Al Pinkerton MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency we have had a 113% increase in our housing targets. A seven-year land supply has now dropped to little over three and a half years, making us susceptible to the very speculative developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he share my concern that in the circumstances in which speculative developments come forward, we lose the opportunity to plan strategically the infrastructure upgrades that a community needs, and each development brings only a small, incremental increase?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster. Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays. Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation. Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution. I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—

• 16 Dec 2025 · Grassroots Cricket Clubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate, despite what may be happening down under at the moment. Grassroots cricket plays a fundamental role in shaping us as individuals. Although such cricket clubs clearly help to keep us fit and healthy, their influence extends far beyond physical activity. They are often where we first learn what it means to be part of a team, and how to respond to frequent setbacks, stay motivated and take responsibility, both individually and collectively. I am sure that many Members present, as well as those of our constituents who are watching from home, will reflect on their own experiences of grassroots sport, whether in childhood or in later life, and recognise how profoundly those moments have stayed with them. Lessons learned on the pitch or in the clubhouse so often translate directly into later life, such as working with others towards a shared goal, striving to meet clear objectives, and developing the discipline required to train early in the morning or late into the evening, just as we do in our professional lives. Grassroots sport therefore contributes significantly to quality of life for individuals and families, building not only physical health but resilient, confident characters. I am very proud to have seven grassroots cricket clubs in my Surrey Heath constituency—Camberley, Frimley, Valley End, Bagshot, Chobham, Pirbright and Normandy —each of which plays a vital role in shaping lives and strengthening our community. These clubs support both children and adults, providing opportunities that promote physical and mental wellbeing. Indeed, my wife and son have both played for Camberley cricket club over recent seasons, so I have seen at first hand the positive impact that it has had on our whole family—I only wish that my diary as a Member of Parliament allowed for more time to watch my son play on sunny weekend afternoons. More broadly, those clubs have had a profound impact on the people they serve, particularly women and girls. Although girls are of course encouraged to participate in sport, there remain far too many barriers to their continued involvement, especially as they reach adolescence. Factors associated with puberty, including changes in body confidence, concerns around kit and facilities, and a lack of appropriate female role models or coaching provision can all contribute to girls disengaging from sport at a critical stage in their development. That is why access to welcoming, inclusive grassroots environments is so important. Outreach initiatives such as the ECB’s All Stars cricket programme play a vital role in encouraging girls and boys to start playing cricket early, build confidence and foster a sense of belonging before the effect of those barriers takes hold. Just as importantly, clubs that actively invest in girls’ pathways through dedicated coaching, suitable facilities and clear progression routes can help to ensure that participation does not fall away as girls grow older. This summer, I had the great privilege of visiting Pirbright cricket club to observe a training session involving girls and boys. Seeing girls confidently taking part in a summer training session, supported by coaches who understood their needs and fostered an inclusive culture, was a genuinely fantastic sight. It is so important to have environments just like that, where girls feel visible, and are supported and valued. However, it is also important to recognise the challenges that grassroots cricket clubs face. While my constituents are fortunate to benefit from seven clubs in the constituency, each with strong outreach and summer programmes, growing participation in cricket is limited in part by the availability of high-quality cricket grounds. A cricket pitch is a highly specialised and bespoke facility, and unlike football or rugby pitches, it does not easily lend itself to multi-purpose use. As a result, cricket facilities are too often overlooked in the planning of new developments and communities. That is why it is so welcome to see an exception at the new Mindenhurst development in my Surrey constituency, where a brand-new cricket pitch and pavilion are being created right now. Indeed, we are looking forward to the first summer of cricket on that ground in just a few months’ time. I truly hope that that example will be replicated across the country, ensuring that future communities have access to the facilities that they need in order to support and expand grassroots cricket for generations to come. With that in mind, I ask the Government: what investment and incentives are being put into grassroots sport infrastructure, particularly given the changes to the national planning policy framework and the overwriting of so many of the protections that are currently in the planning process? What steps will be taken to ensure that facilities such as cricket pitches are properly considered and provided for as part of future planning? Finally, I pay tribute to the volunteers, club coaches, PE teachers, participants and parents—and the parents who are also participants and volunteers—who dedicate their time, week after week, to supporting grassroots sport. Their commitment is the foundation on which those clubs that I have mentioned rely. I wish the best of luck to all the budding cricketers who are honing their skills in winter nets over the coming months, in readiness for next summer—some of whom may go on, one day, to represent their county or even their country.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Africa: New Approach · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are absolutely right to say that the United Kingdom needs a new relationship with Africa. Many Members in this House had hoped that that partnership would be sustainable, strategic and built on mutual trust. Africa, after all, has one of the youngest populations in the world and incredible economic potential, yet the Government are cutting aid to Africa by 12% this year alone, with further reductions likely in years to come. Over the last decade the Liberal Democrats criticised the constant churn in Ministers under the previous Conservative Government, and we are very disappointed that the Africa Minister has recently again been changed. That has come as hard news in continental Africa, where the Minister was appreciated and the hard work that had been undertaken was bearing fruit. Warm words are not enough when the overall trajectory that we see from the UK is arguably one of a diminishing partnership and diminishing influence. The Government are cutting overseas development aid from 0.7% to 0.3%—the lowest this country has ever seen—at a time when debt costs are rising in continental Africa. It is important to invest in the work of the FCDO, because trade commissioners, for example, provide the in-country expertise that is needed to develop the new economic relations that the Minister talks about. On migration, upstream investment in poverty reduction and conflict prevention is more important than ever, as is support for organisations such as the British Council. Africa is an essential strategic partner in an increasingly contested world, so may I ask the Minister directly, how can the Government seriously claim that they are strengthening partnerships and seeking to influence Africa while cutting aid and hollowing out the very tools that make engagement sustainable?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have been clear from the start: nothing should be happening to the Chagossian people without the full democratic input of Chagossians themselves, who, in the custom of other overseas territories citizens, we should recognise as a self-governing and self-determining people, even if the UK has deprived Chagossians access to their homeland for more than 50 years. Those principles, if they are to mean anything to our overseas territories family, must be both immutable and universal. In recognising that, I note that I am now joined by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which last week reported that the proposed agreement on the future of the Chagos islands should not be ratified on the grounds that it risks “perpetuating longstanding violations of the Chagossian people’s rights.” I am also concerned about the requirement—made, I think, explicit in the Minister’s statement yesterday—that Chagossian people will only be able to partake in the resettlement programme if, and only if, they accept Mauritian citizenship, even in circumstances where individuals and families have no historical connection, cultural or civic, to that state. Will the Minister therefore set out whether any negotiations have taken place that would have enabled Chagossians to exercise their right of return without being required to subscribe to Mauritian citizenship? Were there any discussions about a Hong Kong-style arrangement, whereby permanent residency and freedom of movement may have been granted outside of citizenship? Finally, how does the Minister reconcile last week’s UN report with his stated desire to conform with our international obligations?

• 9 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Customs Union (Duty to Negotiate) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with the European Union to agree a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and for connected purposes. Up and down the country, businesses know it, the public feel it and it is time that this House found the courage to lift our whispered voices and admit it: Brexit has been an abject economic failure. It has choked business investment, shattered economic resilience, strangled trade, shrunk the economy and left every single one of us poorer. The economic benefits of Brexit were only ever illusory and a mirage—the kind of shimmering promise you see in the desert in the midday heat that lures you towards it, only to find it always agonisingly out of reach; a promise that dissipates altogether as the cool of the evening returns. Well, that chill has descended, and now we can see clearly that the promises of 2016 and the oven-ready deals of 2021 were nothing more than the lukewarm figments of political opportunists who sought, and in some cases still seek, advantage in populism, in fragmentation and in fear. Far from “taking back control”, today our country feels more precarious than ever. We lurch from crisis to crisis, uncertain of who we are, what we stand for or whether our children will be better off tomorrow than those who came before. Far from becoming a buccaneering “global Britain”, the United Kingdom is today weaker and more isolated than at any point in our recent history. Far from lowering food and living costs or slashing regulation, British businesses are now buried under 2 billion bits of red tape that stretch 15 times around the circumference of the Earth, all while the cost of living spirals even higher. Far from securing the transformative trading arrangements they promised, the Government have delivered only Australia and New Zealand deals worth a combined 0.1% to UK GDP and exposed British farmers to tougher competition and diluted protections. The India deal would add just 0.13%, and the much-heralded US agreement has shrunk from a growth opportunity into damage limitation following Trump’s tariffs. Meanwhile, we have erected new barriers to our largest market, the European Union, which continues to represent around half of our global trade. The result? Tiny wins at the margins and a massive permanent hit at the core. That is not “global Britain”, and nor was it ever going to be. It is economics by consolation prize, and the country is paying the price. Just last month, the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading US think-tank, published a decade-long analysis concluding that Brexit has reduced UK GDP by between 6% and 8%. The House of Commons Library shows that Brexit is now costing the Treasury up to £90 billion every single year in lost tax receipts—money that could be supporting our NHS, our defence spending and our public services. In practical terms, the average Briton today is between £2,700 and £3,700 worse off than if we had remained in the European Union. That is the reality of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. Let me put this plainly. The most dishonest campaign in modern British political history promised that Brexit would save £350 million a week. Instead, Brexit is now costing this country £250 million every single day—[Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] That is why we have the highest tax burden in 70 years. That is why families face sky-high bills. That is why we remain trapped in a cost of living crisis. This is the lived reality of the very working people the Government claim to champion, but for whom they show neither the resolve nor the political will to protect. Conservative Members and Reform Members behind me may chunter, but it is the former leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who has noted: “Brexit is a flop. It will not leap up from its death bed.” The Liberal Democrats believe that the most effective route to sustainable economic growth in our country is to rebuild our relationship with the European Union, our single most important trading partner. Just last week, the Prime Minister himself said: “The Brexit deal significantly hurt our economy…so for economic renewal we must keep reducing frictions and move towards a closer relationship with the EU.” That view was echoed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who described a customs union as an inevitable “journey of travel”. My Bill would propel us along that journey. It proposes a UK-EU customs union covering most goods, with a formal mechanism for UK consultation on new EU trade deals that affect us. It would lift the man-made constraints that are strangling our small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which have stopped trading with Europe altogether. This Bill is on the side of British business. The Federation of Small Businesses is clear that the greatest burdens fall on firms with the fewest resources to adapt. Crocus, one of the largest horticultural businesses in the UK based in my Surrey Heath constituency, tells me that trade barriers add friction, inflate supply chain costs and cause damaging delays at our borders. Others warn that British-developed innovations risk being lifted and relocated to the continent—British ideas nurtured by British universities lost because electoral expediency was placed above economic reality. Even if the Government stayed within their own self-defeating red lines, which merely replicate, of course, Theresa May’s failed framework, a better deal with Europe could generate £25 billion extra per year for the Treasury. But the British public and British businesses want this Government to go further and faster. At a time when Office for National Statistics data shows rising numbers of young Britons leaving to work overseas, we have a national duty to support growth, ease household pressure and give young people a compelling reason to build their futures here in the UK. As my party’s former Northern Ireland spokesperson, I worked across the political divide to consider the practical implications of the Windsor framework. Red lanes, green lanes, parcel movements across the Irish sea—these barriers still hamper our internal market. A bespoke customs union would cut costs, smooth trade and reduce daily frictions for businesses in Northern Ireland. Those who value the Union should see more clearly than anyone that co-operation strengthens it far more than isolation ever could. We do not strengthen the British economy by raising barriers to the market that takes 41% of our exports. We strengthen it by removing the barriers that were created so that a weak Prime Minister could pretend to be tough. A survey by the British Chambers of Commerce shows that nearly half of exporters cite customs procedures as their biggest barrier and 39% cite documentation complexity. The message from businesses is unambiguous: reduce friction and unleash growth. A closer economic partnership with Europe is also a matter of our national security. Russia is defined by military expansionism and destabilisation. China grows more coercive and authoritarian by the year. Under a second Trump Administration, the United States has demonstrated a willingness to threaten and coerce even its closest allies in pursuit of hemispheric pre-eminence. In its recent national security strategy, the US welcomes “the growing influence of patriotic European parties” and says its goal “should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory”— a clear signal of intent to interfere in allies’ domestic politics. In an increasingly fractious multipolar world, we must stand closest with those who share our values, our trade and our common security. If we are serious about lifting this country out of stagnation, we must get Britain growing again, get Britain exporting again and make Britain competitive again. A bespoke UK-EU customs union would cut red tape, unlock investment and restore certainty to British business. To sit on our hands is to choose stagnation. To oppose this Bill is to prolong the cost of living crisis. To reject it is to hold back the small and medium-sized businesses that form the backbone of our economy. Today the House has a clear choice: we can remain on a path of managed decline, or we can choose a future built on growth, confidence and opportunity. We can unleash once again the resilience, creativity and innovation of British business. I commend this Bill to the House.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman and I represent different political traditions, but I am glad to know that we are bound together by a shared sense of what a liberal society looks like. The only purpose of having an ID of this kind—a mandatory ID—is to enable people to ask for it. When we enable the conditions to be asked to prove our identity in society, we swiftly move from the freedoms he talks about to a permissions-based society, which should concern us all. Does he share that concern?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for her report. It has been a pleasure to serve under her chairship on that Committee for the past year, and it is a personal sadness that I no longer serve on it. She mentioned that the Committee received evidence about a collective loss of confidence and faith in the ICRIR. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that we also received evidence setting out that there was no loss of personal faith or confidence in the leadership of that organisation? Sir Declan Morgan impressed us all with his honour, decency and candour. He just happened to be leading an organisation that was compromised for the very fact of its birth.

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  16. What progress his Department has made on implementing the agreement made with the EU in May 2025.

• 4 Dec 2025 · EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  On “The News Agents” podcast yesterday evening, the Deputy Prime Minister, when asked about a UK-EU customs arrangement, said “that journey of travel…is self-evident”. Given that the botched Brexit deal is costing the UK Exchequer £90 billion a year, can I ask what that self-evident journey means for the Government’s own red lines? Will the Government take the opportunity to take a giant leap on that journey by supporting my ten-minute rule Bill next Tuesday?

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentioned the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Recently, she was good enough to organise an extraordinary showing of a film called “Children in the Fire” in one of the Committee rooms. It explained in detail, through some very personal stories, the devastation that children have faced during the conflict, and we had the privilege of meeting some of the children, some of whom had been previously abducted and had escaped Russia. It was an extraordinary moment that was deeply revealing and emotional. I am grateful to the hon. Member for paying such close attention to the plight of children in this conflict: it is a horror that none of us should accept.

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this very important debate. There have been plaudits and praise enough for all the speeches made by Members across this House—they have been an extraordinary collection of speeches and thoughtful interventions that show intellectual clarity and deep emotional connection. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken. It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin poses an existential threat to Ukraine and a once-in-a-generation threat to European security. For far too long, he has been allowed to wield grotesquely disproportionate influence over global diplomacy and security, and the consequences have been catastrophic. While the global geopolitical scene may have been shaken and upended by his imperial ambitions, the true cost of this war—the fullest cost—has been borne by the people of Ukraine, in the form of the atrocities committed and the suffering of the Ukrainian families who are the direct victims of his malicious and destructive impulses. Today in Ukraine, there is active hand-to-hand combat, the military lines are active and volatile, and Ukrainian cities face relentless bombardment. Critical infrastructure is targeted, civilian lives are under constant threat and the human toll grows. Since February 2022, Ukraine has reported more than 14,000 civilians killed and more than 38,000 injured. More than 1 million Russian personnel have been killed or injured, and the Ukrainian military toll is more than 46,000 killed and 380,000 wounded. How many more lives need to be lost? This war did not begin in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion. As we know, it began in 2014, with the illegal seizure of Crimea. That annexation set the stage for the violence, brutality and inhumanity we see today. Russia’s aggression now threatens European security as a whole. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, entire communities destroyed and the social fabric torn apart, leaving trauma that will span generations. As we have heard several times today, the most harrowing horror of all is the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children. At least 19,000 children have been taken, stolen, cynically and evilly—abduction and exploitation as a most appalling weapon of war. A moral red line has been crossed, and crossed again. This vile human injustice is yet another cost that Ukraine has had to bear. Against that backdrop of human suffering and strategic fragility, we must give Ukraine the leverage it needs in any negotiations and support its efforts to push Russian forces back. Let me be absolutely clear: Trump’s original 28-point proposal was not a peace deal; it was a horrific geopolitical compromise—a foul capitulation that would serve only to embolden the aggressor. It would force Ukraine into neutrality; limit Ukraine’s ability to defend itself; ban NATO deployments; lock Ukraine out of NATO; recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk; lift sanctions on Russia; invite Russia back into the G8; and even force Ukraine into elections within 100 days. That is not peace—not even close. It rewards and legitimates Russia’s decade-long aggression, and signals to every authoritarian regime around the world that conquest works. Yes, peace talks have taken place, and the Liberal Democrat position is clearer than ever. First, emergency legislation is vital to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and humanitarian rehabilitation. Secondly, the return of every abducted Ukrainian child is a non-negotiable red line. Thirdly, there must be no reward for Putin: no G7, no G20 and no rehabilitation into the international community. Finally, no settlement can force Ukraine to concede territory. If lands are ceded, one question will echo loudly: what about the children stolen from those territories? Russia already claims them as Russian, and ceding territory may be taken as tacit confirmation of that appalling logic. That is precisely why peace cannot be built on appeasement directed from Mar-a-Lago. It must be justice as seen from Kyiv. It must be built on a foundation that allows Ukraine not only to survive the war, but to rebuild afterwards: rebuild its infrastructure, its communities, and its way of life as a coherent, bordered, bounded and fully sovereign state. Ukraine’s right to freedom and self-determination is immutable. Any settlement must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereign choice to make alliances and coalitions, free from the long arm of Russia and Putin. This moment is about more than rebuilding Ukraine; it is about rebuilding European security. Russian aggression has made one truth clear: Europe must take greater responsibility for defending Europe. We face the greatest challenge to European security in several generations. The United States has, regrettably, shown itself to be unpredictable and capricious. At any moment, President Trump could shift his attention, whether by choice or necessity, towards the genuine threat of China or the somewhat more local distractions that he sees in Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland or, dare I say it, even Canada, leaving Europe exposed. That is a strategic reality that we cannot ignore. Multipolarity brings both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe can and needs to act collectively. Europe can and needs to co-ordinate defence procurement, intelligence sharing and economic solidarity. Europe can and needs to step up to the moment, and the United Kingdom can and needs to take a leading role. We are living through an unusual moment in geopolitics. We can see the future with rare clarity and certainty. Our Prime Minister and Chancellor have hinted repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the recent Budget, about the need to rebuild bridges with Europe for the sake of our productivity and our economy. To that, I would add Europe’s collective security, defence, resilience, military-industrial procurement and innovation. Yes, it is a challenge and it requires political courage, but the UK should keep pursuing the deepest possible participation in Security Action for Europe, deepen co-operation, strengthen shared defence planning and align ourselves once again with the partners who share our values and our security. Those in Europe who are dragging their heels need to lift their heads to the horizon and see the bigger picture. We face a generational challenge. We are stronger together. If we fail to act now, we will be judged by history as the generation who allowed these atrocities to take place, who allowed invasion and occupation by violence to redraw Europe and reshape the future, and who failed to put national self-interest aside to secure the cause of freedom, liberty, democracy and the international rules-based order. To conclude, we cannot afford to be bystanders in this fight. Justice is what we owe Ukraine and what we now must deliver.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by many Surrey Heath constituents who often worked for very large American companies such as Atos. These companies are refusing to offer the pre-1997 uplift, and from what I understand, the pensions fall outside both the PPF and the FAS. Can the Minister offer any reassurance to those pensioners today and explain how they can continue to survive on such diminishing returns from the pensions they paid into?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady mentioned Atos. I have several constituents who worked for that company who find themselves in precisely the situation she describes. I thank her for the speech she is making and, on behalf of my constituents, I hope that those on the Front Bench are listening to her suggestions.

• 2 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  12. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on strengthening the UK’s relationship with the EU.

• 2 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  With growing Chinese espionage, Russian aggression on the European continent and a capricious President in the United States, it is more important than ever that we deepen our security co-operation with our European allies. Can I ask the Minister explicitly whether he recognises, as I do, that the UK’s deepest possible participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe scheme is vital to common European security? What have he and the Government done to try to prompt the restart of the negotiations with the European Union that sadly broke down last week?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  As an MP for a rural constituency, I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will feel that pressure with particular force. They experience exactly the same kind of employment curtailment as my constituents in Surrey Heath. My constituents have further highlighted that websites such as Pass Faster are advertising guaranteed tests anywhere in the UK within four to six weeks. They charge the £62 DVSA fee, plus an additional £88 finder’s fee. The distorted marketplace leaves many families with no choice but to engage with those services, despite their deep frustration at the cost. Those who cannot face that cycle often end up travelling extraordinary distances. Some Surrey Heath families are forced to book tests in Cornwall, Taunton, Kendal, Birmingham or Leeds—all examples from my own constituents. One family told me that they undertook a staggering 728-mile round trip to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Another, after spending more than £2,000, had to travel to the Isle of Wight because it was the nearest available test slot.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I also have constituents who have caring responsibilities and find themselves unable to fulfil those to the fullest capacity that they would like to because of those restrictions. Of course, on Budget day we also think about economic growth and the curtailed economic opportunities that young people have. If we want to make our economy grow again, everybody needs to be able to work to the fullest extent that they can.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this very important debate for our constituents. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) for their sagacious contributions. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing some of the genuine frustrations of our constituents. I am also grateful for his honesty in acknowledging the ineffectiveness of the DVSA in tackling this issue internally. I echo the call of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for a thorough investigation to be undertaken into the DVSA to ensure that, in fact, it is a functional organisation. That may lead to the changes that we all want to see on behalf of our constituents. I also second the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) that an impact assessment be undertaken into the decision to block driving instructor bookings of test appointments because, as we have heard in several contributions, that can have a very significant impact on the way the system works in practice. I also say to the Minister that a £5,000 bonus does not an effective workforce plan make. Although it may address a short-term issue, it does not necessarily ensure long-term retention of hard-pressed driving instructors. I do not think a Member in this Chamber would ask for a driving centre in every town, but there is a need for a proper geographical understanding of where the main pressure points are in order to seek to develop a regional plan to tackle some of the greatest pressure points. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) tempted me earlier to back his plan for a test centre in Bracknell; of course, I know that he will support my plan for a test centre in Camberley. We already welcome many of his constituents to our wonderful Frimley Park hospital. Let us continue in that vein. I am being asked to wrap up—I know it is a busy day in the House—but I pass on my thanks to everyone who has made such valuable contributions, and I hope the Minister has heard some of the very valuable plans that have been laid out for him. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the availability of driving tests in the South East.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend can always tempt me further north to his wonderful constituency. We have another example of a rural constituency where constituents feel this pressure acutely. That is neither fair nor sustainable. It undermines confidence in a Government-run system. It places young people in the south-east—if I might focus on them in particular—at a clear disadvantage, and risks eroding test availability for learners across the country. The financial impact on young drivers and families is unaffordable. With lessons costing around £50 per hour and long gaps between tests, families must pay for repeated sessions simply to maintain proficiency. Some local households report spending more than £2,000 just to pass a driving test, while others exceed £5,000 as delays drag on. When parents are forced to travel to distant and unfamiliar test centres, the costs rise still further, from fuel and time taken off work to, in some cases, the price of overnight accommodation. Although I welcome the Government’s seven-point plan, including the Department’s commitment to recruit 450 new examiners, the Secretary of State has confirmed that the net gain of new examiners will be only 40. More must be done to retain high-quality examiners and reduce turnover, which continues to drive capacity shortages. The Ministry of Defence’s deployment of 36 defence driving examiners is also a welcome step, but it risks stretching defence resources at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, and will do little to address the extent of the backlog. The Secretary of State confirmed to the Transport Committee on 12 November that the Government will not meet their target of returning waiting times to seven weeks by the summer of 2026. For families who have already spent months trying to secure a test, that is an unacceptably long timeframe for meaningful improvement. Based on the testimony of my constituents, I urge the Minister to consider the following practical steps that may help to alleviate some of the challenges that we all experience in our constituencies. The Government should introduce a focused programme of enhanced examiner recruitment and retention, particularly in the south-east of England, where demand is demonstrably at its highest. They should expand the narrow 6 am Monday release window that fuels intense competition and unnecessary stress for those having to get up at that time. They should implement a genuinely fair geographical set of booking rules, with full transparency over how they are applied, and match them with sufficient test capacity in high-demand areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) alluded to, that would require a greater geographical sense of where demand is at its peak. They should explore temporary test centres or extend testing hours to reduce backlogs. Finally, they should implement robust protections against bots and third-party reselling, to restore fairness, trust and integrity in the booking process. My constituents understand that the pandemic created a significant backlog in driving tests, and they understand the challenges of examiner recruitment. What they cannot accept, nearly half a decade after the pandemic, is a system that forces them to wake at dawn every Monday, travel hundreds of miles for a test or pay inflated fees to third parties, just because the DVSA booking system cannot adequately meet demand. My Surrey Heath constituents need a driving test system that is fair, functional and fit for purpose, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House will agree that the current system is not delivering for young people or, indeed, for older learners—I think we are going to hear a right hon. Member comment on that. I hope the Minister will take the concerns I have outlined seriously and help to restore the accessibility, trust and fairness that young people and families in the south-east deserve.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the availability of driving tests in the South East. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Harris. I extend my gratitude to all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in this important debate on a topic that occupies a large part of their email inboxes every week, if theirs are anything like mine. I want to begin by thanking the hundreds of Surrey Heath residents who responded to my driving test survey, and the 165 people who completed the survey organised by the Chamber engagement team over recent days and weeks. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, the driving test has been one of the most persistent issues in my email inbox over the last 16 months. Across Surrey Heath, families describe a weekly ritual of setting alarms at 5.30 am, logging on to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency website, and joining a queue of thousands of people before the 6 am release of driving test slots. Even when local slots become available, they can vanish within seconds due to website glitches, failed payments or fierce automated competition from bots, similar to the scramble for Oasis or Taylor Swift tickets. Yet unlike those elusive one-off concerts, this frustrating and anxiety-ridden cycle repeats every Monday, often for weeks and months, before many are finally able to secure a test. Young people who have worked hard to reach test readiness find themselves stuck in prolonged limbo. Their confidence declines, practical skills fade and their opportunities narrow. In Surrey Heath, which is, I am slightly ashamed to say, the second most car-dependent constituency in the entire country, that is especially damaging. With slow and infrequent buses, limited rail capacity and persistent congestion on arterial roads—most famously the A322 and junction 3 of the M3—public transport is simply not a realistic alternative. For many young people, being unable to drive directly restricts access to education, training and entry-level employment.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s constituents are clearly suffering from exactly the same challenges as mine in Surrey Heath. I will talk about some of the actions that have already been taken, and how they might be pushed further and faster. The delays place immense pressure on learners, particularly those needing to make a second or third attempt at taking their practical test. Many face a further six-month wait for a resit, which forces them to take regular lessons simply to stay test ready. The national pass rate was 49.9% in October 2025, so almost half of all candidates taking their driving test must restart the cycle without any guarantee of a timely retest. One of the most serious concerns that my constituents raise is the prevalence of bots and third-party reselling. Automated bots secure test slots the moment they are released and resell them at heavily inflated prices—often between £150 and £300.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that very important observation. The plight of bots stealing places from under people on a Government-registered system strikes me as utterly inappropriate. I have heard internal stories that the DVSA has been in a state of upendedness for some time. I am also grateful to him for his observation about Loveday Ryder. As of June, the average waiting time for a practical driving test stood at about 22 weeks, although the nearest centres for my constituents, in Farnborough and Guildford, reported waits of 24 weeks. Many have told me that they have waited up to a year to secure a test slot.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Rochdale undoubtedly has its charms and pleasures, but to be forced to go there to secure a driving test slot seems unfair to the individual involved.