me finish the point. This country has elected more stable Governments than most European nations have under proportional representation. That is a proud and long-standing convention of this country and of this House of Commons. I suggest to Members from across the House that that is why the Conservative party believes and this House should believe in keeping first past the post as we go forward in other general elections. \p Claire Young: rose— \p Anna Dixon: rose— \p Paul Holmes: I am spoilt for choice and I do not have much time left. I will give way to the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and then to the hon. Member for Shipley. \p Claire Young: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman remembers how many Prime Ministers there were between the last election and the one before, and whether voters knew what they were getting at the start of 2019. \p Paul Holmes: I think that is a relatively lazy argument about the internal machinations of the Conservative party and is not concerned with our electoral system. I give the hon. Lady the point that it was not a good time within my party, within this country and that period of office, but it concerns the way parties elect leaders and not the electoral system for the public.

In relation to proportional representation not allowing parties from different wings to be elected, if we look at an example from 2009, in European elections under the PR system, the British National party won two European Parliament seats with 6% of the vote. In the rare cases in which the BNP won local government seats, such as in Barking and Dagenham in 2006, its support represented 35% to 50% of the popular vote in the winning wards. First past the post, by contrast, acts as a safeguard against extremism in ensuring that only candidates with broad support can win. That helps preserve the political stability and moderation that are hallmarks of our parliamentary democracy.

When coalition Governments are formed, it becomes difficult for voters to hold any one party accountable for their decisions. Blame for unpopular policies can easily be shifted between coalition partners, which, given how things are going for them, I know might be appealing for Labour Members. However, that erodes trust in politics, whereas first past the post provides clarity. Voters know exactly which party is in charge and can hold it to account at the next election.

It is also the case that under a party-list PR system, which was previously the European Parliament’s system in Great Britain, there was no direct accountability, with representatives dependent on a party patronage  system. How many voters actually knew the name of their European Parliament Members when we were in the European Union? I would hazard that there were only one or two well known MEPs and one of them is still close by.

I think the choice for us is clear, although I know that I am undoubtedly in the minority this afternoon. First past the post ensures strong and stable governance, clear accountability and an electoral system that is easily understood by the public. It prevents small, unrepresentative parties from wielding disproportionate influence and upholds the direct link between MPs and their constituents. The British people have spoken in favour of first past the post and we should respect that decision. Members in other Opposition parties should learn and take it from us: we know that you cannot keep asking the same question over and over and expect a different response. The first-past-the-post system has served the UK well for generations. It delivers clear outcomes, stable Governments and a direct link between voters and their representatives. If we were to move to a PR regional-based system, that link would be lost and MPs would be scrambling and fighting to take on their constituents’ casework. We can just imagine the mafioso-style turf wars such a system would generate. To scrap those sensible and time-honoured demarcations would be terrifically reckless and fundamentally unnecessary and would do our electors a disservice.

We should not trade a proven system for one that prioritises theoretical fairness over practical effectiveness. The challenges we face as a country demand strong leadership, clear accountability and a system that works for the people. Even though I do not like the result, the Labour Government won that mandate under the system we have. First past the post has provided that Government and we should stick to that, allowing the British people to have a system they fundamentally understand and fundamentally believe in. \p Lisa Smart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in his wide-ranging comments talked about the vote that was held on 3 December 2024 relating to the Elections (Proportional Representation) ten-minute rule motion. He mentioned rightly that the ayes won by two votes, but in fact, the number of votes cast were 138 ayes and 136 noes. He mentioned that only 62 votes were cast and I am sure he would like to correct the record. \p Judith Cummins: That is a point of debate and not a point of order. I call the shadow Minister. \p Paul Holmes: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am perfectly willing to correct the record and apologise to the House. However, that was still a minority of the 50% that would be required under the system that the Liberal Democrats are advocating. \p Judith Cummins: Order. I now call the Minister. \p Rushanara Ali: I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds  Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for opening the debate and by congratulating the Backbench Business Committee and the key Members on securing this debate.

The UK’s democratic system and institutions are strong and are rightly held the world over as a strong example of democracy. I know as someone who was born in another country that the UK’s democratic system has provided inspiration, even though as we have heard many hon. Members believe more work needs to be done in some areas. In defence of our democratic system, I reiterate how much our system and our democracy is cherished. Whichever side of the argument Members are on, it is vital that we work tirelessly to protect our democracy, which faces different kinds of threats in the current climate. Indeed, I hope we will all work together in that endeavour to make sure that we protect the integrity of our system, our institutions and our precious democracy.

How we select our representatives in Parliament is of fundamental importance and Members quite rightly have strong views. The choice of voting system is central to that concern, as we have heard in the many speeches made today, and how votes are cast goes to the heart of our democracy. I, for one, am incredibly proud to have been the first person of British-Bangladeshi heritage to get a democratic mandate in our system in 2010. That democratic mandate must never be delegitimised, even if we believe that there should be a different system. Whatever Members’ arguments, whichever side of the argument they are on, whichever system they believe we should adopt or whether they believe we should retain the current system, it is absolutely vital that we do not delegitimise the democratic mandate that this Government, or any other Government in the past, have been given to serve this country and the people who have voted for us. \p Richard Holden: The Minister makes a broader important point about the mandate that individual MPs feel when they are elected to this place. Does she agree that that individual mandate—our names are on the ballot paper—is strengthened under the first-past-the-post system? Does she also agree that that means that our electorate can single out MPs, which could not happen under a party-list system, in order to remove them? \p Rushanara Ali: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of the constituency connection. Hon. Members have made important contributions about alternative systems, outlining their merits and limitations. Each of those systems has its pros and cons, and that has been strongly and powerfully debated by many hon. Members today. I respect those strongly held views on electoral reform.

I know that colleagues will be disappointed, and I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news when there has been a general love-in during the debate across the parties, bar some exceptions, but at this time the Government have no plans to change the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting unlikely cheers; I am not used to being cheered by Conservative Members. As has been pointed out, the first-past-the-post system, while not perfect, provides for a direct relationship between Members of Parliament and their local constituency. A change would require a national conversation and referendum. The Government’s focus and No. 1 priority, having won  the general election and secured a mandate, is to kick-start our economy, create the growth that is desperately needed, and improve living standards, our NHS and public services, to serve the people of our country.

Members have put their arguments across eloquently, and I respect those arguments. As others have pointed out, we had an opportunity to change the voting system in the 2011 referendum. Unfortunately for those who are proponents of such a change, that referendum was lost. The processes that underpin our elections are of paramount importance and changes cannot be made lightly; however, I stress that we are not averse to changes to, and innovation in, our democracy. We must continue to monitor all aspects of our electoral system, and ensure that it runs effectively and adapts to the modern challenges that we face as a democracy.

As we set out in our manifesto, we are seeking to make changes, including our commitment to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are continuing to assess the voter identification policy in order to address any inconsistencies. I am pleased that we were able to add veteran cards to the list of accepted documents last year; our veterans community will be able to use them to vote in polling stations this May. We are continuing to consider whether further improvements to policy can be made. I am conscious of the contributions of some hon. Members about the exclusion of legitimate voters. It is crucial that we ensure that people are not disenfranchised, while ensuring that there are not abuses of our system.

As I mentioned, the Liberal Democrat party, in coalition with the Conservative party, secured a referendum on AV in 2011, with considerable cross-party support from Labour Members. The proposal was rejected by 67.9% of votes. While I recognise the strength of feeling, I have made the Government’s position clear. Hon. Members asked whether the Government have any plans for a national commission on electoral reform. At present, we do—we do not. [Laughter.] That was not a Freudian slip. Some hon. Members asked about the London mayoral election and police and crime commissioners, following the changes in the Elections Act 2022. The Government currently have no plans to change the voting system for those polls. Like a number of policies, we will keep these matters under review.

A number of hon. Members suggested that the first-past-the-post system is contributing to a decrease in turnout, and pointed to the low turnout at the last election. It is on all of us to think carefully about the drivers of low turnout, which will be a range of factors. We all have a responsibility, as elected representatives, to work with our parties and communities to promote engagement, particularly among young people. We will work with colleagues to promote that democratic engagement, and ensure that young citizens are active citizens from an early age.

In order to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley enough time to wind up the debate, I will address just one other point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater   (Joe Powell) spoke about foreign interference in relation to funding. Foreign money has no place in UK politics, and it is vital that we protect our democracy from those who seek to interfere in UK elections through illegitimate political donations. That is why we committed in our manifesto to strengthening the rules around donations to political parties. We will work with Members across the House to ensure that we protect the integrity of our democracy. \p Cameron Thomas: I invite the Minister to join the APPG for fair elections. She will see that there is a very clear correspondence between first past the post and the lack of engagement over time. \p Rushanara Ali: I thank the hon. Member for his invitation, and welcome him to send us information. He knows that I cannot be a member of the all-party group, but I recognise and commend its work. Having been a member of and chaired many all-party groups during my 14 years in opposition, I recognise the importance of their work.

I thank hon. Members across the House for their important contributions to the debate, expressing strongly and deeply held views about a really important subject: the future and nature of our democracy. Whichever side of the argument we are on, it is vital that we always maintain our commitment to working together to protect our democracy, and that we work tirelessly to strengthen our democracy. \p Alex Sobel: I will be brief, because we have had a long and thorough debate. I thank everyone who took part in it, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who cut a lonely figure in opposing a change to the voting system. I thank him for his bravery in the face of such opposition; it is a shame that we could not have had more Members speak against changing the voting system, as so many spoke in favour. I thank the Minister for committing to work with the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which I chair, and I will follow up on that.

Let me make just one substantive point, because I feel that there may be a lack of understanding about something. I am well aware that we had a referendum on the alternative vote system in 2011. The alternative vote system, which is used to elect the Australian Parliament, is a preferential system, not a proportional system, so we have had a referendum on preferential representation but we have never had a referendum on proportional representation. I do not see why we need to wait a generation, as has been suggested. I certainly do not think that we need to have another referendum on a preferential system, but we need to consider, as I laid out in the debate, a commission to look at the failures in our electoral system, and whether we should move to a more proportional system.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered proportional representation for general elections. \p Gideon Amos: I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of local Post Office services.

I am grateful to everyone for attending this debate on a Thursday afternoon on post offices and their vital role in all our communities across the country. Post offices have long been at the heart of our communities. They provide essential services, support local businesses and serve as vital socioeconomic lifelines, but in too many areas across the country, including my constituency, we face uncertainty over the future of those post offices and are already seeing the erosion of far too many.

Post offices contribute an estimated £4.7 billion annually to the UK economy. According to the Post Office, their presence generates an additional £3 billion in spending for the businesses that surround them. In a town like Wellington in my constituency, a post office could add around £1 million to the local economy. Small businesses across the country rely on post offices for banking, cash deposits and parcel services. Nearly a third of small and medium-sized businesses use the post office at least once a week.

Of course, the benefits of post offices are not just economic; they remain a lifeline for many, particularly older and more vulnerable people, who rely on post office services to access their pension, send mail and parcels, pay bills, and stay connected. I hear from many of my constituents how much they value our local post offices, and that those post offices provide far more than just postal services. \p Helen Hayes: I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this important debate. My constituents are served by Crown post offices in Brixton and on Lordship Lane in east Dulwich. Both those town centres have effectively seen the withdrawal of high-street banks. Would he agree that the erosion of high-street banking services places an even greater emphasis on the role of post offices, and that the Government need to intervene to stop the further round of Crown post office closures if we are to see the banking hubs commitment met across the country? \p Gideon Amos: The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I will emphasise that point later, because the destiny of banking hubs is wrapped up with that of post offices. Post offices are the nucleus of a town centre, and once they are gone, it undermines the town centre. \p Rachel Gilmour: Following on from the intervention of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), I represent Tiverton and Minehead, a very rural constituency. Dulverton is a classic example of what we are talking about. The farmers used to come down from Cutcombe market, after they had sold their cattle and sheep, and deposit their money in a bank or post office in Dulverton. We just about have a post office there, but no banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that post offices and banks are two sides of the same coin? \p Gideon Amos: I agree with my hon. Friend. I will comment on that aspect of banking later.

I pay tribute to the friendly and hard-working staff in my local post offices on Station Road and in Staplegrove, and in other post offices throughout the constituency. The North Curry post office, with its amazing postmistress, contributes every year to the “Christmas in the Square” event for the village charity and has raised £1,500. These are real community institutions. Their being in our villages and communities, where they offer a warm, friendly welcome and act as a community hub, is important to many people and must not be undervalued. \p Richard Holden: The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and I think the nub of his speech is that post offices are not just a banking facility or just a post office; they are a real community hub. I think about the ones in my constituency that I have visited recently—in Ramsden Bellhouse, on Whitmore Way in Basildon or the brand new one on Billericay high street. That is exactly what they are: places where the entire community comes together. \p Gideon Amos: The right hon. Member is quite right. I know Billericay and its post office, and I certainly support his remarks. Post offices are simply too important to be lost, and we have to ensure that they are not lost in towns like Wellington and Taunton, and elsewhere across the country.

Too often, there are deep concerns about the future of local post offices. Today’s announcement about changes to the Royal Mail universal service obligation adds to that uncertainty, creating further pressure on an already fragile network. It is disappointing to see that obligation weakened, with potential knock-on effects on the viability of post offices. That makes it even more important that post offices continue to play a role all throughout the week, in selling stamps and providing postal services, even if deliveries are being cut back. \p David Mundell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking my intervention and for the points that he is making. In response to a question I asked, the Government said that more than one in 10 post office services are not provided in what people would recognise as a post office. Some services are provided out the back of a van for a few hours a week, but they are still held up as complete post office services in the figures on post offices and how many people access them. Does he agree that we must provide complete post office services in all the communities that need them? \p Gideon Amos: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a risk that the statistics are somewhat skewed by the fact that a parcel drop-off point or a van that visits occasionally may be considered post offices. \p Luke Akehurst: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way to a number of Members during his important speech. On the proposal to replace Crown post offices, does he agree that franchised post offices are no substitute? In fact, that is a huge risk. WHSmith, which often takes on the franchises, announced this week that it is closing 17 of its high street branches. The move to franchises could be one step away from the complete loss of post office facilities. \p Gideon Amos: Indeed. I think the hon. Member had read the next sentence of my speech, which was about the post office branch housed in WHSmith on Fore Street in Taunton. That business is potentially up for sale, which poses risks. The loss of such post offices would leave a huge gap across the country, particularly in county towns like Taunton. In the course of his work, will the Minister get concrete assurances from WHSmith that post offices in its stores will be retained following the sale? It is important that the Government get assurances from WHSmith on that point. \p Martin Wrigley: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The distinction between Crown post offices and franchised post offices cannot be drawn heavily enough. In my constituency, we lost Crown post offices in Newton Abbot and in Dawlish, and the one in Teignmouth—which I believe is the last in my constituency; all the rest are franchises—is now under threat. Does he agree that the franchise system can provide a useful service but is absolutely no substitute for the full Crown post office service, which must remain? \p Gideon Amos: I agree. I am sure that the Government will say in due course that, whatever its exact business model, a viable post office is what matters, and there would be some truth in that, but a secure post office, established for the long term, is what really matters.

The worries we hear from across the House and the country are not without foundation. We have seen worrying closures across the country. Notably, as has been mentioned, there was a recent consultation on the closure of 150 post offices. The loss of branches means that fewer communities can access vital services. House of Commons data shows that the number of post offices is rising overall, but in the south-west, which has lost more post offices than any other region in England, it is falling.

Wellington in my constituency lost its post office in 2019, and we can see the damage caused by that loss. Wellington is not a small town; it has 15,000 residents and is growing fast. Its population has grown by a third over the past two decades according to census data, and around 1,500 new homes have been built there in recent years. It also has a proud history as the home of Fox Brothers & Co, which has been manufacturing the finest flannels and fabrics for over 250 years and also owned its own bank—the Fox bank on Fore Street was the last bank in the country to issue its own banknotes. It is unacceptable for such a town to have no main post office. Losing the post office in 2019 has been a real blow. One constituent told me that he finds it

“totally baffling why Wellington Post Office was ever closed”.

It is particularly difficult for those without access to a car to visit the nearest alternative at Rockwell Green, a village several miles away. If they do, residents often find that the sub-post office is oversubscribed, with queues out the door. As a small village post office, it was only intended to provide for small numbers, and when it is open, parking has become a bit of a nightmare. \p Melanie Onn: I was very pleased to support the hon. Gentleman’s application to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. Does he agree that Crown post offices are one of the last bastions of the civil service in local  communities, as they are not centralised? They provide good jobs in places like Wellington in his constituency, and they give support to communities that often have an older population. They have an expertise that franchises simply cannot provide. \p Gideon Amos: The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am extremely grateful to her for helping us to secure this debate. Post offices act as hubs for a whole range of services, and they could arrange for a range of other public services, and often do, which is why a secure, proper post office is so important.

As I say, the nearest post office to Wellington is some miles away and very difficult to access. As hon. Members can imagine, there was great relief when Wellington residents were told that they would be getting a new hub opened by an organisation called the Post Office, staffed by staff working for the Post Office, and that there was to be a logo outside the building with “Post Office” written on it, but they were disappointed to find, when they went inside the building, that it was a banking hub that does not provide any post office services. Frankly, people feel misled and let down. Will the Minister instruct the Post Office to review the case for granting Wellington post office the status of main post office? I am convinced from discussions with franchise holders that that would be enough to secure one for Wellington.

As we can all see, in this case, there is an obvious and straightforward solution: we should allow banking hubs to offer postal services. There is no fundamental reason why they cannot. They already have post office tills and post office systems. They are run by postmasters and postmistresses, and staffed by post office staff. The one in Wellington even has two banking desks and space for a third desk, presumably awaiting a post office counter. That would be a very good use of the remaining space in a building with “Post Office” written above the door. Perhaps most importantly, having spoken to post office staff, I know that they would be very keen to offer such services in banking hubs.

The issue lies simply in such arrangements not having been included in the agreement on banking hubs between the banks, which fund them, and the Post Office, which provides those services. It is not a hugely complex problem. With a bit of effort and ingenuity, which I am sure the Minister and the Government have, this could be overcome, and the system could be made hugely more efficient. There are 76 banking hubs in the UK, and in this way we could significantly increase the provision of post offices at very little cost. Will the Minister ask his Department to develop incentives for banking hubs to offer postal services, especially given that they all have the “Post Office” logo outside the door, even when they do not provide any postal services.

To conclude, post offices are vital hubs in communities throughout the country, particularly for those in need and at risk of exclusion. The loss of the post office in Wellington, such a significant market town, has really hit the town centre badly. I know hon. Members will have their own examples of the importance of their local post offices to their communities. I look forward to hearing their speeches, and maybe to intervening on them. It is vital to ensure that substantive towns and communities such as Wellington do not lose their post offices altogether. In short, post offices are too important to be left to uncertainty. The Government must act now to safeguard these vital institutions, ensuring that towns,  such as Wellington and so many more, do not remain without essential services. I urge the Minister to take tangible steps to secure the future of post offices before more communities are left without them. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am imposing an immediate six-minute time limit so that everyone can get in. \p Alex Mayer: I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this important debate. I think that most Members and most people are pro-post office. After all, post offices are part of the fabric of our nation. Many Members of my age were brought up on Postman Pat and his black and white cat. It would not have been the same without Mrs Goggins at the local post office.

The Leighton Buzzard post office first opened its doors at its current location near All Saints church back in 1887. We all recognise that a lot has changed in the last 137 years, and since Postman Pat hit our screens in the 1980s. I used to queue at the post office to get my car tax. Emails have transformed how we communicate. TV licence sales have moved online or to phone or direct debit. What has not changed is the way that post offices foster a sense of community pride. Half of UK consumers say that their local post office creates a sense of belonging and community identity. An Association of Convenience Stores survey ranked the post office third for having a positive impact on local communities.

Post offices also drive footfall to our high streets because when someone goes to the post office in the town centre, they often spend money elsewhere. More and more, post offices support e-commerce, and they are important to small businesses, half of which use them at least once a month. Increasingly, they are a vital means of accessing cash.

Since 2015, my constituency has lost 60% of its bank branches. In recent months, two more high street banks, Lloyds and Halifax, have left Leighton Buzzard town centre. In September, when Halifax announced its closure, it was explicit that it expected the post office down the road to take up the slack. Whether that will be possible is a question I will turn to shortly.

I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that committed us to strengthening the post office network. I welcome the Government’s £37 million investment to support post office branches, along with the £20 million boost to sub-postmasters’ pay and the plans to publish a Green Paper seeking public views on the future of the Post Office. This all comes at a critical time.

The 100-plus-year-old Leighton Buzzard post office is a Crown post office. The desire of the Post Office to move to a fully franchised model is not new. It has been on the cards for some time, but it is causing understandable concern for local people who deeply value the service that their post office provides, for all of the reasons I have outlined. I welcome the expressions of interest in taking on those Crown branches. Although not all of those applications will be viable, it is encouraging that third-party operators are willing to step in, potentially integrating retail elements to make these branches more financially sustainable.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) mentioned, the recent announcement by WHSmith, which hosts around 200 post office counters, has raised concerns about whether third-party takeovers truly are a long-term solution. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on that. I would also be keen for him to explore with the Post Office whether there is merit in treating Crown branches where it owns the freehold of the building differently from those where it leases the premises.

Let me turn briefly to the related issue of postboxes. Some new developments simply do not have them. That means that someone who lives in Bidwell West would have to go on a half-hour hike to post a letter. The law states that residents should be within 500 metres of a post box, but that is simply not happening. Perhaps the Minister might raise that with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that housing developments include post boxes as standard. After all, letters are vital for a thriving postal service.

The Post Office is a national institution. It brings essential services to countless communities, whether sending a parcel, withdrawing cash or topping up an electricity meter. It supports local businesses, high streets and local identity. Yes, it must change, but it must not wither. Local people must enjoy a first-class service. \p Rebecca Smith: In September 2021, Plymstock post office closed. It was part of the collateral damage of the closure by Morrisons of more than 80 newsagents. It was a legitimate business decision no doubt, but it highlights the issue of the post office franchise model. Those businesses just disappeared from the high street. What followed was a public petition, which I started. There was huge public disappointment, as older populations are used to using cash. The postmistress of the next nearest post office wants to retire, which leaves just one bank with one cash machine. The next nearest cash machine is 10 or 15 minutes’ walk away. Importantly, this was the loss of an anchor at a shopping centre that is vital for the local community.

Working closely with the Post Office and local businesses, we sought to secure a new post office, but it is a challenge to make the franchise business model work. That will be even harder now with the employer increased national insurance contributions that businesses face. I raised this matter with the Minster today and he gave me a helpful answer. He mentioned the increase in the sub-postmaster pay offer, but there remains the issue that we are not replacing closing post offices on a like-for-like basis.

Plymstock had a three-counter model, which the Post Office has offered to replace with a local franchise. It is offering just £15,000 to £18,000 a year to run that service within an existing or proposed business. We have to add on to that rent, business rates, staff, and set-up and running costs, because, at the moment, there are no businesses on the Broadway, where the post office was located, able to take on that service.

There is also a challenge with the franchise model, in that it is often not possible to tag on additional services at the beginning that would make the business more profitable. For example, passport processing is not always offered at the start, and those extra services can often be the difference between a business model that will work and one that is unsustainable.

Ironically, on 22 May, the day the general election was called, I met again with the Post Office—some three years later—to discuss the issue. The Post Office raised with me the statistics on what was needed. It thought that the use of a post office in the area would increase over time, but it would not take into account the fact that a neighbouring postmistress was seeking to retire. Therefore, the data showed that the area did not need anything more than a post office local. All it took was a tiny bit of horizon scanning to realise that there would be that need and that demand shortly. We got stuck in a Catch-22 situation. The Post Office reassured me that it had further people interested in running the post office, but, nearly one year later, nothing has come to fruition. The fight continues.

As has been mentioned by other hon. Members, there is the option of banking hubs. The work of the Conservative Government to trailblaze this modern solution for communities has helped remarkably, and I am sure that we will hear lots about that this afternoon. \p David Mundell: To reinforce the point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) made, there is a real concern that communities that are looking to have a banking hub do not have a functioning post office in the way that we would understand it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the arrival of banking hubs is actually the opportunity to put a post office back into those communities as well? \p Rebecca Smith: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that all of us in this Chamber will agree that having a post office within these banking hubs is vital. We have seen 76 hubs open across the country in the last few years. Clearly, there is an appetite and a need for them, but it does not make sense to the public, as has been alluded to, that they can pitch up to these places with a post office sign outside, but they cannot even buy a stamp inside. I do hope that that can be rectified.

The other challenge is that an area cannot have a banking hub while a bank is still present. Perhaps that is the silver lining to yesterday’s announcement that the Lloyds bank in the same location, on Plymstock Broadway, is closing in November. That will be a massive hit, as it has the only cash machine for the entire community. However, as I have been saying to my constituents, perhaps the silver lining is that we will see more banking available and, if the Government heed our calls today, that future post office as well. Perhaps we have to circumvent the system to get what we want. It would mean that we can now explore a banking hub and retain those banking services.

Clearly, there is a long way to go. I am sure that there are Members in the Chamber today who have secured banking hubs. I am told that it takes a big fight, but most of us are here because we are campaigners. Within an hour of the announcement of the closure of the Lloyds bank, we went out to the press, and we will do all we can to get a banking hub. However, I want to be able to reassure my constituents that this will solve the lack of a post office as well, so I do hope that we can see that policy change. There is a long way to go: we have to secure a venue, an operator and that policy change to see our post office services return.

Since I shared the idea yesterday, there has been huge local interest. People are really getting the idea of a banking hub—they are on board; it is what the community wants. I have had two conversations already with potential operators, one of whom I know runs a service in a neighbouring constituency and is doing a really good job there. So we have the interest; we have businessmen and women who want to do this. They have not been able to deliver it on the franchise model, but it seems that they can deliver it on the banking hub model.

We want to see this idea delivered, because even the shopping centre knows that, in order to get the footfall for all the other local businesses, having a bank and a post office for access to cash is vital. Even the local library needs that cash access, and if it is not available, there is going to be a problem. Local people need these vital services and amenities, and that is why we need to secure a banking hub.

I say to my constituents, particularly those in Plymstock, that they have my absolute commitment to fighting for this. I would add that we have some fabulous small community post offices in our villages; it is not all a bad news story. The Newton Ferrers shop, for example, has a fabulous post office counter, and attempts are made right across our constituencies to deliver these services for our constituents. However, where there is a problem like the one we are facing today, with closing banks and closing main branches, we do need to step up and take action.

To close, I will ask a few questions of the Minister. I have highlighted the reality of the current post office offer and, as I said, it is not all bad. He has kindly said that I can share some details about my constituency with him, which I will do, but I think it would be good to get the answers on the record in the Chamber. Does the Minister accept that downgrading a service from a main branch to a franchised local service hinders the replacement of post office services? Will he explore the fact that the current Post Office dataset does not allow for what will happen in the future? If a retirement is coming down the road, we should be able to business-plan around that and at the moment we cannot. Can the Minister reassure the House that he remains committed to delivering banking hubs, and say whether will they will incorporate postal facilities so that we can deliver for our constituents? \p Anna Gelderd: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing today’s debate. This is an important issue for constituencies across the UK, as has been highlighted by contributions from all parts of the House, but it is a particular concern to constituencies like South East Cornwall, which faces the potential closure of our Liskeard post office. If that were to go ahead, it would not just be the loss of a shop; it would be the loss of a vital service at the heart of our community. As the daughter of a postman, I know just what a hard and important job it is that they do.

For many people in rural areas like mine, the post office is more than a place to send letters; with the loss of high street banks leaving only one provider, the post office has become a financial lifeline, ensuring that residents—especially older residents or those without online banking—and small businesses can access cash  and essential services without having to travel for miles. Without a clear alternative in place, that represents a real challenge. For many in rural areas like mine, reaching the next nearest branch is simply not practical. If these closures continue, we must ensure that further banking hubs are established so that rural communities are not left behind.

Driving growth is a key aim of this Government and I welcomed the £28 million investment in Cornwall outlined in the Chancellor’s statement yesterday. Long-term growth cannot happen without the basic services that underpin our local economies, and Labour was elected across the UK in rural, coastal and urban areas alike because people want practical solutions after 14 years of decline. They want to ensure that communities are not cut off from essential services, and I look forward to working with our Government to achieve that.

My goal is to make the lives of local residents in South East Cornwall easier and more prosperous. That means protecting local services, ensuring accountability and delivering real opportunities for growth in towns like Liskeard. I urge the Government to ensure that rural communities are not left stranded and to guarantee access to essential banking and post office services, as I am sure they will. \p Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on taking the initiative to secure time for this debate and on the way in which he opened it.

We are all familiar with the old maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I have lost count of the number of post office debates I have taken part in over the years, and it seems to me that as far as post offices are concerned, the maxim that has governed the thinking of Governments of all colours is, “If it ain’t broke, keep reforming it until it is.”

The fundamental problem is that there has been an incoherence of approach within Departments. On the one hand, we have heard—I suspect we may hear similar things from the Minister today—Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box saying that the post office is a brilliant institution and it can be the front office or front desk for Government services in communities across the country. The next day, we will have another Minister standing at the Dispatch Box telling us that access to Government services will become digital by default. Unless we decide exactly what role we expect our post offices to perform in our communities, we cannot be surprised when they fail to thrive and then wither in the way that they are doing.

It is more than 20 years now since the Department for Work and Pensions thought it could save money by driving people away from getting pensions and other benefits from their local post office. Doubtless that was a saving for the Department for Work and Pensions, but it has just meant that the Department for Business and Trade or whatever we call it these days has had to put more money in through Government subsidies. I hesitate to predict the future in politics at all these days, but one day, when we have finally turned the key to lock the last post office in the country, some bright spark in Downing Street somewhere will come up with a policy paper saying that we should have a hub in every community where people can access Government services and meet  their postal needs, their banking needs and all the rest of it, and in that way we will end up reinventing what we have reformed to the point of destruction.

The Post Office and how it interacts with the sub-postmasters has not always helped in that respect, including the innovations that it has brought, such as the pick-up and drop-off initiatives. In my constituency, it is not the sub-post offices that are given the contract to do the pick-up and drop-off points. If the Post Office at the heart is not able to support sub-postmasters at the frontline, we frankly cannot be surprised if they start to fail.

In particular, I want to talk about the Post Office’s approach to the closure of Crown branches. We see that in my constituency, where the last Crown post office in Kirkwall is listed for closure. The way that has been done by the Post Office has been nothing short of a disgrace. It has been totally lacking in respect for its employees and the communities that the post office is there to serve. At a time when we might have hoped that the Post Office would want to demonstrate a change of culture—for reasons we have debated often enough—we see it still behaving in this way in my community. It makes me think that all the fine words about changed culture at the top of the Post Office are simply meaningless weasel words.

I have seen similar situations before. We lost the Crown post office in Lerwick in Shetland a few years ago. It was taken out and folded into a local newsagent service. For all the promises given about maintaining services, in fact the community was left with a much inferior service at the end of the day, despite the best efforts of the newsagent who got the contract. If we are to see these changes in Kirkwall, we need to know first of all that the same range of services will still be available as there are from a Crown post office. That includes vehicle licensing, currency exchange and passport checking—all those things should still be available.

Just as important as the range of services is the question of the physical infrastructure. People want a stand-alone post office to offer a level of service of the sort they get with a Crown post office, especially when we are encouraging banking into them. That is a highly personal service for many people. They do not want to be doing that next to somebody buying a tin of beans and their weekly paper. The size and availability of any post office that is to replace the one that the Post Office wants to close in Kirkwall is critical. We do not want people queueing around the block at Christmas when the post office is at its busiest, standing in the rain, sleet and snow to get their postage done. The size, the range of services and the quality of service have to be at the heart of anything that comes from the Post Office by way of revision. That is the basis on which we in my community will be judging any proposals that it comes forward with. \p Neil Coyle: I was pleased to support the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) in securing the debate. It was not the first time I helped him as, in a funny quirk of fate, I house sat for him more than 20 years ago— I think it was 22 years ago, but he is welcome to correct the record if I have got the dates wrong.

I thank my London Bridge post office manager Priya and her dedicated team, including Clive and the Communication Workers Union members whom I am  proud to serve. They in turn support and serve the London Bridge and Borough High Street community in extremely busy circumstances with massive footfall. That is why there is so much concern about the branch, as demonstrated by the petition to save the London Bridge post office started by London Bridge and West Bermondsey councillors Emily Hickson, Sam Dalton and Sunil Chopra. Hundreds of people have already signed that petition, which is on change.org, should anyone want to add their signature.

I went to the branch two weeks ago to meet the team and saw for myself how busy and loved it was. My constituent Mary—a lovely older lady—was there paying her rent at the time, but it is not just old ladies using post offices. This post office demonstrates how a diverse range of post offices is affected across the country as this branch is hugely busy and serves a massive and vibrant business community at Borough Market and around London Bridge. Of course, it also has London’s fourth-busiest train station right on its doorstep, providing commuter customers on Borough High Street.

I visited specifically because of the question mark over the branch’s status. I thank the Post Office for answering some of my questions and for joining me on that visit, but it is disappointing that the branch is in that position, not least because we have a new ministerial team, Government Ministers have stated that there will be £50 million of additional funding and there remains a commitment from the Government to ensuring that every community has access to a post office branch, which is incredibly welcome.

I am proud to have stood and won last year on a manifesto that said Labour would look for ways to strengthen the network in consultation with sub-postmasters, trade unions and customers. I am glad that the Government formally recognise that

“The UK-wide Post Office branch network is an essential part of the UK’s economic infrastructure, supporting high streets”

and “businesses”. That is incredibly refreshing after years of mismanagement and mixed messages from mixed Ministers from two different parties since 2010.

It is really useful to see the Minister in his place. We may disagree on one issue during the six nations, but he has been a massive champion of post offices and has said on the record that the Post Office should do more when it comes to providing banking services. He has been a doughty champion for the Co-operative party and a champion of post offices having a broader banking and financial footfall, whether that be through a credit union or banking. I hope to hear more from him on those issues. Like posties, he now has to deliver in office as a Minister. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Thank you.

I hope that we will hear when the Green Paper will be published. I think the aim is by the end of July. I hope that it will cover Link and the access to cash campaign, which is already part of that discussion, and that there will be space to talk about the future of business rates for post offices and whether there could be a community interest exemption.

I want to flag up a couple of concerns about how the London Bridge branch has been handled by the Post Office. It has an incredibly small team of less than 10 full-time equivalent, and they are incredibly busy, but they have met every target set by the Post Office, including a currency  transfer increase last year of more than 20%—we are talking about millions of pounds there. The team have taken on additional services where possible, but those services they have lost have been the responsibility of the Post Office nationally and not the local branch. Sadly, they feel blamed for national Post Office failures.

Rent is also not the local branch’s responsibility; it does not determine the rent that it pays for its prime Borough High Street location. It is disappointing that the Post Office did not seek a rent reduction in 2020. I saw how, during the covid crisis, rents for commercial and residential premises fell for the first time in the 20 years I have lived in the borough. However, the Post Office failed to negotiate or seek a reduction. That is not the responsibility of the individual staff, who feel they are now being held culpable for a failure that sits elsewhere. It is hard to imagine an equivalent site locally that would be cheaper. If the branch moved away from its high street location, it would lose business and commuter footfall, which could reduce turnover. Those making decisions need to be mindful of that.

As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), there is a lack of respect shown to customers and the workforce in the handling of this. Specifically on this site, the Post Office website said that an alternative provider was available on Blackfriars Road. Well, the Post Office shut that post office two years ago this month. It was supposed to reopen—the Post Office said it had bidders for it last summer—but, since my visit two weeks ago, the Post Office has now stated that it will not reopen the Blackfriars Road site at all, which is a massive disappointment for many in SE1 and the local area. The failure to communicate that—again, not a local responsibility—shows a lack of respect. The Post Office is supposed to follow principles of community engagement in how it handles these issues, but that has not been the case in Blackfriars. It must not happen again.

For people worried about that specific site, I want to flag up that there is a lot of interest in running it with an alternative provider. However, that must not come at a loss of services or a loss of rights for the workforce that the state picks up down the line, and all costs must be taken into account. When more is known—we think that will be in April—I will organise a public meeting with local representatives of the Post Office, the CWU and others, which I will advertise as soon as I can for everyone worried about this great community asset. \p Gagan Mohindra: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this Backbench Business debate. I also thank Nik Frost and Emily Pidgeon from my office for doing the research for this and other speeches that I have made in recent days.

We all know that post offices are critically important assets to our communities. I know that your own post office in Romsey is under threat as a main hub, Madam Deputy Speaker; I know you do not have the ability to voice that, so I shall do so on your behalf.

I am lucky enough to represent seven post offices in South West Hertfordshire. In my first term as a Member of Parliament, Chorleywood port office was closed, having shut in 2019—not for reasons decided by headquarters; there was a local issue—and it took several  years before that post office was brought back online. I thank the retailer Lord’s for incorporating the post office into its retail area to ensure that my community could continue to access the excellent services offered by the Post Office.

During the global pandemic, we saw how critical community assets and community spirit were to the health and wellbeing of our residents. They are the unsung heroes of our communities. Most post office staff will see their regulars on a frequent basis, and will quickly identify it if they have not been seen or do not look well; while not professionals like pharmacists, opticians or GPs, they are a set of eyes and ears on how their customers are doing.

Through various announcements, recently and over the past few years, we have seen the demise of high street banks. I am a former furniture retailer, and it still makes me sad that our high streets are not what they once were. Post offices are one of the few beacons left on high streets up and down our country; while there is an absolute draw to online retail, and I am a free marketeer, I know that if we do not continue to support our post offices, we will live to regret it. We must protect the assets that we really care about, and I include the post office in that.

I know that my community cares about this as well. When Croxley Green post office was under threat, I got a lot of correspondence asking me to be proactive. Fortunately, the Post Office decided to stop its plans to review that particular post office, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. I know from colleagues that their inboxes are filling up with concerns from constituents about what they value. It is the silent majority who will be adversely affected if we do not speak up and support our post offices.

I fully support the move towards banking hubs. It makes sense to ensure that communities are drawn to critical assets such as our post offices. It is my understanding that the agreement for the Post Office to provide banking hubs ends at the end of this year. I urge the Minister to reassure the House that if that is the case, he will look into it, and ensure that the Post Office quickly gets into negotiations with retail banks to ensure they are viable. With more and more people having less access to cash, the Post Office remains one of the few community hubs in areas where our constituents can always go and get cash out.

It is not all easy for the Post Office: I do not want to get party political, but post offices will now have a £45 million additional bill because of the national insurance jobs tax, and there has been a significant increase in business rates within the estate. While the drive for technology is important, the Government, in my view, need to look at how they can support places like our post offices to ensure that they remain commercially viable. I can assure the Minister that he will have my support if he is able to do so. \p Ben Coleman: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this timely debate. I was glad to have the opportunity to support him in doing so.

Hon. Members have described very powerfully the closures that are happening in their constituencies. In my constituency, the last remaining post office on the  historic King’s Road is threatened. It is a long time since the King’s Road heyday of the swinging ’60s, when “Please Mr Postman” was first a hit. Unfortunately, since then the number of post office branches, on what is a very long road, has dwindled and there is now only one left. Shockingly, it is one of 108 directly managed branches across the country that the Post Office is planning to shut, 32 of which are in Greater London. The Post Office says that it is doing that to save money. I hope it is not doing it to pay for the costs of resolving the Horizon scandal. We will perhaps find out over time.

Meanwhile, we have a King’s Road post office that offers a buzzing, full service to lots of customers. There are regular queues—every time I go in there I have to wait 10 minutes to be served—and people love the staff. They tell me how worried they are at the possibility of it closing and how incredulous they are that it could even be considered. They depend on it. There simply are no other options nearby. All sorts of people go there.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) mentioned, it is particularly older and disabled people who rely on post office services for bill payments and access to cash, and they are the most worried. Around the corner from the post office, there is a number of sheltered accommodation and retirement housing blocks. The people who live there will be disproportionately affected. On hearing what was planned, I immediately launched a petition and was not surprised to get 1,000 signatures in a very short space of time. Many other people have got in touch with me to express their disappointment, dismay and concern.

I met Post Office management in early December and left them in no doubt about the anger and shock in the community. They said that the King’s Road post office was losing money. They also said that they might consider franchising it to a retail partner or an independent postmaster, but that no decision had yet been taken. Naturally, I asked to see a full, detailed analysis of the figures. They very kindly responded that they would let me have that in the new year, which we are now in. I will be seeing them again next week and pressing them to provide that analysis.

I expect to see not just the financial reasons for any decision to close the post office on the King’s Road, but a detailed impact assessment on how the change would affect the community and what steps would be taken to mitigate it. The number of customers matters, of course, but so does the type of customer that the post office serves. I have touched on this, but we cannot just brush aside the needs of older and disabled people: people who do not feel comfortable banking online, people who prefer to use cash. We cannot let some people feel that they are seen as less important, because they are not less important. We cannot let them feel they are left behind. They must not be left behind. We need to find a solution that serves the needs of everyone. That is why it is so important to me that the Post Office consults genuinely and authentically with the local community about the change. I will be seeking clarity on that as well.

Finally, I will try in the meeting to get clarification on the Post Office’s thinking on keeping the King’s Road post office open by franchising it. I have heard the concerns that hon. Members have expressed about franchising, but if it proves to be the only option—we are a long way off that—I intend to pitch in and do all I can to make it a success for my constituents.

When we lost a major post office on North End Road in the Fulham part of my constituency, I worked very closely with the local council to support a new franchisee. I was delighted to open a new post office on North End Road last year. It is a franchise, yes, but it provides a seven-day-a-week service from 9 in the morning to 9 in the evening. It provides a full range of services—even newspaper delivery, which does not happen very much. I was there just last week. It is thriving and very popular. People feel well served. That is good news for the people of Fulham, but I cannot help wondering why the Post Office management have to go down the franchising route. Why are directly managed branches so much more expensive to run than locally franchised branches? Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that; I will be asking the Post Office.

I am delighted by the work that the Government are doing, and their determination to revitalise our high streets. I welcome the money that has gone into the Post Office, and I welcome the proposed increase in postmasters’ pay. I look forward to seeing, later this year, the Green Paper setting out options for the future of the Post Office, but it would be helpful at this stage to have clarity about the Government’s long-term aims. Is one of them to maintain a thriving network of post offices? I do hope so. Will banking services feature in the Green Paper? Some interesting ideas have been raised here today.

I can reassure my residents in Chelsea that I will continue to work with them, with the Post Office and with the Government to fight the closure of the King’s Road branch, and to ensure that no one is left behind. \p Olly Glover: I join others in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for timetabling it.

As many Members have pointed out, post offices form a vital part of our local communities and high streets—millions of people depend on them—but in my Oxfordshire constituency, which contains many villages, they are under threat. These post offices are community hubs which play host to a number of services that are essential to local people and small businesses, particularly in rural areas. They provide vital human contact, and offer information and support for people who might otherwise be isolated, especially given suboptimal rural transport links. Just this week Karen Forman, a postmistress in Blewbury, told me that she had not only been contacted about many postal matters, but—this is relevant to what was said by the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer)—had been contacted about a lost cat and a lost bunch of keys, and had helped someone to locate a bank card.

As other Members have noted, many post offices are facing rising operating costs, and the services that they offer do not generate much revenue—an estimated 1.7p per transaction—which makes it hard to keep the lights on. We could do a great deal more to support our community branches. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), post offices can provide vital local services, but only if they are properly supported and invested in, and are staffed appropriately. Could we, for example, make  more use of post office hubs? Could they help people who are digitally excluded to book medical appointments on the internet, or provide services such as printing? Of course, we also need to secure justice for the wronged postmasters—and the flawed Horizon system is still being used—as well as giving more support to the people who have been neglected as a result of that scandal.

The post office network and the hard-working postmasters and postmistresses are in dire need of our support in villages such as Blewbury, and many more in my constituency and those of other Members. \p Maureen Burke: I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this very timely debate on the future of post offices. Sadly, few of us have come here today with positive experiences; instead, alongside our constituents, we are concerned about the declining presence of post offices in our communities. In recent times the Post Office has been in the news for all the wrong reasons, with no worse example than the Horizon IT scandal—a shameful, unforgivable wrong done to 900 postmasters, which undermined public faith in the service.

However, public faith in the Post Office has been betrayed in other ways too. The recent speculation on the future of directly managed branches has caused genuine panic and concern to my constituents. I appreciate efforts by the Post Office to reassure people that no formal decision has yet been made, but I fully understand why so many of my constituents believe that closure or service reduction is inevitable. So many post offices have already shut their doors across the UK as the directly managed branch model has been replaced, and that shift towards franchising has left many communities fearing that the post office is no longer a permanent fixture in their high streets or shopping centres. That is because what was once a simple public service has increasingly had its future decided by profitability, rather than the needs and demands of the community, and yet for my constituents, the post office is more than just a place to send parcels and letters; it represents a trusted and valued institution. That is why the Post Office has been around for nearly 400 years.

When Post Office officials emailed me to say that directly managed branches were flawed because they had “no retail offering”, it felt as though there was a disconnect between those who use the service and those who manage it. The No. 1 duty of the post office should be to provide a public service. Whether retail offerings are available in addition should be a secondary consideration, not something motivating the closure or outsourcing of these branches.

Given the news that WH Smith, which manages around 200 post offices, is looking to sell all its high street stores, the franchising model ought to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. I was already concerned about the future of our post offices, but this news only compounds my fears. As with the directly managed branches, my thoughts are with those employed in the WH Smith branches, who will be feeling anxious about what this news means for them. Post Office officials have confirmed that they are in talks with relevant trade unions regarding the ongoing consultation, but I sincerely hope that those are genuine discussions and that the concerns of the workforce are listened to carefully.

In an area such as Springburn, which already has a high unemployment rate, it would be unacceptable for local jobs to be lost. The Springburn Crown post office is the last directly managed branch in my constituency. It occupies a space in Springburn shopping centre, which is well connected and well used by people across the north-east of Glasgow. I recently met the community group Spirit of Springburn to discuss the future of the Crown post office. The community are rightly worried about what closure would mean and raised with me their concerns about the detrimental impact it would have on not just Springburn but the wider north-east of Glasgow. They reminded me that not long ago, the Springburn area had four bank branches. All those branches have now closed—a familiar story in constituencies across the UK, as the last Government presided over 9,500 bank branch closures. Those closures caused massive damage to our high streets and shopping centres and made banking much more difficult for too many. When those closures occurred, the post office was always designated as the place for people to continue to access their bank. In fact, when Lloyds bank announced yesterday plans to close its own high street stores, it said that people should go to the post office to continue using banking services, but how can people do that if there are no local post offices left?

The reality is that Springburn Crown post office really is the last bank in town, and now even that is at risk. It is profoundly unfair for my constituents to find themselves in this worrying situation, and they deserve urgent reassurance that Springburn post office will not close. That is the appeal I am making to the Government today, and it is also the case being made by the local community. Indeed, the vice-chair of Spirit of Springburn, Emma Porter, has written to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to do just that— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady will recognise that she was on a time limit, and in order to accommodate all the other Members who wish to speak, I am going to reduce it to five minutes. I call Matt Vickers. \p Matt Vickers: I thank the Members who brought this important debate forward. For generations, the local post office has been the beating heart of our towns and villages. That is certainly the case in Stockton and Thornaby. It has been more than just a place to send and receive mail; it has been a cornerstone of community life and a trusted space where people access essential services, stay connected with loved ones and support their businesses. Yet today, we stand at a crossroads. The pressure of modern technology, financial constraints and shifting consumer habits have placed our post offices under real threat, and all those challenges have been made so much worse by the Government’s national insurance tax raid and the slashing of business rates relief.

There are threats to the future of the post offices in Stockton and Thornaby. In Stockton, our post office has changed location over the decades but has been ever present and ever valued. It was hoped that a franchise in a retailer could protect its future, but the impact of the national insurance tax raid and the slashing of business rates relief are forcing retailers across the country to  close stores and axe jobs. In Stockton and Yarm, the impact is compounded by the Labour council’s introduction of short-stay parking charges.

Retail is one of the most important sectors in the country. It is the largest private sector employer in our economy and often sits at the very heart of our communities, and it is the biggest social mobility driver around. In the last few weeks, however, we have seen fantastic retail giants, including Sainsbury’s and Tesco, axing jobs and killing opportunities. In Stockton, we have heard the sad news of WHSmith’s closure. The store has hosted the post office, but it looks set to close its doors as a result of the Government’s war on high streets. I have met representatives of the Post Office to share my concerns about the impact that the closure will have on so many of my residents, particularly the elderly. The current post office is not due to close until May, and it has committed to working with me to look at alternative franchisees and locations in the town. I am delighted that a number of potential operators have already shown an interest.

In Thornaby, the situation remains concerning but unclear. The local postmaster has a lease, but the community were recently shaken when a planning application went forward for a Pizza Hut to take the post office’s place. The community spoke and put forward their objections, and the application was rejected. There are fears of an appeal. I have engaged with the post office and the town centre as recently as this morning, and hope remains that we can find a way forward.

The post offices in Stockton and Thornaby are essential. Their closure would not simply mean the loss of a building; it would mean the loss of convenience, social interaction, footfall in the town centre and economic stability for many. Given the recent announcement that NatWest is closing its Stockton branch, our post offices are absolutely vital to our local towns. I am determined and hopeful, and will do everything I can to keep our post offices’ doors open in Stockton and Thornaby. \p Luke Akehurst: I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this debate, which, as is shown by the number of hon. Members wishing to participate, is incredibly timely—not least because later today, coincidentally, I will present a petition to the House about the potential closure of Chester-le-Street post office in my constituency of North Durham.

Chester-le-Street is one of the 115 Crown post offices at risk of closure following Post Office Ltd’s announcement that it is reviewing the future of its directly managed branches. This is worrying not only for those who are employed in those branches, but for the many people who use post office services, and for the high street—in Chester-le-Street, we would say the “front street”—businesses that rely on the footfall and passing trade that post offices bring.

The post office in Chester-le-Street has been at the heart of the community in North Durham since 1936; indeed, it is one of only a tiny number of post offices that bear the cypher of King Edward VIII. Chester-le-Street has lost most of its high street banking branches in recent years, so it is more important than ever that this vital hub and delivery office remains open and accessible for my constituents. Over 650 people have signed the  petition that I will present later, which calls on the Post Office to ensure that the Chester-le-Street branch remains open.

The Post Office’s corporate website rightly describes the corporation as

“an anchor of UK communities for centuries”,

and says that it is

“driven by a strong social purpose: to be here, in person, for the people who rely on us.”

I could not agree more. We must ensure that in Chester-le-Street and the other places that hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon, post office branches remain open “in person”—to use the words on the Post Office’s corporate website—on our high streets and in our town centres, so that they can provide the services that local people rely on. \p Richard Tice: Wherever we grew up in the United Kingdom, we all remember the post office and our parents imbuing us with the sense that it was one of the things that we could rely on and trust in a changing world. There are many reasons for that, one of which is the long-serving and always interested staff. In rural areas—Boston and Skegness has many rural areas—post office staff are important in helping people in villages, small towns and communities, particularly the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable, to use certain services. When we were growing up, we did not have the digital devices we have now.

In the many brilliant contributions today, we have heard that post office staff know their customers. They know who is healthy and who might be struggling. If someone does not appear on their regular day, at their usual time, they might say, “Where is Mrs Smith?”. That is massively important in our communities. This is not just about money; it is about the asset value of post offices in our communities. We and all the post offices on the frontline have been let down by decades of mismanagement.

In Boston, WHSmith has a post office franchise, and yes, it is closing, which has caused great consternation. Sadly, WHSmith has not been well managed as a retailer. People are concerned that the replacement will be much smaller, and they cannot understand why services are being withdrawn. If we are trying to make post offices more viable, surely they should have more services, not fewer. The operators and owners of the post office in Swineshead cannot understand why services such as the sale of premium bonds and fishing licences, or the payment of tax and national insurance to HMRC, have all been withdrawn. That makes the post office less viable.

All our communities, towns and tiny villages are different, so surely we need to be massively flexible, whether we have a stand-alone post office, or one in a franchise, a library or a village hall. I was delighted when there was a pub in the village hall; maybe we could have a post office in a pub. I digress, but Members can see my point.

Post offices are the most important part of communities, and it is the elderly and the vulnerable who need them most. That is why I hope that the Government, given all their challenges, remember that this is not about the money. It is about the asset—the community hub of the post office. \p Jessica Toale: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this debate. Members across the House have spoken eloquently about the importance of their local post office, particularly at a time when high streets across the country are suffering. Shops have closed, and banks have left or are leaving the high street. The post office is usually the remaining thriving hub of activity on the high street.

Last year, residents found out from media reports that the future of Westbourne post office was uncertain. There was no prior consultation, and no input from those who use it daily. Many of them wrote to me with their concerns about the loss of such an essential community asset, and I share their worries about the possible loss of such a popular and well-used service.

At the end of November, we launched a petition to save this much-loved post office. To date, more than 2,200 people in the area have signed it. As part of the petition, I asked people to share what they love so much about the post office and what it means to them, and I have been inundated with messages from local residents. It is essential to businesses that use its services, and to the disabled and elderly, who need it for banking, paying bills and accessing government services. It always has a queue coming out of the door. It has been described as a lifeline and the heart of the community. I will read out a few of the responses I received, to give the House a sense of the importance of our post office. One reads:

“It is an essential service for so many in the area. I am disabled and I can’t travel further to deal with the things the Post Office helps with. It’s nearly always busy, with queues out of the door. To remove it is sheer madness”.

Another response reads:

“The Post Office has been open since 1910 and is an essential part of Westbourne village. It serves as a vital resource for elderly residents like me, who may not know how to use the internet and no longer have any banks in the area”.

Another person said:

“As a manager of a local charity shop, the post office is integral to our day to day running as provides banking opportunities and enables us to send stock. We use it for stationery and supplies. It’s a vital part of the community”.

That is just a snapshot of the responses I have received from different sections of the community. They show that the post office is not simply a business; it is an essential for many people who use it.

I have heard from the Post Office that no decisions have been made yet about the future of the branch. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), I have heard that the branch is losing money, but I have not seen any evidence of that. I know a franchise model is being explored, which may have benefits. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for raising the issue of WHSmith. We are concerned locally about the franchise model because our branch of WHSmith has just closed in the town centre, not far from the post office branch. Understandably, there is scepticism locally about relying on that model, when we have just seen the loss of a post office, with no plan to replace it, despite the high demand for its services.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to the Post Office, the financial support that has been outlined, and the forthcoming Green Paper. That shows that the  Government understand the importance of post offices to communities. In his closing remarks, I hope the Minister can reassure us that there will be no impact on the quality of services that communities get, and that he is exploring all options—for example, the possibility of providing services, including banking services, through hubs, or offering Government services in post offices to make them viable and keep them in communities. I reassure my constituents in Bournemouth West that I will continue to fight for the post office in Westbourne, and the ones in the town centre. \p Claire Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing the debate. Having asked for a post office debate at business questions only two weeks ago, I was delighted when he secured this one.

In rural areas, such as my Thornbury and Yate constituency, post offices provide vital services that enable people to live their life. Since 2015, over 6,000 bank branches have closed across the country, making it harder for people to access their cash and use banking services. Many have been reassured that they can still access those core services through their post office, but now even that is at risk.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on the importance of post offices to e-commerce. When I made my recent visit to my local sorting office, I was told that the Royal Mail is now a parcel delivery service with a sideline in delivering mail. Obviously, post offices play an important role in e-commerce and, in doing so, support local businesses.

The recent news that the Post Office was looking to close 115 Crown post offices was a huge blow; one of those post offices is in Yate. Residents tell me that it feels like a done deal, not a proposal open for discussion. When I met the area manager, although she said that no decisions had been made, there seemed to be a strong leaning towards moving all post offices to the franchising model, with all the risks that hon. Members have already mentioned. \p Paul Kohler: Raynes Park has an important high street in my constituency. There are no banks in Raynes Park, so our solitary post office is a vital lifeline, allowing residents and businesses alike to access banking, bill payments and traditional postal services. However, it is one of 115 Crown branches at risk, and my constituents are very concerned about the uncertainty. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be giving assurances now, to provide communities with peace of mind, particularly the old and digitally excluded? \p Claire Young: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, having seen the anxiety that the threat of closure is provoking in my constituents.

Yate post office is very busy; there are often significant queues of people waiting to access services. It is rather unusual, because it shares its space with the local sorting office, which operates from the second floor of the building. The quality of service would be negatively impacted if it were squeezed into another existing business. Yate and Chipping Sodbury have also lost several banks on the high street, with many people being told, as I said  earlier, that they could rely on the post office instead. Now, even that is at risk, with Yate listed by the Post Office as one branch it is seeking to close. Residents are rightly angry about that, with more than a thousand signing my petition to keep the post office open.

Sadly, it is not just the Crown post offices that are threatened with closure. We recently had confirmation that the post office in Cromhall is set to close, due to the closure of the village shop in which it is based. That means that the neighbouring outreach branch in Tytherington, which is overseen by the same sub-postmaster, is also at risk. The sub-postmaster told me how the post office at Tytherington is busier than the one in Cromhall, fuelled by the fact that nearly all the banks in nearby Thornbury have closed. Indeed, Lloyds has added itself to the list today. Tytherington post office also has strong support from customers using Royal Mail services for businesses, as it has a sizeable free car park, making it convenient for them to bring their parcels, letters and banking to the post office counter. Despite that, the Post Office refuses to allow the Tytherington branch to become a stand-alone site, and that is causing huge concern for residents.

The Tytherington branch is well supported and is an essential service for residents, many of whom do not have private cars. There is no public transport in the village, meaning that the loss of the post office would leave some people utterly cut off. The post office is based in the thriving community shop, which is run by volunteers and also provides a vital service to the local community. In the wake of the news, a grassroots petition supporting the post office in Tytherington has gained more than 800 signatures in just over a week. However, the Post Office said to me that it would not review its decision because,

“In the area there is a Main Post Office at Thornbury and a Local branch at Alveston—both are within 3 miles of Tytherington.”

That is completely tone deaf and ignores the lack of public transport. What are those without cars meant to do?

The Post Office has said it is keen to explore a new outreach service and the possibility of a new branch, but all that will take time, especially as it is contingent upon finding a new sub-postmaster to do it. It even admits that it is likely the branch will close before an alternative can be found. That means that in just a few weeks’ time, no immediate service will be available in the village. I will do all I can to make sure we secure a post office service at Tytherington and in Yate.

In closing, I ask the Minister: does he agree that relying solely on the franchising model of post offices carries risk and that there are benefits to preserving the stand-alone offices? Will he also commit to supporting community outreach post offices based in thriving community shops? \p Mark Sewards: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this debate. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) has already summarised a lot of the excellent contributions from the Government side.

It is clear from today’s debate that we all know that post office branches are essential to our local communities and the local economy. It saddens me that this Government  inherited a Post Office in such a precarious position. Having discussed the matter with senior Post Office staff and the Minister, I know that the organisation is facing serious financial challenges, and I am grateful for the engagement of the Government and the Minister on the issue. That forms the backdrop to the announcement that the Post Office is considering the future of the remaining 115 directly managed branches, which has been referenced countless times today, with a franchising model being considered for them.

I remain especially concerned about the future of the Morley post office on Queen Street. Morley sits in the heart of my constituency. It is a town of around 50,000 people and one of the key locations that people come to for financial services and shops. The directly managed branch is vital for my constituents and for those who rely on the services that it provides, and I have been looking for certainty that it will remain on the high street where it belongs. I know the strength of feeling from my constituents, as more than 2,500 people have signed my petition to keep the branch open. It is clear that after the closure of many bank branches across Morley, the post office is a lifeline for those who need it. The numbers back that up—it is not just my testimony. While other directly managed branches have seen a 34% drop in footfall since 2019 because of the pandemic, the Morley post office is only 3% down. We use our post office.

A word on bank branches and banking hubs: I have been actively pursuing a banking hub for Morley town centre, especially with the recent news that NatWest is due to pull out of the town this year. NatWest even pointed to the post office on its way out and said, “Don’t worry—you have that service there,” despite the threat of closure. I have been in touch with Link, one of the organisations that determines which areas gets banking hubs, and it tells me that Morley does not yet meet the criteria for a banking hub because we still have one branch left. While I have many questions about the criteria, we will have to save them for another debate and another time.

While Morley does not meet Link’s criteria, and while I continue to have those discussions with Link, we cannot have a situation where my post office closes. Thankfully, the continued operation of Morley’s post office will not prevent us from securing a banking hub in future, so there is no reason why we should not do everything in our power to keep the post office open, and that is exactly what I am doing. As I stated, the branch is very much in demand. It is used by local businesses that trade on our high street. Business owners such as Castlepoint, which owns and operates Morley market, have contacted me directly about their concerns about the branch closing.

Post Office research shows that three in 10 SMEs use a post office once a week, whether to post parcels to customers or deposit their cash takings. Losing this branch, which is surrounded by so many businesses in Morley, would make us all worse off. I know that the direction of travel for the Post Office is to move towards the franchising model that we have heard so much about today, and I remain hopeful that a suitable postmaster will be found to take over the branch, but I am also clear that the branch should remain on the high street. Having it in an accessible place in Morley town centre is  very important for both residents and businesses, and I will continue to make that case as strongly as I can. It is why I have requested that those interested in taking over the franchise in Morley contact me. I am keen to support their bids, assuming that they are in the best interests of Morley and the town centre.

Finally, I ask the Minister whether there is any threat to the number of services that a directly managed branch can offer if it transitions to a franchised branch. I reassure all my communities in Leeds South West and Morley that I will work tirelessly to ensure that this branch remains open. It is crucial that the services that the post office provides in Morley town centre remain there for many years to come. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Clive Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing the debate. The contributions throughout have been unified in highlighting that post offices are a focal point of our communities. They are a vital part of our society and our high streets, with millions of people depending on them every week. They are community hubs, providing access to communication, banking and other vital services. That is particularly important for those with restricted access, such as older people or those in more rural populations with little email connectivity. There are villages that fit that exact description in my constituency of Wokingham, such as Finchampstead, Swallowfield and Hurst. That is why I am deeply concerned about the news that 115 post office branches may be closed, with around 1,000 jobs at risk of being lost. It has the potential to increase social isolation for some of the most vulnerable groups in the UK.

I am especially concerned that the Post Office is reviewing proposals to replace existing branches. Specifically, it is looking for alternatives to its wholly owned branches, and considering franchise arrangements where a third party could take them on instead. That opens up lots of risks. In my constituency of Wokingham, the post office in Hurst was unexpectedly closed a few weeks ago. It was located in a shop that many considered a pillar of the community. Through no fault of the post office, the tenants running the shop had to close its doors. Losing a post office can really harm a small village such as Hurst, and the proposed solution that people should travel to Wokingham or Twyford to access services is simply not possible for all residents. Public transport links are limited, and those who rely on the post office are less likely to drive.

If the Post Office estate is reliant on third parties, it has no control, and there is the worrying potential that situations like that in Hurst will become increasingly commonplace. A future in which losing a local service once means that it is gone forever—very few are replaced once they are gone—with little chance of appeal is a failure of Government policy. That is especially relevant considering the potential loss of 500 WHSmith shops across the UK, many of which house post office branches, such as the one in Wokingham town centre.

The high street is struggling and the Government need to act urgently to turn things around. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Post  Office is on a sustainable footing for the long term? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that none of the 115 post offices will close until a consultation with each local community has been undertaken? Has the Minister met representatives from the Post Office to draw up plans in case it loses hundreds of its sites due to WHSmith’s financial issues?

The BBC reported today that Ofcom has proposed cutting the delivery of second-class letters to every other weekday and scrapping deliveries on Saturdays. That would harm services for millions of households and small businesses. Royal Mail executives should be working night and day to turn the company around and fix the postal service. The new owners agreed to the existing delivery targets when they took over the company, and they should stick to them. I would appreciate it if the Minister could address my points and offer reassurances that our communities will receive the great service they deserve.

Post office branches provide a place to do banking for millions of people across the country, and that is the case in Wokingham, but another area of concern is the lack of resilience in our local financial services. The WHSmith-located post office in Wokingham is too small and the staff are too busy with all their other tasks. One constituent had to wait about 45 minutes to withdraw £15. That is why I and local campaigners like Lynn Forbes hope that we can get a banking hub. However, our application has been declined. If the WHSmith in Wokingham town centre were to close, our already limited options would be reduced further.

Link, which provides the banking hubs, is encouraged within the current legislation to consider the protection of face-to-face banking, but it is not explicitly empowered to take that into account when making a final decision on whether to establish a banking hub. Instead, it just focuses on cash access. Will the Minister explain why the protection of face-to-face services is not considered, and will he introduce further legislation to require their protection? \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Harriett Baldwin: This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing it and thank the Backbench Business Committee for awarding it. A consistent theme throughout the debate has been the important role the post office plays in communities across our land, providing what the hon. Member beautifully described as friendly access to key services that connect people, that service communities, particularly those without banks, and that help those unable to use the internet to connect to Government services. In West Worcestershire, we are fortunate enough to have 31 post offices, including some mobile services, and I put on record my thanks to all the friendly sub-postmasters and mistresses who provide those services.

Over the course of the debate we heard about places across the UK: Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, South West Devon, South East Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland, Bermondsey and Old Southwark, South West Hertfordshire, Chelsea and Fulham, Didcot and Wantage, Glasgow North East, Stockton West, North Durham, Boston and Skegness, Bournemouth West, Thornbury and Yate, Leeds South West and Morley, and Wokingham, and in  interventions we heard about Newton Abbot, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Basildon and Billericay, Dulwich, and Tiverton and Minehead. And I dare say, Madam Deputy Speaker, you feel strongly about the post office in Romsey. We can see just how incredibly valuable that network of friendly institutions is across the country.

I am afraid to say, however—and I break it gently to the Minister—that Labour’s Budget of broken promises is threatening that network. Through the national insurance jobs tax, the hike in business rates and the incoming employment regulations, Labour is hiking the cost of doing business, as swathes of post offices are facing tens of millions more in tax and red tape. Those pressures mean that the Post Office has been forced into assessing the future of more than 100 Crown post office branches. Rumours abound that when the Green Paper is published, it may include a consultation on the reduction in the number of post offices to below 11,500. Will the Minister put paid to that speculation by telling the House when the Green Paper will be published?

As the Post Office and its branch network are major employers, with more than 50,000 full-time equivalent workers, another impact is that the Post Office could face an extra £45 million bill as a result of the national insurance hike, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Post offices are often eligible for retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, and they face a huge increase in their business rates as the relief falls from 75% to 40%. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the Employment Rights Bill will cost businesses across the country £4.5 billion. Proportionately, given that Post Office has 50,000 employees, the Bill will cost the Post Office over £8 million. The House does not have to take that from me; I will quote the chairman of the Post Office, Nigel Railton:

“It almost goes without saying: we are a business in need of a fresh start – and urgently… And at the recent Budget, we saw…costs rise with National Insurance Contributions, National Living Wage and business rates.” \p Neil Coyle: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Harriett Baldwin: I will. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not like hearing that news. \p Neil Coyle: It has nothing to do with hearing the news. I just wonder whether the shadow Minister can remind us how of many Crown post offices were lost while she was in government. \p Harriett Baldwin: I am just getting to that—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely on point with where I am going. Sadly, it was under the previous Labour Government that the network really shrank in a major way, when the number of post offices went into sharp decline, before it then stabilised in the 2010s. In fact, during the entire time that we were in coalition with our Liberal Democrat colleagues, and then in government ourselves, the network remained above that 11,500 figure. It takes action, as we have heard clearly this afternoon, to maintain that precious network. \p Neil Coyle: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Harriett Baldwin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, thank you very much. \p Neil Coyle: But you did not answer my question. \p Harriett Baldwin: I have given way.

The previous Government worked to enter into a new partnership with post offices and came up with the idea that people could confirm their identity in person. That is a way of using that valuable network across the land. We recognise that vulnerable people sometimes struggle to verify their identity online. We also began the initiative to help communities dealing with bank closures by setting up a network of banking hubs. I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm earlier today that he will continue backing banking hub delivery through the Post Office, but does he consider that the framework negotiations between the Post Office and the banks, which are in their final stages, are going well?

One year on from ITV’s historic programme “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for all he did to address the issues raised in that programme. Can the Minister detail the progress his Government are making on the compensation for sub-postmasters?

I want to raise the issue of Fujitsu, which designed the Horizon IT system that has destroyed so many lives and livelihoods. Under the previous Government, there were discussions with Fujitsu about providing a share of the compensation to the victims of the Horizon scandal, and Fujitsu confirmed that it will pause bids for Government contracts until the public inquiry is concluded. However, this month it was reported that the Government have awarded new contracts to Fujitsu. When Labour was in opposition, many Labour Members criticised awards made to Fujitsu, so can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s current approach? \p Ben Coleman: The hon. Lady mentions the Horizon scandal. Is she of the opinion that the previous Government’s failure to address the Horizon scandal over such a long period of time and the billions of pounds that have had to be spent sorting out the mess since then have nothing to do with the financial problems that the Post Office now finds itself in? \p Harriett Baldwin: I do not want to politicise this too much, because I think that had gone on for a long period of time, and the inquiry took a lot of evidence last year. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton played a remarkable role in exonerating so many people, and in setting up the public inquiry.

My next question to the Minister is: could he provide an update on what he is hearing through his channels about when the inquiry may publish its report. It finished taking public evidence at the end of last year, and I anticipate it may publish that later this year, but does he have an update on that for the House? Does he have any plans to compensate sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were victims of Horizon’s predecessor systems—the Capture and ECCO systems that predated Horizon—and does he have plans to quash any convictions arising from those two systems?

In the spending review, how much public money is the Minister requesting to put in a replacement for the Horizon system? Can he tell us how many post offices currently benefit from small business rate relief, and what are the Government plans about continuing that  throughout this Parliament? Further to the question from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about today’s worrying announcement from Ofcom that second class post may be delivered only every other weekday and not on Saturdays, what discussions is the Minister having with Ofcom to prevent this further attack on the demand for our precious postal services?

To conclude, we have heard how incredibly important this precious network of friendly people across our land is to this country, with those 11,500 post offices and the distance requirements that are in place. After hearing from so many colleagues, will the Minister reassure the House that he will sustain that network throughout the life of this Parliament. Prevention is so much better than cure. Let us all focus on supporting our much-loved post offices in any way we can to continue the wonderful work that they do up and down the country. \p Gareth Thomas: I echo the thanks to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this important debate. There have been some very clear and consistent messages from across the House to the Government in this debate, and I pay tribute to the passion with which hon. Members on all sides of the House have raised key constituency concerns, as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) said.

We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) has particular concerns about Didsbury post office. We also heard from the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), and I know you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have concerns in this space, too.

Post offices provide hugely important everyday services to millions of people across our country. Communities rightly expect to have access to those essential services, just as they would to a GP surgery, a primary school or neighbourhood police. That is because, as many Members made clear, post offices are the very beating heart of our towns and villages.

As our economy has modernised and evolved, so too have our local post offices. Today they are so much more than a place to send letters and parcels. They act as high street banks, as many have said, as access points for some Government services, and as community hubs for an array of different activities, generating crucial social capital. Indeed, after the unearthing of the Horizon  scandal, the nation’s unanimous support for sub-postmasters and their campaign for redress and exoneration shows how revered the post office and its workers are by the British public—by all of us.

We are working as fast as we can to give sub-postmasters the compensation they deserve, and we are indeed exploring what further steps we can take. But since the end of June, in just the six months that we have been in office, more than 1,000 more sub- postmasters who are victims of the scandal have received compensation. The amount paid out in redress has increased by over £355 million, more than double the amount that had been paid out at the time of the general election. As of 3 January, almost £600 million had been paid to over 3,800 sub-postmasters across all four main compensation schemes. Also as of 3 January, the GLO—group litigation order—scheme had received 453 claims of which 370 are fully complete and the remaining 83 are being assessed for their completeness or undergoing a request for further information that would unlock a more generous offer of compensation. We expect then to have paid substantial redress, even if the claims are not fully settled, to the majority of GLO claimants by 31 March. But let me be clear: there are still complex cases to resolve and there is still much more to do in terms of compensation.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire, speaking for the Opposition, asked about Capture. We have identified a number of gaps in the compensation process. We published in particular the Kroll report into what had happened in terms of the Post Office use of the Capture software prior to the installation of the Horizon system. We are beginning to talk to sub-postmasters who used the Capture software about redress going forward so that we can design an effective redress scheme. The hon. Lady and the House may be aware that there are a number of cases where there were convictions that appear to relate to use of the Capture software by the Post Office that are with the Criminal Cases Review Commission at the moment.

The hon. Lady also asked about the timing of when we might hear the Sir Wyn Williams conclusions. As she will understand, we as the Government do not want in any way to be seen to be rushing Sir Wyn Williams. We have heard a similar timescale as her—sometime later this year—and we will all wait with considerable interest for the conclusions.

The hon. Lady also asked about the Ofcom consultation. I stress that it is still a consultation. Ofcom will be consulting for some 10 weeks and, as she would expect, we will be fully engaged in that process.

On the future of the post office, we all know that our high streets have faced huge challenges in recent years. In some cases, the presence of a post office on a high street has been a game changer in driving footfall and attracting custom to other businesses. The public—as many Members have alluded to, it is often the elderly, those who use cash and those who are digitally excluded—rely on the post office for essential services. It is therefore right that the Government hold the Post Office to account to ensure that there is enough postal service provision across the country, and I recognise my particular responsibility in that regard.

We protect the post office network by setting minimum access criteria. With a network of this size, we are likely to see fluctuation in the number of branches open at any one time, but crucially, the access criteria ensure that regardless of how the network changes, services  remain within local reach of people at all times. The Government recognise the key role that post offices play in their communities and how branches in rural areas in particular often act as community hubs. We are listening carefully to stakeholders to ensure that the whole network, including those branches, is sustainable. \p Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that the manner in which the Post Office allowed the information about the closure of directly managed branches to come into the public domain was unacceptable? What is he doing to ensure that the Post Office treats communities with better respect than that in the future? \p Gareth Thomas: I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are where we are, and it is important that we move forward. I will come to the question of directly managed branches in a second.

To ensure that we are planning properly for the future, we will publish a Green Paper before the summer to seek the public’s views, insights and experiences to help shape the future of the Post Office. In the meantime, we are taking steps to continue to support the network. Along with the annual £50 million subsidy, we have provided a further £37.5 million to support the Post Office network next year.

Our thinking on the future of the post office will also be influenced by Sir Wyn Williams’s conclusions. We continue to support and encourage the chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, to shift the focus of the Post Office away from headquarters and towards postmasters. The Post Office, with our support, is reviewing its costs, as its financial position continues to be challenging. We are working with the senior leadership at the Post Office on future opportunities, beginning with banking, so that the company can increase its product offers and commercial revenue going forward. The Post Office has set up a new consultative council that will work with senior management on how these new plans are taken forward. It is a first, but none the less important step to change the culture of the Post Office.

Building a sustainable future for the Post Office is imperative. It has had many false new starts. Nearly half of its branches are not profitable or make only a small profit from post office business. Postmaster pay has not increased materially for a decade. Mr Railton is looking to deliver a reduction in the Post Office’s costs and, as I have alluded to, an increase in its commercial revenues. He has also set out an intention to transform the service and the support that postmasters receive from the Post Office, which we have strongly encouraged. He has announced ambitions for a new deal for postmasters, and I am pleased that the Post Office recently made a £20 million immediate one-off payment to postmasters to increase their remuneration.

On the future of directly managed branches, I appreciate that it is challenging for communities that lose their post office service. I speak from experience, having had Harrow’s directly managed branch close in 2016 and transfer to a franchise service instead. I am always happy to challenge the Post Office on specific concerns that Members have at constituency level. However, the Post Office operates as a commercial business, and the company has the freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters we set.

I know there is concern about the future of DMBs, and it is important to underline that no definitive decisions have been taken on the future of any individual directly managed branch. I have made clear to the Post Office that there must be discussions with unions and other key stakeholders. I am pleased to hear that the Post Office has seen positive engagement from independent postmasters and strategic partners, who have expressed their interest in taking on DMBs. It is encouraging that there continues to be such interest in the chance to run a post office. \p Neil Coyle: I look forward to working with the Minister on the future of the franchise in my constituency. Is he aware that there were 373 Crown post offices in 2010 but that by 2024 that number had fallen to 115? The shadow Minister either did not know that figure or did not want to admit it. \p Gareth Thomas: Funnily enough, I am aware of that statistic; my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully.

We were clear in our manifesto that that we would seek to strengthen the Post Office network in consultation with postmasters, trade unions and customers, and that remains very much our ambition. That is one of the reasons why we are working closely with the Post Office in providing funding to support the replacement of the Horizon computer system. The Post Office’s future lies particularly in cash and banking. With the right support from the financial services industry and engagement with groups such as Cash Access UK, there is clearly more that the Post Office could offer on the high street through banking hubs and the Post Office network. We are beginning to work with the Post Office to improve its banking offer on the high street.

The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Post Office. It is a national asset that provides an invaluable public service in all our constituencies. There are certainly challenges ahead, but we continue to work with the Post Office to ensure that it is fit for the future. We always welcome views on the network. I thank those hon. Members who secured the debate and all other hon. Members for their contributions. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Gideon Amos to wind up. \p Gideon Amos: I have learned today from the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) that Postman Pat is the model to follow, and just like Postman Pat himself, post office services may change, but they must not wither. We have also heard how much of a trusted institution our post offices are. The word “trust” came through several times from the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). We should never forget that it is the staff in those post offices and, of course, the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were so horrendously treated by the Horizon scandal who make post offices what they are and why they are so important to our communities.

My hon. Friends and hon. Members across House are clearly great champions of their local post offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage  (Olly Glover) mentioned his post office’s lost cats service, which I was interested to hear about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) mentioned the outreach service. To paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), in Wellington in my constituency the postal service was fixed so many times it was definitely broken, and now we no longer have one at all for a town of 15,000 people.

Many other hon. Members highlighted the importance of post offices as hubs for their communities, including the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). I completely agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that the King’s Road without a post office seems unimaginable. I wish him well in his campaign.

I was somewhat disappointed that the Minister did not comment on the fact that banking hubs, which are being created around the country, are not providing post office services despite having “Post Office” written on the outside of the building. I would very much like to follow that up with the Minister on another occasion; it seems an obvious solution. As the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire said, securing the next agreement for banking hubs is incredibly important, and we certainly support the Government in achieving that.

Finally, I congratulate the hon. Members for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on their petitions. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is also continuing his excellent house-sitting services by sitting in the House this afternoon and making sure that the debate went on as needed.

I will leave the House with a couple of quotations from my petition about the post office in Wellington. One petitioner said:

“I feel so sorry for those people without a car—particularly the frail and elderly. They have to trek in all winds and weather”

to the next village several miles away. They continued:

“You see so many villages with their own post office, yet a growing town like Wellington doesn’t—it’s bizarre.”

Mary said:

“Why was it not considered at the same time as the banking hub, as it’s run by the post office?”

The first citizen of Wellington, our mayor, said that

“since 2019 when the…Post Office closed, at least two business owners”

tried to operate postal services but found that the funding given did not make it a viable option. That is why we desperately need a main post office for the town of Wellington and its 15,000 people.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of local Post Office services. \p Luke Akehurst: I wish to present a petition relating to the potential closure of the post office in Chester-le-Street, which has been at the heart of the community in North Durham since 1936.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of North Durham,

Declares that Chester-le-Street Post Office, which provides vital services to local residents is at risk of closure; and notes that 658 people have signed a similar online petition on this matter.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the Post Office to ensure that Chester-le-Street Post Office can remain open.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003039] \p Matt Vickers: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of Stockton West. Yarm has the most beautiful high street in the country, with an amazing offer of retail and hospitality businesses. However, it faces a huge threat, as the Labour council is set to axe one-hour free parking, which poses a real risk to the high street, its businesses and jobs.

Supported by local councillors Andrew Sherris, John Coulson and Dan Fagan, more than 2,500 people have signed a similar petition online to protect Yarm’s one-hour free parking. I welcome the opportunity to present the petition today.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Stockton West,

Declares that Stockton Council must keep Yarm’s free 1-hour parking; further declares that free parking is crucial for supporting local businesses, encouraging footfall, and helping Yarm’s economy thrive; and further notes that the Council’s changes to eliminate 1-hour free parking risks harming small businesses and deterring shoppers.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the high street in Yarm is supported with free 1-hour parking.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003040] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Sally Jameson: I am grateful for the opportunity to make the case in this Chamber for the repair and refurbishment of Doncaster Royal Infirmary. This is not the first time I have raised this issue in this place, such is its importance to my constituents. Doncaster Royal Infirmary is at the heart of our community in Doncaster. For many of us, including myself, it is where we were born and rely on during some of the most difficult and painful moments of our lives. It is with great sadness that I come to this Chamber to say that after consistent underfunding, our hospital is in dire need of repair.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the NHS staff who have dedicated their careers to caring for the patients at the hospital. When I worked as a prison officer, I spent many hours on escorts at DRI and saw for myself the commitment of its staff. We live in a time where pressures on the NHS are immense, and staff across the country face unbearable conditions as they try to support patients in a system that desperately needs reform. I am pleased that this Government are committed to enacting change within our NHS for the benefit of both patients and the staff who treat them.

In Doncaster, our dedicated NHS staff face added pressure. Doncaster Royal Infirmary faces one of the highest repair backlogs in the country. The East Ward tower block, which houses some of the most vulnerable patients, faces critical infrastructure risks and safety concerns, and therefore is at the very top of the Doncaster and Bassetlaw teaching hospitals’ list of priorities. Other areas with a backlog of repairs include operating theatres, the critical care department and the women and children’s hospital. \p Lee Pitcher: As my hon. Friend will know, in April 2021 a leak occurred at the women’s hospital at Doncaster Royal Infirmary. The water then flooded the area and went into the electrical systems, and a fire broke out. Some 60 patients were impacted and had to be evacuated, including premature babies. Thanks to the efforts of the amazing hospital staff, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, no one was hurt, but the damage was substantial, and it impacted larger parts of the hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to learn from such incidents, and that it makes absolute sense, both financially and for people’s safety, to proactively manage repairs and do the maintenance that is required? \p Sally Jameson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that incident showcased how desperate the situation is. It is a testament to the staff and the team at the trust that no one was hurt, and that the repair work that needed to be done happened immediately. Other areas where a backlog remains include the operating theatres. According to the Doncaster Royal Infirmary refurbishment plan, the operating theatres at the hospital do not meet modern standards for space.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Sally Jameson: Across the hospital, there remains infrastructure that dates back to the 1930s. Imagine all the advancements we have made in science, innovation, technology and medicine since then, yet Doncaster patients are treated in a building that has not been updated in line with any of that. Most worryingly, a recent report concluded that there would be an “increased risk to life” were a fire to occur in Doncaster and Bassetlaw teaching hospitals. That is due to the age and infrastructure of the buildings, and the electrical works, which do not meet the needs of a modern-day hospital.

In spite of the catalogue of urgently needed repairs, Doncaster was not successful in its bid to secure a new hospital under the previous Government. Despite promises made by a string of Health Ministers, our application for crucial funding from the new hospital programme was denied by the Conservatives. That was a bitter blow to the community. We now know that the funding promised for the programme never existed—it was a work of fiction. That does not just affect the hospitals included in the programme; the implications ripple across all hospitals that desperately need investment.

In Doncaster, we are doing all we can to improve health provision for residents. That includes the work that Mayor Ros Jones and the trust are doing to set up health on the high street, providing appropriate health provision in the city centre. That will not only improve and quicken the service, but increase footfall on the high street. The trust announced in December that as part of a wider £19.8 million investment project, some refurbishment works will be completed at Doncaster Royal Infirmary. That is welcome, but it is not the overall solution.

As a result of not being included in the new hospital programme, the Doncaster and Bassetlaw hospital trust has come up with a thorough and extensive on-site rebuild and refurbishment plan. The estimated cost in 2023 for the full refurbishment and a new building in front of the east ward tower block was up to £356 million, the cost for work on the theatres £35 million, and a refurbishment of the women’s and children’s hospital, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), would cost up to £87 million. That would also help to generate some extra capacity, which is much needed in the current climate.

This week, I visited Doncaster Royal Infirmary with my hon. Friend and the Minister to show her the extent of the repair backlog, and to demonstrate the urgency with which we need action. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Health for meeting me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) this week to talk through the DRI refurbishment plan, and the support we need to get the rebuild work done. That work is also supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey). The plan lays out the detail of proposed refurbishment works, not just to clear the repair backlog, but to ensure that core services are protected and a safe site can be ensured for a minimum of 20 years.

I now ask the Government for action. I ask them for capital investment to clear the repair backlog, and to support the refurbishment and building programme, so that the people of Doncaster can access good-quality secondary care in a safe hospital. I ask the Government to support the staff at Doncaster Royal Infirmary in doing their jobs safely and effectively. I ask the Government to make sure that our hospital is fit for the future. \p Karin Smyth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) on securing a debate on this really important issue for her constituents. Since her election, she has been a committed champion for Doncaster Royal Infirmary, and I thank her for her tireless efforts. She is absolutely right that the promises made by the previous Government were hollow and built on sand. Even for the hospitals that made it into the new hospital programme, the money simply was not there. They let down the people of Doncaster.

On Monday, I had the privilege of visiting Doncaster Royal Infirmary, along with my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and witnessed the outstanding care that staff are providing despite significant infrastructure challenges. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the situation, and about the pressure that the staff find themselves under. Staff and patients deserve better than a hospital prone to floods, fires and equipment failures, some of which I saw for myself on Monday. Doncaster Royal Infirmary now has a backlog-of-maintenance bill of approximately £114 million, and the constant need for critical repairs leaves scarce resources for developing and enhancing facilities.

That is the reality facing Doncaster Royal Infirmary and hospitals nationwide after years of under-investment by the previous Government. Reversing the trend and repairing and rebuilding our hospital estate is a vital part of our ambition to create an NHS fit for the future. That is why the Chancellor announced that health capital spending is set to increase to £13.6 billion in 2025-26, representing record levels of capital investment in healthcare. I am pleased that works to address some of the most pressing issues at Doncaster Royal Infirmary are under way, with £19.8 million confirmed for the refurbishment and relocation of the critical care unit. That will deliver a safer and more accessible environment for the most vulnerable patients. Supporting projects are already in progress, including the relocation of the surgical same-day emergency care department. While I accept that this by no means addresses all the issues raised today, it is nevertheless a project that will deliver much-needed safety improvements.

NHS planning guidance published today sets out the NHS’s operational capital envelopes, national capital programmes and allocation processes for 2025-26. I recognise that the guidance will be of interest to Members who wish to understand the impacts on their constituencies, but as we are here to discuss Doncaster Royal Infirmary, I will focus on the funding opportunities available for that hospital.

The Government are backing the NHS with over £4 billion in operational capital in 2025-26 to empower local systems and ensure that funds are allocated according to local priorities. NHS England confirmed today that South Yorkshire integrated care board, which is responsible for Doncaster Royal Infirmary, has been allocated £107 million in operational capital to spend on its capital priorities next year. In addition to the annual operational capital allocations, the Government have allocated £750 million to an estates safety fund for 2025-26, which will focus on the worst safety risks across the NHS estate. South Yorkshire ICB has been  allocated £19 million of that funding on the basis of need, critical infrastructure risk, estates incidents, and the recent maternity estates survey.

Systems have been asked to prioritise their estate safety allocations to deliver maximum safety benefits locally. Their plans will be reviewed by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that national and regional priorities are addressed effectively and schemes represent value for money. In some cases, estates safety funding may also be used to initiate multi-year schemes when that represents the most effective approach. I strongly encourage the trust to discuss options with the ICB for allocating some of its operational capital and estates safety funding to repairs at Doncaster Royal Infirmary.

Let me also draw attention to the £1.35 billion of capital funding allocated for constitutional standards recovery in 2025-2026. Although it is not targeted directly at repairs, Doncaster Royal Infirmary may be able to benefit from some of the £24 million that has been allocated to South Yorkshire ICB to support its progress towards achieving constitutional standards for my hon. Friend’s constituents. I encourage the trust to explore possible options with the ICB that could address constitutional standards recovery as well as critical repairs, maximising value for money and, crucially, benefiting patients who deserve much better.

The Government recognise that, like Doncaster Royal Infirmary, many hospitals across the country need funding to overhaul their digital infrastructure. That is why we are investing more than £2 billion in NHS technology  and digital in 2025-26 to run essential services, increase productivity, improve cyber-security, enhance patient access, and ensure that all trusts have electronic patient records. I thank Doncaster and Bassetlaw trust for its co-operation on the implementation of a system-wide electronic patient record, and I want to reassure the trust that this investment in digital and technology will be available for projects beyond electronic patient records.

The Government understand that long-term certainty about capital funding will be essential to addressing the critical infrastructure issues at hospitals such as Doncaster Royal Infirmary, and across the NHS estate. Capital budgets beyond 2025-26 will be determined through the current spending review, which concludes in June 2025.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central for raising this important issue, and for her continued support, and that of her colleagues, for Doncaster Royal Infirmary. I extend my thanks to the staff of Doncaster Royal Infirmary for hosting my insightful visit, and for their candour in explaining to me how they have got into this situation in recent years. I hope to return when the new critical care unit is open. The Government are committed to repairing and rebuilding our hospital estate. It will take time—we have inherited a shocking situation—and I look forward to working with colleagues on this vital issue across the country in the coming years.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.