Edward Morello MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Since Capita took over the administration of the civil service pension scheme, about 8,500 retired civil servants have experienced delays or failures in their pension payments. There are many in my constituency of West Dorset—many of them widows or ex-servicepeople—and many of them are having to take out hardship loans. We have seen delays, inaccurate calculations, enormous backlogs and, more recently, a data breach affecting 138 members in which some received other members’ annual benefit statements. The Public Accounts Committee warned in 2025 that Capita was not ready to take on this contract. I recognise that the Government have introduced a recovery plan, including interest-free hardship loans and additional surge teams, but a hardship loan is not a pension, not compensation and not a substitute for people receiving the money that they are owed after decades of public service. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what the Government intend to do to rectify this.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Ocean Conservation and Stewardship · Hansard source

  More

  I had the pleasure of going out with some non-governmental organisations and marine conservation groups into the Lyme bay marine protected area, which has been protected from bottom trawling for over a decade. We had an opportunity to take a drone down to the seabed to see exactly how quickly nature can recover when we remove artificial barriers such as bottom trawling. There are now reefs and fish, but more than anything, the marine protected area now provides a sustainable business for local fishermen because the fish population has improved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more of these conservation areas in order to allow British fisheries to recover?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Citizens Advice offices in Bridport and Dorchester are reporting huge demand for their services as a result of cuts to legal aid, especially in housing, welfare and immigration law. What steps is the Minister taking to restore sustainable legal aid provision and ensure that rural advice services are properly funded?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  In 2021, there were 6,145 social housing units in my constituency, representing just 14.2% of the housing stock, compared with 17.1% across England and Wales. More than 300,000 people are currently on rural social housing waiting lists, and at current build rates, it would take 89 years to clear the backlog. I welcome the Bill’s measures to disapply right to buy in national parks and designated rural areas. In places where social housing is already scarce, we cannot afford to lose more of it. It is therefore right that we protect the limited stock we currently have. More than anything, though, I welcome the Bill’s protections for the victims of domestic abuse, because this is where the question of housing becomes a question of safety. If someone knows that leaving means homelessness, temporary accommodation or being separated from their children, family and support network, the decision to leave an abusive relationship becomes enormously harder. The Bill rightly proposes protections allowing victims in joint social tenancies to remain in their home while the perpetrator is removed, as well as helping victims secure alternative accommodation. Stephanie was forced to leave her family home with her four-year-old son, Neo, because of verbal and emotional abuse from her former partner, who was a joint tenant. Neo has cerebral palsy and has recently undergone back surgery. He is learning to walk again using mobility aids. Stephanie is temporarily staying with her mother and urgently needs suitable housing, but because the rent on the family home is not up to date, she has been told that assistance cannot be provided until the arrears are resolved. She is terrified that she will be placed in temporary accommodation away from Bridport, away from her support network that her son relies on. Cases like hers are precisely why housing-related debt arising from domestic abuse must not become a barrier to accessing social housing. A survivor should not be punished for financial circumstances created or exacerbated by their abuser, and I therefore strongly support strengthening the Bill so that survivors can leave unsafe homes, retain their tenancy rights where appropriate, or secure suitable alternative housing without being trapped by the financial consequences of the abuse. I also want to raise the point that a home is not necessarily suitable simply because it is technically available. Ruby was offered a first-floor flat in Bridport despite having serious physical disabilities. She was told that she could not refuse the property as she would not be offered alternative housing. I have numerous other cases that time simply will not allow for me to get to, which is a shame. I want to see the Government go further in ensuring that social housing allocation in rural areas reflects local needs, accessibility, disability, age and family circumstances, but otherwise I support the Bill.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing the debate, which is important and timely, especially considering that we had the remaining stages of the Health Bill this week. Community pharmacies are a vital part of the NHS, especially in places like West Dorset, where they provide essential medicines, advice and care close to home. At a time when pharmacies are facing severe financial and workforce pressures, we must recognise their contribution and ensure that they receive the funding, support and protection they need. We are asking more and more of community pharmacies, while for too long we have expected them to absorb rising costs with inadequate funding. In West Dorset, 18 community pharmacies serve a population of around 94,000 people. In a typical month, they dispense around 155,000 prescriptions. Since the introduction of Pharmacy First in January 2024, pharmacies in West Dorset have helped to avoid as many as 8,737 GP appointments. Those figures demonstrate the enormous contribution pharmacies make to our local NHS and why we cannot afford to lose them. Today, people are more likely to live with multiple long-term conditions, require regular prescriptions and need advice and support close to home. For someone living in a rural village, a pharmacy is the most accessible point of contact with the NHS. That is why the funding model should properly recognise rurality and population age. Nationally, community pharmacy funding in 2025-26 was around £800 million lower in real terms than in 2015-16, despite a 16% increase in the number of NHS prescription items dispensed over that period. Since 2017, there has been a net loss of 147 bricks-and-mortar pharmacies, which is 15% of the network. I welcome the Government’s recent 10.3% funding increase, worth £340 million, but their own independent economic analysis identified a funding gap of around £2 billion, so the increase does not close the gap. Some pharmacies in West Dorset have reported to me six-figure annual shortfalls. Poor funding leads to fewer staff, and fewer staff leads to shorter opening hours, temporary closures and fewer services being offered. It means that fewer people receive their medicines and fewer patients are able to access care. In NHS Dorset, there were 207 full-time equivalent pharmacists in 2023 and 47 vacancies, which is a vacancy rate of 19%. In places such as West Dorset, in rural Britain, recruiting a permanent pharmacist can be extremely difficult. Pharmacies have to pay more to attract pharmacists from elsewhere or bring in locums, who have to travel significant distances. Those costs do not exist to the same extent in densely populated urban areas. It is therefore wrong to design a funding system that treats every pharmacy as if it operates in the same circumstances. The pharmacy access scheme provides some support for isolated pharmacies, but its funding pot is just £20 million, which is nowhere near sufficient to deal with the structural challenges facing rural pharmacy provision in England. We need a funding formula that properly recognises rurality, population age, workforce pressures and the cost of serving sparsely populated communities. Funding is only one part of the problem. We also need stronger regulation and stronger powers to intervene when large corporate pharmacy operators fail. Jhoots operated 150 branches across England. In West Dorset, its pharmacies in Bridport and Lyme Regis were closed for months, disrupting prescription access for more than 12,000 people who rely on those services. The impact was felt throughout our community. It was felt by the patients who struggled to access their medicines and by other healthcare providers who had to deal with the consequences. It was felt devastatingly by pharmacy staff. Staff across multiple sites reported going months without pay, despite receiving payslips and seeing deductions for tax and pensions. Some were unable to pay their rent or household bills, and some relied on food banks and could not buy their children school uniform. I pay tribute to the amazing staff in Bridport and Lyme Regis for the resilience they showed during that time. The support shown to them by the local community was outstanding. They did not deserve to be treated that way by the pharmacy owners. Our regulatory framework was largely developed when pharmacies were mainly independently owned businesses operating one or maybe two pharmacies, and it has not kept pace with the growth of large corporate operators controlling extensive networks. Local integrated care boards, local authorities and national bodies need powers to intervene quickly, protect patients and staff, secure medicines and ensure continuity of service. When Jhoots’s services collapsed, I raised the issue through an urgent question in the House, and there was clear cross-party support for legislative action to ensure that that kind of crisis cannot happen again. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who campaigned tirelessly alongside me. His help and advice were invaluable during that period, so I am extremely grateful to him. We need to strengthen the powers available to intervene when a provider fails to meet contractual patient safety or workforce obligations. We need mechanisms to allow alternative providers to step in quickly. We must hold the corporate bodies—not the pharmacies—accountable, and where necessary take away their rights to control an essential service. We need to protect pharmacy staff when a provider collapses. Protecting the workforce is inseparable from protecting patient safety. I say politely to the Minister that when I met her predecessor, he asked for those powers so that he could step in during the Jhoots scandal. We tried to introduce them through amendments to the Health Bill, but they were not accepted. Will the Minister please meet me and other experts, such as the hon. Member for North Somerset, as her predecessor did? Let us get her the powers to prevent this from ever happening again.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pharmacies: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for being willing to meet me and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) to discuss some of the issues raised today. She mentioned that officials are looking at whether legislation is necessary; will she ask them to consider whether the amendments I tabled to the Health Bill would deliver the powers she needs? If so, will the Government support them in the Lords?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Falkland Islands: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  The Falkland Islands are not just British. They are part of Britain, and an attack on any part of Britain would be an article 5 situation. Yet Donald Trump, when pressed on it the other day, was far from clear on whether we can rely on US support. What are the Government doing to tighten our defence relationship with European and other allies who do understand and share our belief in collective defence?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Only half the children in my constituency have seen a dentist in two years. There has been a 20% decrease in NHS dental practices, and some constituents have written to me recently to say that they have been quoted in excess of £7,000 for the most basic of treatments. Amendment 47 would require the Government to establish training hubs in Dorset. It would ensure that dental hubs trained dentists for the future, and would mandate final-year trainees to provide supervised treatment to NHS patients straightaway. Trainees are already providing treatment for free, paid for by the taxpayer, as part of their training. Those appointments should be for the NHS, and not for private patients. Amendment 48 would ensure that the dental funding underspend is redirected towards additional NHS appointments, shorter waiting times, outreach, and home and school-based services. Amendment 49 would require the dental funding formula to account for rurality, an ageing population, disability, transport costs and recruitment difficulties.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous with his time. The Brit Valley Project in West Dorset is bringing together 43 landowners and will improve biodiversity over 4,000 acres. Every time I speak to community groups—I am sure other Members have examples of this—they want to see faster action. Does he share my frustration that politicians nationally and internationally are using the climate crisis and ignoring the science for their own political ends?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Bluetongue Virus in Livestock · Hansard source

  More

  Last week I was at the Melplash agricultural show, and I extend an invitation to the Minister to join me at next year’s show. Farmers there raised all the issues that have been mentioned already—testing time, vaccination availability and disposal costs—but one thing that they also raised is frustration with the fact that the Government map of bluetongue is woefully out of date, possibly by as much as a three-month lag. We know that bluetongue is in Dorset. The map shows one confirmed case, but one farmer told me that they know of at least five in the immediate area. The map does not show suspected cases, and it does not show where testing is being undertaken. The problem is that that is causing other farmers to delay doing anything, because they think it is not in their area yet. Will the Minister please do something to speed up the updating of the map, and ensure that it shows suspected cases and where testing is under way?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. My very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), warned earlier against pitting different parts of the UK against each other. At the risk of flying in the face of that advice and angering the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), I will just say that West Dorset is the most beautiful place to live. My rural community shares a lot of the same difficulties as everyone else here. My constituents are spread across small towns and villages, so distances are longer, there are fewer service providers and councils have fewer opportunities to achieve economies of scale. Almost half of Dorset’s residents live in areas that are among the 20% most deprived nationally in access to services. Whether it is GPs, dentists, post offices, shops, primary schools, access is much more difficult than in urban areas. As has also been highlighted, waste collection is difficult, vehicles have to travel further, highways teams have to cover more miles, social care workers have to spend more time travelling with patients, and a child with special educational needs has to travel a larger distance to reach the right school. At the same time, Dorset has one of the oldest populations in the country: 31% of residents are aged 65 or over. Although I have repeated it many a time, and it may well not be true, my favourite fact about West Dorset is that if we were a country, we would have the oldest population in the world—we would be older than Japan. That matters because an ageing population creates additional demand for adult social care and other council services. The Government have increased funding for local government, which is welcome, but our councils are still dealing with years of financial pressures and cuts alongside inflation, demographic change, the national living wage and increased national insurance costs. That was compounded by the change in the fair funding review 2.0 to remove rurality from all grant formulas bar adult social care. The cost of providing home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs has risen 33% since 2016-17. Dorset has the seventh highest weekly cost for children with SEND of any authority in England. Children can live a long way from the specialist provision they need, with fewer available capable specialist providers, and transport costs more. The same applies to adult social care. There are fewer providers willing to operate across rural areas because travelling between clients takes longer. Those providers that do operate in rural areas can charge more to cover the additional time and transport costs. The council has more roads to maintain, more miles to travel and more dispersed communities to serve. A funding formula that treats rural and urban areas the same does not produce a fair outcome, as has been highlighted. In West Dorset, bus frequency has fallen by an astonishing 62% since 2010, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns have been identified as transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. Just over one in five people in large parts of rural Dorset cannot reach a town centre within 30 minutes by public transport, yet Dorset received just £3.8 million in the bus services improvement plan funding, compared with the £11.6 million allocated to our neighbours in Devon. The funding formula needs to recognise rurality, population age, visitor number increases and accessibility needs. We also need to look at the future of Dorset and the wider Wessex region. Since 2025, Dorset council has been working with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, Somerset council and Wiltshire council through the Wessex Partnership. Wessex has a population of almost 2 million people, and it already works together across areas including defence, clean energy, digital and life sciences. The partnership has developed a shared regional vision and is preparing to take on greater devolved responsibility. The Government’s current devolution framework will create different levels of opportunity depending on which model an area achieves. It is estimated that mayoral strategic authority status could provide around £460 million in additional funding each year across the Wessex region, which is about £245 per resident, as well as an estimated £16 billion of additional economic output over 30 years. If other parts of the country receive powers, greater flexibility and greater funding, Wessex needs to be able to compete on a level playing field. I would ask that the Minister agrees to meet the Wessex Partnership to discuss devolution for Wessex. If the Government want economic growth in every postcode, funding formulas need to recognise the real costs of rurality, ageing populations and providing services across large geographical areas. Rural communities should not receive less because delivering services simply costs them more.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Bridport in my constituency is sometimes referred to as Totnes-lite. Like Totnes, it has a high concentration of independent retailers, tradespeople and small businesses who rely on cash deposits. On average, a small or medium-sized enterprise deposits cash about 25 times a year and withdraws cash about 15 times a year. Groves Nurseries highlights the exact issue that my hon. Friend mentions: how to keep the business open, run a successful operation and drive to the nearest town every time there is a need to deposit or withdraw cash.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Support for Pig Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important and timely debate. Pig farming is an important part of our rural economy in West Dorset. Alongside several family-run pig farms, we are home to a large integrated producer and businesses that support local employment, veterinary services, feed supplies, agricultural engineering, haulage and food processing. We are also fortunate to have Dorset’s last remaining independent abattoir, which processes around 100 pigs a week and provides a vital local route to market for small family farms. Since August 2025, the standard pig price has fallen from around 208p per kilogram to approximately 178p. However, many independent producers have said that they are receiving far less—in some cases, only 130p to 140p per kilogram. Some farmers are losing as much as £50 on every pig they sell. That is unsustainable. Once again, it is independent farmers who have borne the greatest burden. Around half of the UK’s pig herd is owned by independent producers. If they disappear, rebuilding the capacity will take many years. We should remember that the United Kingdom is only about 58% self-sufficient in pork. We should never accept a situation where British farmers, who produce to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere in the world, are undercut by cheaper imports produced to standards that would not be permitted here. No future trade agreement should weaken UK food safety, undermine British farmers or lower our animal welfare standards. West Dorset farmers are proud of the standards they have achieved. Every farmer I have spoken to wants to see further improvements in animal welfare. I want to see, as they do, an end to farrow crates and to inhumane or distressing methods of slaughter, such as carbon dioxide stunning for pigs, through the implementation of DEFRA’s 2025 recommendations by the end of this Parliament. We should work together to prevent unnecessarily painful practices in farming, but it must be properly funded. Farmers operating on small, or in many cases, non-existent, profit margins cannot absorb further mandated changes unless they are properly funded and accompanied by practical support. One pig farmer in my constituency told me that they fully support moving towards better systems, but estimate that a realistic transition could take up to 15 years. For many family farms already carrying debt from previous reforms, unfunded regulation is not an option. If we move too quickly without proper support, we risk reducing British production and replacing it with imported pork products produced to lower welfare and food safety standards. Small and medium-sized abattoirs continue to disappear at an alarming rate, with fewer than 200 now remaining across the United Kingdom. Rising inspection costs, energy prices, waste disposal costs and increasing regulatory burdens have all contributed to their decline. For independent pig farmers in West Dorset, our local abattoir is essential infrastructure. Without it, transport distances increase, haulage costs rise and farmers lose access to local markets. Supporting local processing capacity is therefore every bit as important as supporting primary production. Farmers manage more than 70% of our land. They underpin our food security and sustain the economies of rural communities such as West Dorset. All they are asking for is fair markets, fair treatment, practical regulation, acknowledgment of all their hard work and the confidence to invest in their future.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Rugby in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rugby in schools. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the Chamber. Rugby is far more than 80 minutes on a Saturday afternoon: it teaches young people that success is earned collectively rather than individually; it instils discipline, respect, resilience and leadership; and it provides a place where people of every shape, size and background have a role to play. There are few sports where a prop, a scrum half and a winger can all become international stars despite having entirely different physiques, skills and strengths. Rugby’s greatest asset is not Twickenham; it is not the premiership, and it is not even the England team or the Red Roses. It is the thousands of volunteers who open the clubhouse on a cold Saturday morning, mark out the pitches before dawn, coach the under-7s, wash the kit, cook the burgers, pull the pints, organise the fixtures, referee junior matches and somehow still find time to mow the grass. Across my constituency of West Dorset, we are fortunate to have extraordinary clubs, including Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne. Those clubs are about more than rugby; they are community hubs. They bring together generations: parents become coaches and grandparents become supporters. Every membership subscription paid, every burger bought after a match, every pint served in the clubhouse and every raffle ticket sold helps to keep those clubs alive. A thriving grassroots ecosystem produces world-class athletes, and world-class athletes inspire the next generation to pull on a pair of boots for the first time. But our grassroots game cannot be taken for granted. Over the last 24 years, 174 amateur clubs have disappeared. Many more are under immense financial pressure. Changing rooms are ageing, clubhouses need investment, facilities are often unsuitable for women and girls, and volunteer numbers are hard to sustain. Many clubs that once fielded six senior teams now struggle to put out two. Youth sections increasingly struggle to field full teams at the weekend. We need to support our grassroots teams by encouraging children to start rugby in the first place, and the best place to do that is schools. If we want world-class international rugby tomorrow, we must invest in grassroots and school-level rugby today. Research has found that physical activity improves classroom behaviour, attention, reading and mathematical performance. Another study found that children who consistently participated in organised sport experienced lower absenteeism, better attention, stronger memory, higher educational attainment and were more likely to progress to university. Importantly, team sport produces some of the strongest educational benefits. Rugby teaches young people to solve problems together, as well as teaching communication, leadership, decision making under pressure, discipline, trust and resilience when things inevitably go wrong. Those are precisely the skills employers tell us they struggle to find. The Confederation of British Industry found that 61% of employers were dissatisfied with young people’s resilience and self-management, while nearly one third identified poor teamwork skills. Rugby develops those qualities. It teaches young people how to win graciously, how to lose with dignity, how to lead and follow, how to respect officials even when disagreeing with a decision and, perhaps most importantly, that individual brilliance only succeeds when it serves the team.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Rugby in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member must forgive that my speech is weighted towards English rugby, as he is absolutely right that the important role rugby clubs play in a community is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Research has now described the evidence linking organised sport with improved psychological wellbeing as compelling. Researchers found that with more physical activity they saw improved classroom behaviour and concentration, stronger social relationships, attention, readiness to learn and cognitive function, healthier body composition, improved mood, reduced stress, increased blood flow to the brain and increased oxygen delivery. There is strong evidence that physical activity is associated with lower anxiety, lower depression, better mood, greater happiness, higher self-esteem, greater life satisfaction and better body image. I could go on. We often discuss young people’s mental health in this House, and rightly so. Rural areas like West Dorset have worse access to services, and children often struggle to get the help that they need, but we should also recognise that sport is one of the most effective preventive public health interventions available to us. Children who are active are significantly more likely to become active adults, which means lower long-term healthcare costs. During the 2023-24 season alone, rugby generated over £2.03 billion in value, including £707 million through improved physical and mental health, more than £823 million of wider social value, and over £500 million in economic growth. The Rugby Football Union’s all school programme, originally established as part of the rugby world cup legacy, introduced rugby into hundreds of state secondary schools. Independent research found remarkable outcomes. 73% of participating schools reported improved confidence among pupils; 49% reported improved resilience; and nearly one third even reported improvements in academic performance. Participants themselves reported improved leadership skills, greater confidence, better behaviour, reduced stress and improved self-esteem. The Sky Sports living for sport programme has supported more than 500,000 young people to gain access to sport. More than 90% of teachers reported improvements in pupils’ confidence, self-esteem and teamwork. Teachers also reported an improvement of 71% in pupils’ attendance, 72% in academic attainment, 78% in behaviour, 83% in engagement with learning and 85% in engagement with school life. These are exactly the qualities we should want every young person to develop. They demonstrate why Government support for rugby and sport should never be viewed as just about exercise. It is also about the tangible benefits that follow. For too long, access to elite rugby in England has been dominated by a relatively small number of independent schools. Although those schools have made enormous contributions to the game and continue to develop exceptional players, the current pathway is simply too narrow and based on privilege. Talent exists in every city, town and village in this country, but opportunity does not. If English rugby is to reach its full potential, we must ensure that a child’s postcode or their parents’ income no longer determines whether they have the opportunity to excel. The numbers demonstrate the challenges and the opportunity. Independent schools educate about 7% of pupils in England, yet continue to produce a disproportionately large share of professional rugby players. That is not because talent is concentrated in one part of society; it is because access to coaching facilities, fixtures and clear development pathways often are. Independent schools are more likely to have experienced staff, and sometimes ex-professional. That means that their students have far easier access to such facilities and better opportunities to perfect their sporting skills, compared with those at many state schools. There are thousands of children attending state schools who have never picked up a rugby ball, not because they lack the ability or enthusiasm, but simply because the opportunity has never been presented to them. If we are genuinely seeking to improve England’s competitiveness on the international stage, the answer is not simply coaching the same group of players more effectively. It is finding talented young people who currently sit entirely outside the system. That is why I welcome the work being undertaken by the RFU. The All Schools programme shows what can be achieved when rugby is brought into state education. Hundreds of schools that previously had little or no rugby provision are now introducing the sport to thousands of young people. Government can play an important role by ensuring that schools have access to suitable facilities, qualified coaches and meaningful links with local community clubs. School sport should never operate in isolation. The stronger systems are those where schools, clubs and governing bodies work together. That now needs to become the norm, rather than the exception. We also need to look at a model that does not place the burden on teachers to become professional sports coaches, alongside their already demanding and vitally important jobs. We have world-class universities with outstanding sports coaching degrees. We should use that pipeline to develop a new generation of professional coaches, who can support schools, take the pressure off teachers and help build the next generation of athletes across different sports, including rugby. We should also recognise that not every young person wants or is initially able to play full-contact rugby. Providing a non-contact version of the game—the T1 rugby initiative—removes many of the barriers that might otherwise prevent young people from becoming involved. It offers an accessible introduction to rugby values, teamwork and skills, while giving participants confidence to progress if they wish. Importantly, it also enables schools with limited experience of rugby to introduce the sport safely and inclusively. One of the greatest successes in English sport over recent years has undoubtedly been the rise of the Red Roses. Their success in winning the rugby world cup and wider participation present an extraordinary opportunity to build on that momentum. When girls are inspired by watching the Red Roses, there must be somewhere local for them to play the following weekend or through the week at school. Evidence shows that children from more deprived backgrounds are less likely to participate in organised sport, despite often benefiting the most from doing so. If we genuinely believe that rugby builds confidence, resilience, leadership and teamwork, those opportunities should be available to every young person, regardless of background. Sport should never become another form of inequality. That is why partnerships between schools, local authorities and community clubs are so valuable. Community clubs already possess qualified volunteers, coaching expertise and strong local networks. Schools possess young people eager to participate. The challenge is ensuring that those two worlds connect more effectively. We should make it as easy as possible for schools to signpost pupils towards their nearest club and equally as straightforward for clubs to engage with local schools and introduce children to the game. That is particularly important in rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Our geography means that opportunities can sometimes be harder to access. Transport presents challenges, schools are more dispersed, volunteer recruitment can be more difficult. That is why clubs such as Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne, continue to play such an important role in growing our game. With greater connection with local schools, they can play an even greater part. When state schools have been given the right funding and offered support, they have demonstrated exactly what is possible. A powerful example is Northampton school for boys. In the 2025-26 season, NSB achieved the historic breakthrough by winning the national schools cup, defeating Epsom college in the final, and ending a 20-year absence of state school winners. That reflects a deeply embedded and highly effective rugby programme, with 19 players currently part of Northampton Saints under-18 academy and seven players earning England under-18 international honours. Earlier in the same season, NSB also secured the SOCS Daily Mail schools trophy, becoming the first state school ever to lift that title. Taken together, those achievements represent a watershed moment for state school rugby. For decades, these competitions have been dominated by independent schools. Before NSB’s success, the last state school to win the national cup was St Peter’s high school in Gloucester in 2006. NSB has shown that when state schools are properly supported with access to coaching and facilities, integrated into local clubs and provided with clear talent pathways, they can compete at the highest levels. Their success challenges long-standing assumptions about where elite rugby talent comes from, and demonstrates that excellence exists across the entire education system when opportunity is made available. We can already see the impact of widening those pathways in the players who have reached the very top of the game. Sadia Kabeya of the Red Roses attended a state school. Ellis Genge, a British and Irish Lions player, also came through the state school system. They are outstanding examples of players who did not follow the traditional route into rugby, yet have become some of the exciting and influential figures in sport. Their success shows exactly what can be achieved when talent is given the opportunity to flourish. We must make it easier for more young people to follow that path, because when we do, the game of rugby benefits enormously from the skills, diversity and character that those players bring. Investment in changing rooms, floodlights, sports kit, state school pitches and time in children’s weeks would unlock years, if not decades, of increased participation. It would enable clubs to expand youth sections, to create better facilities for women and girls and to host schools’ disability rugby and walking rugby. Rugby contributes more than £2 billion annually to England through improved health, stronger communities and economic activity. Those benefits are felt in every constituency. Healthy young people place less pressure on the NHS. Young people engaged in sports are less likely to become isolated. Communities with thriving sports clubs tend to have stronger volunteer networks and greater civic participation. Businesses would benefit from healthier, more confident and more resilient workforces in the future. Investment in grassroots rugby and sport more widely delivers dividends across multiple Government Departments. It benefits education, health, local government and the economy. I hope Ministers will continue working closely with the RFU, schools, local authorities and community clubs to develop a genuinely long-term strategy for growing participation. We should ensure that every child has access to rugby during their education, strengthen links between schools and local clubs, and continue supporting the growth of women’s rugby. We should invest in community facilities in schools and clubs that are fit for the next generation, because every England international once pulled on an oversized shirt at their local club, every professional player began with a volunteer coach, and every packed stadium begins with a child picking up a rugby ball for the first time. If we continue investing in those first opportunities, the future of English rugby will take care of itself. Will the Minister work across Government and with governing bodies to deliver the new school sport partnerships and enrichment framework, and provide early clarity on the objectives, priorities, delivery models and timescales? Will the Government ensure that schools have the capacity, facilities and support to deliver high-quality sport, so that every child can participate, especially in deprived communities? Will they guarantee sustainable funding, sufficient staffing and strong professional development for school sport partnerships? Will the Government support investment in the wider school workforce to help deliver activities such as rugby? Will they reaffirm the importance of PE and commit to a minimum of two hours of high-quality PE each week? Will they ensure that the curriculum recognises the wider benefits of team sports? If we get this right, we will not only secure the future of English rugby across codes; we will strengthen our communities, improve the health of our nation and give every child the chance to grow, belong and thrive through sport.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Mental Health Support for Police Officers · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps her Department is taking to improve mental health support for police officers.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Mental Health Support for Police Officers · Hansard source

  More

  A police officer constituent of mine reported a senior colleague for sexual assault. Separately, she was domestically abused and raped by a partner. Her domestic abuser was arrested, with bail conditions preventing contact, but in her trauma-induced state she continued to instigate contact and was subjected to a police misconduct proceeding. Despite experiencing severe trauma, including a suicide attempt, evidence about her mental health and welfare was not considered. She will never be a police officer again. What steps will the Minister take to ensure police forces adopt genuinely trauma-informed misconduct processes for officers who are victims of sexual assault, rape and domestic abuse?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. There are many exciting nature-based solutions for which I have high hopes. In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on climate technology, my focus today is mainly on the engineered solutions, but we need to consider all solutions to meet the challenge ahead.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I believe that we should back any and all solutions that help us face the challenge, and Northern Ireland is as well placed as any part of the UK to offer innovative solutions. Technology such as direct air capture and engineered removal methods will become an essential part of moving beyond net zero towards net negative emissions. Those technologies are nascent. The businesses that will develop them need to be founded today and to scale over the next decade. They need investment, certainty and confidence if they are to become globally competitive and properly supported. The encouraging news is that Britain already possesses almost everything needed to succeed. We have world-class universities that produce cutting-edge research, exceptional engineers, innovative start-ups and university spin-outs, globally respected financial services and investors, and advanced manufacturing capability. The UK’s GGR sector already contributes about £1.2 billion to the UK economy. It has the potential to contribute between £7 billion and £9 billion to GDP by 2050 while supporting more than 100,000 skilled jobs. The countries that build those technologies first will not simply reduce emissions at home; they will be central to global emission reductions for decades to come. Britain should aspire to become the global centre of carbon removal innovation, the home of future climate tech unicorns and a leading exporter of GGR technologies.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring this Adjournment debate to the House and to make the case for greater Government support for the greenhouse gas removals sector. First, I thank the sector for engaging so openly with me about its businesses and concerns, the Minister for his continued co-operation on this issue and Dr Alan Whitehead for publishing his extremely important review. Before entering this place, I spent almost a decade working in renewable energy, and before that on climate impact projects. I would certainly not claim to be an expert on greenhouse gas removals, but, through my work in the renewable energy sector, and now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on climate technology and the co-chair of the net zero APPG, I have at least become a passionate advocate for the sector. It has been encouraging to see a Secretary of State and Ministers who genuinely recognise the scale of the climate challenge. However, warm words must now become concrete action if Britain is not to miss yet another opportunity to become a world leader in one of the defining industries of the next century. Climate change is here. It is happening now. We see it through rising temperatures and increasingly frequent heatwaves, flooding, drought and wildfires. The changing climate is already affecting our communities, businesses and public services. Much of the conversation has rightly focused on reducing our emissions, and let me be clear: decarbonisation must remain our first priority. Every tonne of carbon dioxide we avoid emitting now is better than having to remove it later. However, even if we achieve every single one of our net zero targets—and we absolutely must—we will still have a problem. Net zero does not remove the carbon dioxide that is already sitting in our atmosphere, which is why this debate is not about carbon capture and storage, but about carbon removal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been absolutely clear that without greenhouse gas removals, keeping global warming within internationally agreed limits becomes effectively impossible. Today, humanity removes only about 2 billion tonnes annually, 99.9% of which is done by trees and plants. Meanwhile, we continue adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every single year. The scale of the challenge is enormous. Whenever I speak about this issue, someone invariably asks, “Why do we not just plant more trees?” I agree: trees are wonderful, and we should absolutely plant more of them. However, to keep global temperature increases below the 1.5% or 2% target, we would need to remove 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every single year, which would require us to plant roughly 50 million hectares of new forest annually. That is equivalent to covering the entirety of the UK with trees, twice, every single year. Even the most committed of environmentalists would accept that that approach has practical limitations.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector · Hansard source

  More

  There is a lot of truth in what the hon. Member has outlined. We see the most rapid transformation and progress where innovation and expertise are clustered. British innovators are already developing world-leading GGR technologies. The problem is that many of them struggle to raise the long-term investment needed to move from successful demonstrations to commercial deployment. British companies have told me that they will be European or American by the end of next year if the UK does not do more to support them. The Whitehead review made that point very clearly. It recognised that the United Kingdom possesses many of the ingredients required to become a global leader, but that early-stage GGR companies continue to face significant barriers to scaling up. Many of those businesses require substantial upfront capital before they generate meaningful revenue. Private investors understandably look for long-term certainty and a return on their investment. Without that certainty, investment simply flows elsewhere. UK start-ups struggle to access patient capital at precisely the moment they need it most. Of all climate tech early start-ups that failed, 62% fail at series A, the start of the so-called valley of death. Britain has repeatedly invented world-leading technologies only to watch other countries commercialise them. We cannot allow that to happen again. If we get this right, GGRs could become one of Britain’s great industrial success stories. If we get it wrong, we will again become purchasers of technologies developed elsewhere. The Government can create the long-term policy framework that gives markets confidence. The publication of the GGR business model alongside the Whitehead review was an important milestone. The commitment to integrating GGR into the UK emissions trading scheme is another positive step, but companies developing GGRs are making decisions today about where to build their first commercial facilities. Those decisions will determine where future supply chains develop, where highly skilled jobs are created and where intellectual property remains. What the sector is calling out for are low or no cost policy changes that would make a real difference until the response to the Whitehead review finally stops gathering dust on the Minister’s desk. Solutions could be amending the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, improving access to finance from public finance bodies, voluntary carbon market changes, expanding UK GGR standards to wider methods or endorsing interim standards, a new UK buyers’ club, a regulations audit, departmental sandboxes and standards for the emissions performance standard. We must give the market the certainty it is asking for and the investors the confidence to unlock that potential. That brings me to what I believe is the single most important proposal that the Government should consider. The answer lies in creating a British carbon bank, a Government-seeded revolving fund that will crowd in private finance. A British carbon bank would provide long-term advanced market commitments for verified GGRs. That would de-risk the purchase for the offtaker as the credits are certified, provide the capital that the GGR project needs to start capturing greenhouse gases and generating carbon credit, and improve investor confidence because there is a guaranteed purchaser. Rather than the Government attempting to fund every project themselves, a British carbon bank would create guaranteed demand for high-quality removals over many years, allowing businesses to secure investment and scale their technologies with confidence. The Whitehead review recognises exactly this challenge. It concluded that demand certainty will be fundamental if GGRs are to develop at the pace required. Without reliable long-term demand, many technologies will simply struggle to reach commercial scale. One particularly interesting example is Terraset, a US charity. Rather than relying solely on traditional grant funding, Terraset uses philanthropic finance to early pre-purchase commitments to vetted projects, giving those projects the capital to actually remove greenhouse gases. Those advanced commitments provide early demand, giving companies confidence to develop technologies while demonstrating to investors that a future market exists. These projects deliver verified carbon credits to Terraset, which it then sells to buyers. Any revenue generated is then returned to the fund and gets deployed into new projects. For every $1 it deploys, it unlocks $5 in private finance and achieves a 15% mark-up for credits under this de-risk model. As a result of this profit margin, it is now attracting interest from institutional investors, including pension funds. A British carbon bank would take that principle and apply it at a national scale. It would provide a clear signal that Britain intends to become the best place in the world to develop, deploy and commercialise greenhouse gas removal. One strength of a British carbon bank model is that it addresses the greatest barrier currently facing the sector: risk. The bank would purchase future carbon removals in advance, holding those credits until they have been independently verified and certified. There is, of course, a risk for the Government that some projects may ultimately fail to deliver the promised removals or not achieve certification. However, that risk can be significantly reduced through robust due diligence and careful product selection, as organisations such as Terraset have already demonstrated successfully. Importantly, the model also overcomes the current “chicken and egg” problem in the market. Today, many buyers are reluctant to pre-purchase carbon removals because they bear all the delivery risk. By contrast, a British carbon bank would offer only certified verified credits to the market, making them far more attractive to businesses seeking high-integrity carbon removals while simultaneously providing developers with the up-front certainty they need to secure investment and scale their technologies. The market will determine which solutions ultimately prove effective, whether nature-based approaches, direct air capture or entirely new technologies that are yet to emerge. With a relatively small Government investment, we could seed this market, crowding in five or 10 times more in private finance. Terraset supported Graphyte, which needed early-stage capital to move from planning into commercial deployment. Private buyers recognised the value of the project, but were not yet ready to commit at the scale or speed required. Through its revolving fund, Terraset made an advance commitment of just over $100,000, providing the confidence and working capital that enabled the project to proceed. Once Graphyte had delivered independently verified carbon removals, those credits were purchased by a commercial buyer, with the proceeds going back into the revolving fund to support the next generation of projects. I believe that a British carbon bank could replicate this revolving model at scale, helping promising British companies bridge the gap between innovation and commercial success. Net zero is today’s problem, and net negative is tomorrow’s, but if we do not start thinking about it now, we will not be ready to meet that challenge. We should be ambitious. We should not settle for participating in the market—we should aim to lead it. Will the Minister confirm precisely when the Government intend to publish their full response to the Whitehead review, and whether that will be before the House rises for the summer recess? Will he confirm whether the Government are giving serious consideration to the proposal for a British carbon bank or revolving fund to provide the long-term market certainty the sector has consistently called for? If the Government are not yet in a position to introduce longer-term reforms, what interim measures will they take to ensure that promising new UK GGR businesses are supported and not lost overseas while policies are being developed? Finally, will the Minister commit to continuing to work closely with the sector over the coming months, listening to businesses, investors and researchers, so that the UK can seize the opportunity to become a global leader in greenhouse gas removals rather than watching others move ahead? Carbon does not recognise borders or respect international treaties; it is a global challenge that demands world-leading solutions. I believe that those solutions should be developed here in the UK.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate. Before I begin, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was my privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the Gibraltar national day celebrations last year as a guest of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar. That visit, and my work on the Foreign Affairs Committee, gave me the opportunity to question Ministers, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, opposition politicians and business leaders about the treaty. Those discussions made it clear that the agreement has been shaped by the priorities of Gibraltar itself. The Brexit deal left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. The treaty finally resolves one of the last outstanding Brexit issues and provides Gibraltar with the certainty it has been seeking ever since the United Kingdom left the European Union. In 2016, 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the European Union; they have had to live with the consequences of a Brexit that they did not vote for. This agreement is about undoing some of the damage caused by a Brexit deal that Boris Johnson called “oven-ready” but in reality was always destined for the bin. The Chief Minister made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the single most important priority was ensuring that people who live in Spain but work in Gibraltar, particularly in the financial services and gaming sectors, could continue to cross the frontier every day without excessive delays. Without an agreement, Gibraltar would have been required to implement the full Schengen border code, and travellers would have faced European entry and exit systems and, in the future, the ETIAS—European travel information and authorisation system—digital travel authority. Those additional checks would have created significant delays, threatening Gibraltar’s competitiveness and potentially encouraging businesses to relocate. Instead, eligible travellers will enjoy fluid movement comparable with travelling between Schengen countries. Their ability to continue doing so quickly and efficiently underpins Gibraltar’s economy and the public services that Gibraltarians rely on. But this deal is about more than economics. The Chief Minister reminded the Foreign Affairs Committee that Gibraltar and the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar are communities bound together by families, friendship and shared history. During the closure of the frontier between 1969 and 1982, families were physically separated, forced to wave to one another across a closed border. Nobody wants a future resembling that painful past. This agreement protects the everyday relationships that exist across the frontier for work, family, education and leisure, and allows those connections to continue. Approximately 96% of Gibraltarian goods arrive through the land frontier with Spain. After Brexit, sanitary and phytosanitary barriers made importing fresh British food significantly more difficult, with products even requiring air freighting during the Christmas period. This treaty offers businesses the certainty they need. Essential food products will be zero-rated under a new transactions tax, and there will be reduced rates on other essential goods. The Chief Minister also made it clear that Gibraltar rejected any “freedom of establishment” in the treaty. Gibraltar is home to about 38,000 people living within approximately 2.5 square miles; it was never the intention to create unrestricted rights of establishment across a bloc of approximately 480 million people. Instead, the agreement focuses on facilitating movement across the frontier while preserving Gibraltar’s own immigration rules. Perhaps the greatest misconception about the treaty concerns sovereignty. The Government of Gibraltar state that there are no sovereignty concessions. The British Government state that sovereignty was never on the negotiating table. Article 2 explicitly preserves the position of both the UK and Spain on sovereignty and jurisdiction. Three independent legal opinions commissioned by the Government of Gibraltar conclude unequivocally that the treaty makes no concessions whatsoever to Spain or the European Union. The agreement also protects Britain’s strategic interests. The operational autonomy of the military base remains entirely unaffected. Protecting unrestricted military access was a red line throughout negotiations, supported fully by the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Secretary. In the highly unlikely event that Spain should ever seek to terminate the agreement, it cannot do so unilaterally. Under article 66, termination would require a qualified majority among European Union member states followed by action by the European Commission. That provides important legal certainty for Gibraltar’s future. I want to say something briefly about the wider UK-EU relationship. Gibraltar demonstrates something important: where the UK and the EU work together pragmatically, solutions can be found that benefit everyone. It shows that close co-operation with our European neighbours delivers tangible benefits. Britain’s long-term future should lie at the heart of Europe, because our economy, our security and our young people’s opportunities are stronger when we work alongside our closest neighbour and ally. I praise those who made this agreement possible. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Ministers, the Governor’s Office, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Commission and Spain have spent many years negotiating what the Minister has rightly described as a practical and lasting solution. This treaty will protect Gibraltar’s economy, safeguard British sovereignty, preserve military interests, strengthen regional stability and, above all, respect the democratic wishes of the Gibraltarian people.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps it is useful to point out that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not, as standard, hold evidence sessions on every treaty that is laid before Parliament under the CRaG process. The Minister and the Chief Minister very kindly appeared before us to give evidence, and frankly a lot of the questions that the shadow Minister asked were probably answered in that evidence session.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and neighbour is right to raise the pertinent issues of older buses and the closing of depots, which are directly linked. I hope that has been heard by the Minister. Across England, there were over 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. Bus service frequency in West Dorset has fallen by an astonishing 62%, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns are already transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. That creates barriers to employment, healthcare and independence. Patients miss hospital appointments, which contributes to the £1.2 billion annual cost of missed appointments for NHS England. Young people miss out on opportunities, older residents become isolated, and communities slowly lose confidence that public transport will ever return. That is why simply maintaining today’s network cannot be considered a success; the scale of decline means that we must actively rebuild what has already been lost. Between 2026 and 2030, Dorset will receive £13.8 million in Government bus funding: the lowest allocation anywhere in the south-west. That is £10.9 million less than neighbouring Somerset receives and £7.5 million less than Wiltshire. Devon and Torbay alone will receive over three and a half times Dorset’s allocation and Hampshire will receive nearly four times as much. It is therefore unsurprising that neighbouring authorities can expand services, modernise fleets and increase frequency, while Dorset is often forced simply to maintain what it has left. The Government deserve credit for recognising rurality, but rurality now needs to be given greater weighting within the funding formula. Serving dispersed populations inevitably costs more per passenger than operating in dense urban areas. There is a significant difference between increasing the frequency of an existing service and recreating a lost route from scratch. The latter requires considerably greater investment before passenger numbers can even begin to increase. Every summer, West Dorset’s population increases by over 42% due to seasonal visitors. Around 4 million day visitors and 2 million overnight visitors place a huge additional demand on our transport networks, which were designed to serve a much smaller permanent population. Yet that seasonal pressure is barely recognised in the national funding allocations. The Prime Minister in waiting takes great pride in the transformation of Manchester’s bus network. However, the Bee network demonstrates the scale of the investment required. Greater Manchester receives about £41.42 per resident, compared with approximately £4.84 per resident in Dorset—over eight times as much in funding per head. Transport for Greater Manchester manages a budget exceeding £480 million and subsidises almost a quarter of the network. That level of investment has transformed services, and I want Dorset to have the same level of ambition. However, rebuilding transport across hundreds of square miles of villages, market towns and dispersed communities is significantly harder than doing so in a major urban area. If the Government truly wish to level up rural transport, the funding formula must recognise that restoring services in rural Britain costs more, not less, than maintaining them in our cities. The consequences of poor bus services are perhaps felt most keenly by young people. The recent Milburn review identified transport as one of the main drivers of young people becoming detached from education, employment and training. The review found that in rural, deprived and coastal communities, transport itself had become a major barrier to opportunity for those without access to a car. The proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds holding a full driving licence has fallen to 29%, while for many families the cost of owning and insuring a car has simply become unaffordable. At the same time, bus services have become less frequent and more expensive. Bus fares increased by 59% between 2015 and 2023. On average, young people are now 15% less likely to travel than they were just 15 years ago, which should concern every Member of this House. When the last bus leaves before a hospitality evening shift finishes, a young person cannot access that hospitality job; they have been presented with a challenge that they cannot overcome. That is why I was pleased to table amendments to the Bus Services Bill during its passage to improve connectivity for young people by providing free bus travel for 16 to 18-year-olds, to encourage better co-ordination between buses and trains, and to ensure that funding reflects the realities that rural communities face. Those amendments were not adopted, but I hope the Government will start to move in the positive direction that they indicated. West Dorset has an ageing population, and many people rely on buses to reach GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and shops. When the bus services disappear, independence disappears with them. Poor transport also increases pressure on the NHS, on social care and on local authorities—all these things are connected. That is why I believe we should return to a sort of “total place” thinking, which was first developed over a decade ago: looking across departmental boundaries, instead of operating within them. The Dorset total transport pilot brought together school transport, adult social care transport, public bus services and community transport. With just £180,000 of funding, the pilot improved services in some areas while identifying longer-term efficiencies and introducing more flexible, demand-responsive transport. It also explored digital technology to better match transport supply with demand. Rather than allowing buses to sit empty after a school run or to return to depots, we should ask how those vehicles could transport patients home from hospitals, connect isolated villages or just provide additional journeys during the day. We also need a more joined-up approach between different modes of transport. People should not wait 40 minutes for a bus because the train was three minutes late. We need a properly integrated local transport network with more regulated and co-ordinated bus services. In many rural communities, community transport is often the only reason people remain connected at all.