Westminster Hall

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 3 September 2024

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Healthcare Provision: East of England

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered healthcare provision in the East of England.

It is an honour to conduct this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Before getting into the meat of the debate, I will give a brief overview of the broad context. The beating heart of healthcare provision in this country is of course the national healthcare system, arguably the closest thing to socialism that this country has ever seen, based as it is on the provision of healthcare by need, not the size of someone’s wallet. That is pretty unique, not just in this country but around the world. One could argue that this far-sighted policy has changed the very nature of our everyday reality.

Our health is everything. Without it, we are more insecure, less productive and less happy. The security of good health and of access to care free at the point of use has revolutionised our society, helping us to live longer, more secure lives, and arguably creating social stability that affects economic productivity and perhaps even the strength of our democracy itself. Or at least it did so until about 60 years ago, when it began to be picked apart.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my friend as well, for giving way. How wonderful it is to see so many people present for this debate at the beginning of term.

I point out gently that the NHS has also thrived under successive Conservative Governments and that, although it may be a great socialist idea, I believe it has come to be part of the fabric of our whole country and I think all parties present want to improve and support it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the NHS also underpins our enterprise economy? In America and other places, it is difficult to start a company when the healthcare costs of the staff have to be thought about; here, by underwriting the cost, we help entrepreneurs to start businesses. That point is often overlooked.

[Clive Lewis]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, yes, successive Governments have presided over the NHS, but with differing intentions. Until the mid-1970s, say, there was a broad consensus—I will come on to this—on what the welfare state was and how it operated. That has changed substantially in the past 60 years. The implementation of different policies by different Governments, including Conservative ones, has not always been in the best interests of the NHS. On enterprise, yes, a secure welfare state, good social security and the ability to give people good health—the NHS has been integral to that—have implications for our economy, as I have already pointed out.

I am sure I am not the first or the last to suspect a direct connection between the rise of angry and anti-democratic right-wing politics and the demise of the NHS’s ability to look after us all effectively. The sheer far-reaching impact of the NHS and its crisis cannot be underestimated. One needs only to look at the US, where free universal healthcare does not exist, as the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) just mentioned, to see the state of politics, crime, drug addiction and social breakdown there. The free market in healthcare provision and medicines has led to a country with one of the least efficient and most high-cost healthcare systems in the western world, and where millions are hooked on drugs that are as heavily advertised as if they were cans of coke. Let us not indulge too much in English exceptionalism, though. We need only to look at dentistry and adult social care in this country to see what happens to healthcare provision that is, to all intents and purposes, privatised or well on its way to being so—the consequences of which I hope colleagues will discuss later in the debate.

The foresight of the 1945 Labour Government cannot be underestimated. When the NHS was launched in 1948, it was done in tandem with the advent of the welfare state, because Beveridge, Keynes and Bevan understood the three pillars necessary for a healthy nation. The first pillar—the NHS—would be there for people if they became sick, but it was the second and third pillars that meant the NHS would not be overburdened. They would work in tandem with it to prevent sickness.

The second pillar was, of course, the welfare state, providing a network of social institutions that would protect citizens from the market risks associated with unemployment, accidents and old age. The third pillar was an economic system that prioritised full employment in secure, well-paid, unionised jobs—a system that sought to reduce all forms of inequality, from wealth to health.

Over the last 60 years, the three pillars have been systematically smashed. The second and third pillars are in tatters, while the first—the NHS—is wobbling precariously. It is testament to the enduring nature of the national healthcare system that it has managed to survive as an almost solitary pillar for as long as it has. If a Labour Government are truly to fix the foundations of our broken healthcare system, they must acknowledge the nature of the three-pillar foundation, and acknowledge that the NHS cannot be fixed if we do not rebuild and replace the other two pillars as well.

The situation in the east of England—from dentistry deserts to sky-rocketing rates of mental health referrals and some of the worst ambulance waiting times in the country—is beyond one malfunctioning organisation. Norwich and the wider region are experiencing a systemic crisis that is institutional, social and economic. Healthcare reforms such as devolution to the integrated care boards have become about devolving who gets to wield the axe to make savings—known to many people as cuts. I will give an example. Our ICB in the east of England, part of NHS Norfolk and Waveney, has been told by national health bosses to cut its running costs by 30% by 2026. My first question to the Minister is: how will our Government deliver improved healthcare outcomes while simultaneously implementing the previous Government’s frankly destructive cuts?

We know that vast areas such as dentistry and social care are largely privatised, with spiralling costs, and that undermines the NHS’s central commitment to care being free at the point of use. Tendrils of the crisis extend into social care. It is often said that if social care is cut, the NHS bleeds too. Norfolk county council acknowledges a crisis in social care. With soaring demand and struggles to recruit staff, there is a backlog of hundreds of vulnerable people waiting to get their care needs assessed, and care providers fold on a regular basis. My second question to the Minister, then, is: what news can she give us on the last Government’s unimplemented cap on care costs? Is it being implemented, as the Secretary of State implied during the general election campaign, or being dropped? If it is dropped, what plans are there to help those facing ruin given their complex care needs?

One consequence of the situation in Norfolk is that there are regularly hundreds of hospital patients who are medically fit to leave but unable to be discharged. It is clear that our healthcare system is struggling to respond to today’s crisis, but it is also unprepared for the challenges of the future. East Anglia is the UK region most at risk from early climate impacts, and there is clear evidence of the link between climate breakdown and ill health. For example, from 2022 to 2023 the number of flood reports in Norfolk doubled, and stretches of Norwich are predicted to flood year after year. Victims of flooding in the UK are nine times more likely to experience long-term mental health issues, and flooding is linked to a greater instance of respiratory diseases because of dampness.

Prevention is better than cure—it is about treating the causes, not just symptom alleviation. We know that the Prime Minister is keen on the so-called preventive state and we have seen some early policy announcements, so my third question is: will the Minister elaborate on what that will look like? What does healthcare provision that prioritises prevention look like in the east of England?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I know the debate is about the issues particular to his constituency, but they are ones apparent to all of us across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. First, does he understand and perhaps agree that the Minister and Government could look at pharmacies having a bigger role in treating minor ailments? Secondly, there is the issue of how people, particularly elderly people, can access GP appointments regularly. Thirdly, when it comes to cataract surgery there is a postcode lottery across the whole United Kingdom. If people get the surgery early, it stops them losing their sight. Is the hon. Gentleman experiencing issues in his constituency similar to those in mine?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his input, and his points were well made. When researching this debate, I probably spent more time working out what I did not have time to say than what I could actually put into the debate, so I have tried to do a broad overview. Many of the issues the hon. Gentleman raised are also of concern in my Norwich South constituency and across the eastern region. I am sure that during the debate many of those issues will be raised and dealt with in more detail.

Our Government have said they are a Government of service, but a legitimate fourth question that I ask the Minister is: in service of whom and to what end? It is clear to many that the interests of big business, of big tech and data companies and of private finance do not always sit well with the public interest, particularly when it comes to health. There are areas where they do, but there are also areas where they do not. We know with whom the last Government sided; whom will ours back when push comes to shove—big business, big tech, the finance industry or Joe public?

I want to briefly provide a snapshot of the scale of the crisis in the eastern region. Ambulance response times in the east of England are significantly worse than those in the rest of England. In 2023, response times for category 1 cases—that is, severe cases—were nearly 12 minutes in East Anglia, while the national target is seven minutes. They were nearly the worst on record. The Care Quality Commission, now under inquiry and investigation itself for its capability to do its job, has described Norwich university hospital as the

“worst in the East of England”

for ambulance handover times.

Referrals to mental health services increased by 18% between 2018 and 2020. Compared with the rest of England, Norwich and Norfolk have higher rates of self-harm, death by suicide and mental health issues among young people, as well as more self-diagnosed mental health issues generally. Our mental health trust—Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust—is notorious for being the worst in the country, and I do not think that can be said enough.

Norwich is a dental desert. In July, the Secretary of State branded Norwich North the “Sahara of dental deserts”. That is a rather romantic notion, but it is a desert where people pull their own teeth out in this burgeoning phenomenon of a do-it-yourself dentistry industry. Indeed, some of my Ukrainian constituents have told me that they find it preferable to dodge Russian missiles and artillery to use Ukrainian dentists. Ukraine arguably has a better dental system in the middle of a prolonged war. That is unsurprising given that in the east we have one NHS dentist—no, it is not even one NHS dentist; it is one dentist—per 2,600 people. Just picture that in your head: one dentist with their tools with 2,600 people queued up. That is what it feels like to many of my constituents.

For the second year running, no dental practices are accepting NHS patients. Norfolk children under five have some of the worst tooth decay in the entire country. Thousands of people have had to go to hospitals in Norwich and Norfolk for abscesses that should have been prevented. The list goes on and on. I am sure that many of my colleagues from the eastern region will also outline some of the issues and stories that they know are taking place on a daily basis, and that have been for many years now.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point about dentistry that I think we all understand, particularly in the east. Does he agree that the real cause is threefold—the tariff did not keep up with costs and inflation, we have not been training enough dentists and we have been losing too many—and that the previous Government’s dental plan was a big step in the right direction? Does he support that plan? I am interested to know whether the Opposition intend to continue to implement it.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but will leave the response to the Minister, because it is a question that she would be better able to answer. Frankly, given that the last Government had 14 years to sort out that mess and have handed it over, pretty much complete, to the new Labour Administration, I will not be singing their praises when it comes to dentistry. That will not be going on the record.

I will conclude by looking at the social and economic roots of the healthcare crisis, which are the elephant in the room. As I have outlined, many of the causes of ill health are socially determined. Waiting lists, ill health and mental health issues are signs that our healthcare system is breaking down, but also that we have an economy with a degrading social fabric—one need only look at the race riots this summer to understand that. But do not take my word for it; listen to civil society organisations in my constituency that are at the coalface of this crisis. The Norfolk Care Association says:

“Around 10% of health outcomes result directly from healthcare delivery, with a more significant proportion derived from the physical, social, and economic factors that people experience day to day. The government must do more to tackle poverty, ensure quality housing, and create safe communities, as these are fundamental to improving health outcomes.”

Age UK Norwich says that the key healthcare issue older people face is

“chronic health conditions and limited spend/focus on prevention: around 55% of Norfolk’s older population have one or more long-term health conditions; however, most are treated independently”.

That organisation points to the need for

“Rebalancing healthcare focus and investment to underlying causal factors”—

the “wider determinants” that make up 80% of a person’s overall health status.

Let us have a quick look at some more drivers of ill health. Take, for example, fuel poverty: 10% of people in the east of England live in fuel poverty, and it is almost 12% in Norwich South. Fuel costs in the UK are on average 30% higher than the EU average.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The hon. Member makes an important point about fuel poverty and its direct link with illness, so will he support his Government’s removal of the winter fuel allowance?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interesting question. I am not happy with the removal of the winter fuel payment—of course I am not—and I do not think anyone on this side of the House will be happy with it, but I also understand that there are two points in the year when you support your Government: the King’s Speech and the Budget. I am not looking to break that, but like many of my colleagues I have severe concerns about the impact this proposal will have on people’s health and wellbeing and on their pockets. I have every confidence that my Government will put in place the best possible response to the £22-billion hole left by Conservative Members. I just do not think that the removal of the winter fuel allowance is necessarily the right way forward, but we shall see what happens in the days and weeks ahead. My question to the Minister is this: does she believe—this almost pre-empts the question asked by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew)—that the cut to winter fuel payments will improve the situation in terms of fuel poverty and its impact on health?

Another example is financial insecurity. Age UK Norwich told us that 35% of Norwich wards fall within the top 10% of the most deprived areas in England. There has been a 35% rise in food bank use in the city, fuel poverty is at nearly 16%, and 68% of Age UK Norwich inquiries are about money, debt or bills.

Another example is poor housing and malnutrition. We have quite extreme malnutrition in Norwich. Norfolk has the highest malnutrition rate in England; malnutrition affects one in five people in Norfolk and Waveney. Jade Hunter, the headteacher of West Earlham infant and nursery school, told The Guardian:

“We do get a lot of bad chests because they’re in damp homes that are maybe mouldy, and we get a lot of sickness and diarrhoea because the quality of the food they’re eating isn’t great”.

She told me that one way teachers know children are hungry is that they chew their pens and chew sand. That shows that they are not being given what they need to thrive at school.

Before I conclude to allow others to contribute, I would like to ask the Minister some more questions. We know there will be a Government review of NHS England structures. There is an incomprehensible patchwork of bodies covering different geographical areas, including the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust, the East of England ambulance service, the NHS Norfolk and Waveney integrated care board—the list goes on. Are there plans to simplify those structures and make those bodies more accountable? I understand that NHS reorganisations and reforms are not always popular, particularly with staff, but I wanted to ask that question.

Secondly, before the general election, all Norfolk MPs called for an undergraduate dental school to be established at the University of East Anglia. With my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and many others across the region, I have been working on that proposal, so will the Minister tell us whether there has been any news or developments? Such a school will be critical to beginning to end the dental desert in Norfolk and Waveney—dentist provision in Suffolk is in almost as bad a state.

Finally, I campaigned for mental health before I was an MP, I and continue to do so to this day, despite the difficulties. Despite the past 15 years of so-called change and reform in our local mental health service, it is still arguably the worst in the country. Will there be a statutory public inquiry into the systemic failure of mental health services in Norfolk and Suffolk? This scandal—this slow-motion disaster—has gone on too long, disrupted and ruined too many lives, led to people dying unnecessarily, and caused much grief. People need answers, and if we are to learn lessons from what has happened in the past 15 years, we need an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of these issues.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, let me say that about 10 people have indicated that they wish to speak. The winding-up speeches will start just before 10.40 am. I believe in self-regulation, so I hope people will contain themselves so that their speeches meet the overall need.

09:53

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), on securing this important debate about the health service in the east of England.

We have just recovered from a general election, and I hope we have all had time off—a bit of a break—to recharge our batteries so that we can start thinking about how we should lead this country in the years and months ahead. Health and the health service was a key election issue on the doorsteps of Broadland and Fakenham. As the Conservative candidate, I was armed with a whole series of data about how we had 20,000 more doctors and had, I think, recruited 50,000 more nurses. We had paid for and secured 50 million more GP appointments each year—an increase to 350 million per year. We had provided a lot more funding for the NHS, increasing it by £28 billion, or 17%, since 2019. I would have the conversation on the doorstep and read off all these facts about how we had funded the health service, but that was not how things felt to our constituents, and that was a key negative impact for Conservative candidates such as myself. As a Government, we felt we had done what we could—we had increased the funding—but the outcomes our constituents experienced did not tally with that.

I have come up with a number of factors to explain that. One was the covid backlog for elective surgery. Back in early 2020, covid was thrown at the Government, who were caught unaware, and it created a huge backlog. Steps were taken to address it in Norfolk. We had two new operating theatres for elective surgery at the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, and we got the diagnostic centres at the James Paget university hospital and the Queen Elizabeth hospital, as well as a new one at Cromer. However, these things take time to work through, and the election came before our constituents felt the benefits of that enormous local investment.

However, there was a bigger problem, which the Conservative Government failed to address. A key, proper criticism of our Government is that productivity in the health service went down between 2019 and 2024 by about 5.8%. We were putting much more money in and we had more staff, but what they achieved decreased. If there is one thing the Minister should address—I would be grateful if she could do so in her summing-up—it is what plans the Government have to improve productivity, rather than just funding and staffing, in the NHS, because that is the absolute key. My starter for 10 is that productivity will not improve if we have pay deals like that awarded to ASLEF, where money was provided and productivity improvements were removed from the deal.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about productivity in the health system. I have been a Health Minister and I have observed that—not because of ministerial diktat, but just because of the way the health system works—if you deliver more for less, the Treasury and the Department of Health give you less, but if you struggle to deliver more for less, we give you more. If we ran a business like that, we would go bust. Does my hon. Friend agree that, ultimately, the east needs a much more decentralised, empowered system? In Norfolk, we have an ambulance trust, a mental health trust, three hospital trusts and five clinical commissioning groups. That is bonkers. We need one Norfolk healthcare system that provides what patients need: an integrated patient pathway.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have made progress in that direction with the integrated care board, which is a very good step in the right direction because it allows the whole care system in Norfolk to come under one remit. We were beginning to see some of the benefits of that with the mental health trust. Although it has a long and pretty disgraceful history of underperformance, there have been tentative signs of improvement since the ICB came in.

The next issue, particularly in Norfolk, is the physical state of our hospitals. We have the Queen Elizabeth hospital at King’s Lynn, which is a RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—hospital, the James Paget in Yarmouth, and the pretty modern Norfolk and Norwich in Norwich. The last Government fully funded and agreed full rebuilds of the QEH and the James Paget, which are long overdue. Those hospitals should be rebuilt by 2030, and I am very concerned to hear that that funding commitment is now under review. The Minister might be constrained in what she can say at the Dispatch Box, but whatever reassurance she can give the residents of Norfolk about the Government’s intention to continue those rebuilds would be much appreciated, because they are enormously important to my constituents.

Then there is dentistry. The hon. Member for Norwich South talked about our dental desert in Norfolk. We have 39 dentists per 100,000 of population, compared with a national average of 52. If someone who grows up in Norfolk wants to be a dentist, the nearest place they can train is Birmingham or London, so it is no surprise that we do not have domestic, home-grown talent becoming dentists in Norfolk. What incentive is there for a just-qualified 26 or 27-year-old who is not from the eastern region to move to a largely rural area? For those reasons, we desperately need an undergraduate dental training school at the UEA in Norwich, perhaps in partnership with other academic establishments in the east of England. I am not squeamish about what it might look like, but we need to have undergraduates being trained in the east of England and in Norwich, because 40% of UEA medical school graduates become “sticky”—they stay in the area because they fall in love, get married and develop commercial relationships with GP surgeries and the like.

The dental Minister in the last Government came to the UEA in about May for a lecture and a series of meetings. The impression given was that we were on the cusp of an announcement of a dental training school but that the election got in the way. All eastern region Members of Parliament, irrespective of their political colour, are wholly in support of that, and we would be very grateful, as the hon. Member for Norwich South said, if we could have some indication that it is still on track.

There is a huge amount to be done in the east of England and in Norwich in particular. We have great staff and good structures, but we need to get the productivity working and the expectation of early GP appointments back on schedule. One recurrent complaint I get from constituents is about how difficult it is to see a GP. I note that 43% of all GP appointments are now same-day appointments, and that record needs to be built on. I have listed a number of areas on which I would be grateful if the Minister could give an indication of the Government’s thinking, and I look forward to hearing her response.

10:02

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing a debate on such an important issue, which I know is close to the hearts of all our constituents.

The NHS is clearly in crisis. Those who can afford to go private do so, while everyone else is forced to linger on long waiting lists. My constituents are frustrated, sometimes to the point of giving up waiting for urgent operations—and sometimes just for GP appointments. Lowestoft hospital in my constituency was closed a decade ago. The building now lies empty without a replacement, and we continue to wait for a long-term solution that benefits the community. As has been mentioned, the James Paget University hospitals rebuild is desperately needed. It is one of the two hospitals worst affected by RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—in the country.

It seems clear that the crisis in the NHS is no longer just an issue of funding and that investment must be coupled with reform to fundamentally improve health outcomes. I have been impressed, for example, by East Coast Community Healthcare, a staff-owned social enterprise that provides community-based NHS healthcare across Norfolk and Suffolk. ECCH demonstrates that things can be done differently, and that technical solutions and the freedom to innovate can allow providers to do more with the same funding and operate a system that is able to absorb rises in demand.

We sorely need to improve experiences of NHS care. For many, it has become something of a nightmare. I will focus on dental health. My constituents are particularly concerned about their inability to access NHS dentistry, and rightly so. Over the past 14 years, as we have heard, areas such as mine have become so-called dental deserts. As it stands, east Suffolk ranks seventh out of the 39 districts in the east of England for the lowest number of dentists.

Even where dentists are practising, residents find it impossible to get an appointment. In 2022, it was found that not a single dental practice in Suffolk was accepting new NHS patients. I have talked to far too many of my constituents who have been forced to rip out their own teeth. As we have already heard, that is happening right across East Anglia, and that is why I made improving access to dentistry one of my six election pledges. Although some progress has been made by the formation of the Norfolk and Waveney integrated care board, it is the dental system itself that is holding the NHS back from making improvements to accessibility. We currently have a system that does not work for patients or dentists. A survey by the Dental Defence Union of its members found that 41% are looking to reduce their hours and 31% are planning to leave the practice or retire early because of the sheer pressures of the system.

As NHS dentistry crumbles, I am particularly concerned about the impact on our children and young people. Data shows that almost a third of the 100,000 people who are admitted to A&E with tooth decay each year are children. It is the most common reason for children aged six to 10 to be admitted to hospital. Analysis from the British Dental Association found that on average, 116 children had to have their teeth extracted each day in 2022. In that same year, it was revealed that 40% of children—4.4 million—had not seen a dentist in the previous 12 months.

This is clearly an issue of inequality. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds suffer from worse oral health than their more affluent counterparts. It is a significant gap: 34.3% of children from deprived areas had dental decay in 2019, compared with 13.7% in less deprived areas. Poor health contributes to poor life outcomes. For example, teacher surveys have shown that poor oral health contributes to social exclusion, leading to children missing school. Breaking that vicious cycle is essential. If we cannot improve people’s health, how can we improve their lives? Instead of ensuring children get the best start possible in life, we are handing them rotten teeth and rotten chances to succeed.

I am glad that the Government have set their sights firmly on revolutionising dentistry in this country. Rebuilding NHS dentistry will be a difficult job but, unlike the previous Government, this Labour Government will not kick the can down the road. I am delighted that we have said we will create an extra 700,000 urgent and emergency dental appointments each year, including 100,000 for children. I welcome the financial incentives for new dentistry graduates to work in dental deserts such as mine. We will ingrain the importance of good dental health practice in children from a young age and crack down on the prevalence of hospital admissions for rotten teeth by introducing supervised tooth brushing for three to five-year-olds in schools. Most importantly, we will reform the dental contract, which is not fit for purpose and pushes dentists into private practice.

With an active Government willing to attack issues at the root—sorry for the pun—of the issue, I am confident that we can make significant process in this and all other areas of healthcare. Ultimately, the NHS is the way in which most people interact with the Government. If we can rebuild trust there by delivering improvements, we can also rebuild trust in politics and the ability of the Government to improve lives. If we can get the basics right, then all the other issues become easier to solve.

10:07

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we are witnessing the tragic consequences of an outdated funding formula. It is entrenching deep inequality across the region and the country, but it is particularly deep in Cambridgeshire, which is the most impacted of all 42 healthcare systems in the country. We receive the lowest healthcare funding per person for primary healthcare. This is just wrong. A distressing example of this is happening right now in South Cambridgeshire, one of the fastest-growing places in the country. GPs—we have talked about productivity—are treating more patients than ever before, but cannot keep up with the demands of a growing population. This is particularly so because of the funding formula.

During the election campaign, I ran a survey that showed that 60% of respondents were struggling to access a GP appointment. We have heard that this is happening across the region and the country. It has come to a head this week, with four much-respected family GPs tragically handing back their contracts because it is financially impossible for them to continue. They are devastated by this decision. I have spoken with the integrated care board, which has been unable to stop this happening, and my constituents in Fulbourn, Fen Ditton, Marleigh and Cherry Hinton are hugely concerned.

This has occurred as a direct consequence of the Carr-Hill funding formula—an outdated funding formula that does not take into account deprivation in an area. The practices that are dealing with deprivation find themselves dealing with more patients than others and more complex needs than others, but the funding formula does not take this into account. The practice has tried to deal with this over the years, but this is the tragic consequence in the end. Will the Minister join the Royal College of General Practitioners, the NHS confederation of primary care networks, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough integrated care board and me in calling for a radical review of the outdated Carr-Hill funding formula, so that we can enable GPs to do their job sufficiently and well?

10:11

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this important debate.

Following the election, some of the earliest emails I received were from NHS staff from a variety of disciplines who feel deeply undervalued, under-appreciated and overworked. In May of this year, GPs in Cambridgeshire carried out 547,804 appointments, 62.5% of which were face to face. That is the equivalent of 64% of the county in just one month.

There are more patients per fully qualified GP in the east of England than the ratio for England as a whole. It is the same for my region of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire there are fewer fully qualified GPs than in 2017. Local practices simply do not have the funding to hire more GPs, so we find ourselves looking at a ridiculous situation where we invest as a nation in world-class training for new GPs, through six years of medical school followed by foundation years and more, but once they qualify they often cannot find work.

It is not just about putting more funding into the system as a whole; allocation is not working fairly either. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) just mentioned, the funding formula used for the general medical services contracts, under which most GP surgeries operate, is based in part on data originating before 2000. Leading GPs I have spoken to expressed a firm view that it discriminates against not just some of the areas the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned, but urban settings with younger patients, despite significant health needs in those areas. I represent a significant part of urban Peterborough, which last year was ranked as the least healthy place in the entirety of Britain. This must be seriously examined, with changes made.

GMS contracts are held by practices in perpetuity, but a number have had to hand back their contracts to local NHS commissioners, which leads to their practices being put under time-limited commercial contracts called APMS contracts—alternative provider medical services contracts. That occurs when practices just cannot cope financially any more, and the rate in our region is truly shocking. Nationally, around 1% of GP practices are on APMS contracts. In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, it is 12.5%, or one in eight, with many more on the edge.

These contracts are held by private companies whose loyalties lie with their shareholders. The stealth privatisation of our regional services is an appalling legacy of the last Government’s 14 years of failure. Not only are these private contracts bad for patients, with continuity of care poorer due to a higher proportion of locum staff employed, but they are far more expensive for the taxpayer. I know of one practice in the region that is being given £40 of additional funding per patient under an APMS contract, when ironically even half of that extra funding added to the GMS contract they handed back would probably have solved the problem. That makes me even more pleased and proud that this new Government are taking immediate steps to address the situation, with a 7.4% increase to the global funding sum for GP practices announced for 2024-25. We will fix this mess, but it is going to take time.

Healthcare needs have become greater over time. This is particularly acute in the east, the fastest-growing region in the UK in the 2010s, where the population grew by 8.1% between 2011 and 2021. Like much of the UK, the east is ageing. As people live longer, their healthcare needs become more complex and challenging, and a thriving workforce is needed to address those appropriately. If those needs are left unaddressed, NHS England warns of a shortfall of between 260,000 and 360,000 staff by 2036-37, with patient demand increasing across the board.

In my maiden speech, I highlighted the dental desert that we face in Peterborough; others have mentioned their areas. Some people have to travel as far as Stevenage and Kettering to receive treatment because, in our city, there are no adult dental clinics accepting new NHS patients. The British Dental Association has warned that unmet need for NHS dentistry in the UK is at an all-time high, and the Government will need our support to bring that down.

Of course healthcare is a joined-up issue affected by several other policy areas. The crisis in social care, for example, has exacerbated many of the issues faced by the health sector. Some in our eastern region have championed innovative methods to tackle that, such as models using virtual beds—of which there are 190 in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough; feedback has been really positive there. We need to support that kind of innovation to make our NHS fit for the future, as I know the Government will.

However, the issues in healthcare seem never ending: RAAC-ridden hospitals are having to be replaced; GPs and NHS workers are burnt out; recruitment and retention are difficult yet, simultaneously, some cannot find work; access to dental care is non-existent for some; healthcare inequalities persist; and patient demand is growing and growing.

Dealing with all of that is a huge undertaking, and the Government have been left with a terrible inheritance. Addressing it will require a deftness, competency and compassion that we have not seen for 14 years. But the Government have started well, and I have every confidence that the east, and those in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire, will benefit from this Labour Government’s approach and see a better experience for staff and patients alike.

10:16

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this debate. We seem to be on a journey from east to west; we have covered Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, and now we are in Bedfordshire, one of the smallest counties in England—and I am pleased to be joined today by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). We are a small county, and my very rural constituency is squeezed between Bedford and Luton. I would like to dwell on three points: housing growth and primary care, hospital modernisations, and rural communities and health equality.

Our communities in Mid Bedfordshire have done more than their fair bit and taken more than their fair share of housing growth. We have seen population growth far outstrip the delivery of new infrastructure. Nowhere is this more apparent than in a planned new town called Wixams in my constituency. Residents had reasonably expected that the infrastructure they needed would be staged throughout the development so that they would have the healthcare that they need as that community grows, but that has not happened.

Seventeen years after shovels went in the ground, around 5,000 people now call Wixams home. That number could be as high as 20,000 when the development is finished, but they still do not have a GP surgery. The community has been fighting for years to have a GP surgery, and their demands have been falling on deaf ears, between the local authorities—Bedford and Central Bedfordshire—and the ICB. The ICB is not accountable to our local populations, and that demand for a GP surgery is falling on deaf ears. I ask the Minister, if I may, to respond to that and to join and help me to unblock the issues that we are facing with local, unaccountable integrated care boards, to deliver the healthcare in Wixams.

I know that that case in Wixams is not an isolated one. Across Mid Bedfordshire, I hear time and again of cases where GP surgery capacity has failed to grow and meet population growth. We have heard statistics from colleagues in this room; in our ICB area, the average number of patients per GP is now 2,955, up 651 since December 2016; in the same period, GP numbers have reduced by 44. That just is not good enough—we need better healthcare for our constituents. I am sure that that picture is painted in constituencies right across the east of England.

If the Government are serious about plans to deliver 300,000 new houses per year, they also need to be serious about their plans to deliver the infrastructure that our communities need, starting with a clear plan for a capital investment programme that will give local communities up front the funding they need to deliver GP surgeries rather than having to wait for developer contributions after the houses are built. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about infrastructure alongside housing development.

My second point is on hospital modernisation. Communities across the east of England deserve access to modern and advanced hospitals. I welcomed the fact that the previous Government had committed to the inclusion of the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital and the Milton Keynes Women’s and Children’s Hospital in the new hospitals programme, and I urge the current Government to confirm that they will proceed with that investment. However, we cannot stop there.

Right across the east of England, we see hospitals failing to deliver the high-quality services that our constituents need. That is not the fault of the hard-working doctors and nurses who work in the hospitals; it is because of crumbling buildings and poor technology. In Bedfordshire, we are behind on NHS digitisation, and significant investment is needed in the fabric of our local hospitals—particularly in Bedford, where I understand there is a significant and serious maintenance backlog.

In the coming months, I look forward to engaging further with the Minister about the Government’s plans to drive forward NHS digitisation in Bedfordshire, and to discussing how we can ensure that people using Bedford Hospital—mostly people from the north of my constituency—have access to the state-of-the-art facilities.

My third point is on rural communities and health inequality. Across the east of England, many of us represent highly rural constituencies. I do not think that I will “out-rural” colleagues from Norfolk, but Mid Bedfordshire is among the most rural; as a result, some of our residents face significant health inequalities. Those include difficulties for remote and isolated hamlets, which have poor access to poor health services, in accessing treatment; insufficient public transport; narrow roads; bad broadband; longer travel times to access the local GP and dentist—if there is a dentist; and all the challenges that many of our more rural healthcare settings face in recruiting staff.

During this Parliament, I would like to see the Government commit to delivering for rural areas, with focused efforts to deliver staff and services that reach out into the most isolated communities, to ensure that everyone can access the healthcare they need within a short journey from their front door. I hope that colleagues across the east of England share that ambition.

10:22

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this important debate. As we have heard from the contributions so far, the levels of disparity in healthcare in the east of England are significant; in my constituency of Luton North, they are very stark indeed. There are huge gaps in health and life expectancy across the town of Luton itself—I am not talking about the region, but just the town itself. Those gaps mean that someone in one area of Luton can expect to live up to 10 years longer than someone in another part of the town. I am sure that hon. Friends will agree that the fact the gaps in life expectancy within one town are so stark in 2024 is shocking.

We know that unfortunately there is a link between poverty and healthcare outcomes—and, indeed, healthy life expectancy. Those cannot be separated. Luton currently has the second lowest public spend figures in the NHS, local government, police and public health when compared to other towns in England with relative need, which comes after the 14 years of austerity that we in Luton have also suffered from.

Sadly, Luton has high levels of child poverty, with around 45% of children in the town living in poverty. There seems to be a misconception that when we talk about poverty and about child poverty in particular, we are talking about families where people are not in work. Actually, what I find when I see my constituents who are struggling and reliant on voluntary services, such as the food bank, the Curry Kitchen or the Breakfast Battery Boxes running out of Sundon Park, is that most of these people are in employment. They are working hard to try and support their families, but are unable to make ends meet.

There is one issue regarding child health that I will focus on, although I know that everyone who has spoken so far has already touched on it: access to dentistry. A report on children’s oral health published by Luton Borough Council in March 2023 found that Luton had some of the highest prevalence of tooth decay among five-year-olds in England.

I want to dive into some of the reality behind those stats. I have visited countless primary schools across Luton North and one of the key things that teachers always raise with me is oral hygiene. Sadly, I have seen children with brown nubs where white teeth should be. Many of those children have never owned a toothbrush or had access to one at home. Many schools in Luton North now provide children with toothbrushes to be kept at school, and take time out of lessons to ensure that children are brushing their teeth. Most of these children have never seen a dentist before, and many require painful tooth extractions, with tooth decay being the most common reason why children aged six to 10 are hospitalised. The situation has a knock-on effect on children’s vital early years of development: they are missing school and are unable to speak properly, learn phonics or eat a proper healthy and balanced diet.

There are organisations trying to fill the gap, such as the Dental Wellness Trust, which visited Waulud primary school in my constituency. It was lovely to see the trust working at the school to provide 250 children with free dental health screenings and fluoride varnishing. But despite these mechanisms to try to plug the gap and target the problem, it is clear we need a much more joined-up approach to dentistry in order to improve health and break the cycle of poverty, and to put children’s smiles back into our community. However, the issue does not affect just children—it is about adults as well. Every time I knock on someone’s door, I am asked where NHS dentists are available in Luton; shockingly, I have to point them outside of the constituency, into Harpenden.

That is why I am very proud of Labour’s dentistry rescue plan, which will fill the current gap with an extra 700,000 urgent dental appointments a year and reform the dental contract, which, as we have heard, is a problem, to rebuild NHS dentistry to ensure that everyone has access to dentistry appointments and to improve incentives for dentistry graduates to work in the areas most in need of NHS dentists, such as Luton.

It is key that we draw on the knowledge of local community leaders, stakeholders and organisations to inform our approach on improving health in our local areas. This is something I would say is uniquely well done in Luton, where Pastor Lloyd Denny, who has lived in our town and worked with the local communities through his faith for years, carried out an independent review of health inequalities. His review highlighted four key areas that needed urgent attention and improvement: communication, access, representation and cultural competency.

We had to lean on these four areas during the pandemic. We saw this with Imam Qazi Chishti, a friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and myself, who was one of the first faith leaders to take the covid vaccination—that is representation, cultural competency, access and communication right there in action. We see this with Love Luton RunFest, where I am always pressured to try to do the half-marathon. Forget it, guys—that’s not happening. I will do 10k max.

We also see it with our primary care networks, such as the Equality PCN initiative that is working to target and work with our communities to ensure that people can live healthy lives. Dr Tahir Mehmood is doing fantastic work with our community. That is not to mention the fantastic representation in women’s sport that we have in Luton, with Hina Shafi, who is one of the most brilliant representatives for women and inclusion in sport, and Dionne Manning, who is another fantastic woman—a local hero—working in women’s football and to try to keep people like me in shape.

There is no doubt that brilliant work is being done at a local level, but there is undoubtedly still a devastating postcode lottery for people accessing cancer care, with major variation across England in terms of expectancies and outcomes. Something that is very close to my heart when it comes to cancer care is brain tumours. I have had a number of constituents impacted by this cruel disease, and I have been lucky enough to work closely with Khuram and Yasmin, the parents of Amani, who lost her battle with glioblastoma in April 2022, aged just 23.

Despite the significant leaps and bounds made in other forms of cancer treatment, which should be welcomed, outcomes for those diagnosed with brain tumours remain extremely poor, with no new treatments developed in the past 20 years. Patients with brain tumours today will receive exactly the same treatment as 20 years ago. Around 12,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour each year, and brain tumours remain the largest killer of those under 40. Fewer than 13% of those diagnosed with a brain tumour survive beyond five years, compared with an average of 54% across all cancers. I urge the Minister to continue working with MPs such as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and I, and campaigners on this issue.

Let me take a moment to touch on an area of medical injustice that is particularly painful for a constituent I met just last week. She is a Primodos baby, which means her mother was given an oral hormonal pregnancy test that around 1.5 million women took in the 1960s and ’70s. Although it was found to be harmful and was banned in other countries in 1970, the UK continued to circulate it until 1978. Tragically, the use of those pills resulted in many babies being born with disabilities such as missing limbs, heart defects and brain damage. Many babies did not survive beyond the womb.

Most patients were issued Primodos without prescription, which means there is no evidence that they ever took it. My constituent’s mother just had it handed to her from the GP’s desk drawer. For others, their medical records were destroyed or lost. We have heard similar stories in the infected blood inquiry of medical records suspiciously going missing. That is extremely harmful, physically and psychologically, for the patients involved.

My constituent has suffered from a rare brain tumour and continues to suffer from many other health issues, all due to Primodos. In spite of that, she is inspirational in her continuing campaign for recognition and a response from the Government for victims such as herself and others. Sadly, she and her peers are yet to receive any sort of compensation, despite being victims of a mass case of medical negligence that has resulted in the painful lives and premature deaths of so many. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituent to discuss a way forward for those affected by the Primodos scandal?

I have chosen some specific issues—health inequalities, life expectancy and how healthily we can live our lives—as well as some acute cases in dentistry and cancer. However, I know that our Labour Government are committed to shifting the focus of the health systems towards prevention, and that is where we need to see focus. I am hopeful that health schemes such as those we heard about during the election campaign can be rolled out across the east of England and the country, to improve issues such as cancer care and outcomes for all who are suffering from that cruel disease, and especially to close the deep-rooted health inequalities that we see across our town and our region.

10:32

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this crucial debate. Our region is rural and many Members have talked about the decline in health services in rural areas. I want to talk about some issues that particularly affect my constituents in Waveney Valley, which straddles the Norfolk-Suffolk border.

Whether it is the long waiting lists for surgery, long delays in getting assessments for mental health or the difficulty in accessing a GP or a dentist, we have seen a decline in our health services and it is becoming harder and harder for people in our villages and market towns to access them. At the Budget in a few weeks’ time, I very much hope the Government will look at all options for increasing funding to the NHS, including being willing to ask the very richest in society to pay a little more in tax—modestly more—in a way that could enable us to get the funding needed to keep pace with demand.

I want to raise three specific issues on the decline of rural health services that particularly affect my constituency. I would appreciate it if the Minister addressed them in summing up the debate. The first is the lack of hospital services in rural constituencies, which others have already referred to. For example, Hartismere hospital in Eye is a wonderful building that has had a lot of investment, but lacks the services that the local population, particularly older people and people without a car, would really like to be able to make more use of.

The League of Friends at the hospital showed me round the excellent facilities a couple of weeks ago. The hospital runs a range of clinics that people really value. However, both the league and local doctors would like to see facilities such as an X-ray scanning unit, the return of a community consultant, particularly in services for older people, and a GP walk-in surgery. Will the Minister consider how hospitals in rural areas, such as Hartismere hospital in Eye, can be given the resources and support to provide a greater range of services?

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

The hon. Member talks about hospital services, especially for the more elderly in society. Will he join me in calling for more cross-party talks on social care, which is often the back door to the support that a lot of people who go into hospital need?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s point. I have had family experiences in recent months that have shown me, starkly and at first hand, just how much we need to address the crisis in social care and the lack of integration with the health service.

I want to highlight that on the Norfolk-Suffolk border, in towns such as Eye and Diss, people are 20 miles from the nearest big hospital in Norwich, Bury St Edmunds or Ipswich—and in towns such as Halesworth, which does not have a local community hospital at all, people are even further away. I ask the Minister to consider what support can be given to rural hospitals to provide more services, and particularly to encourage cross-county border working in the health services that will enable us to look at how services can be provided in a way that benefits communities straddling the county border, as they do around Diss and Eye in my constituency.

Secondly, is no surprise that we have heard about dentistry from nearly every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate. We have the Sahara of dental deserts in the east. In the winter, I conducted a survey of residents in Waveney Valley to which more than 800 people responded. A quarter had given up on dentistry treatment altogether because of lack of NHS provision, others were driving long distances to access a dentist and some had even pulled out their own teeth. That is just not tolerable in the 21st century.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming the dental contract. From my discussions with dentists and dental organisations such as the British Dental Association, it is clear that reform of the dental contracts is the root cause of the big exodus of dentists from the NHS. Dentists are not being paid appropriately for the work they do. Can the Minister set out the timescale for reviewing that contract? Health organisations have told me that for every effort they put in to getting new dentists into the NHS, dentists are leaving at a greater rate. We must address the root cause of the problem.

Thirdly, I want to highlight optometry. I received correspondence from an optometrist in Norfolk concerned about the lack of post-operative aftercare, particularly for operations such as cataract surgeries. They highlight that private companies are operating services of that kind and then discharging members to the community without aftercare, which is having a knock-on effect on A&E. Can the Minister ensure that, where private companies provide such services, the proper aftercare is also provided? Will she commit to looking at whether that highlights the problem of relying on private companies, which might seek to cut corners in the name of profit, to provide services?

To conclude, our rural services, particularly in market towns and villages, are severely affected by the decline in health services. Whether it is dentistry or a lack of local hospital services, we need urgent action and I would welcome the Minister’s addressing my specific points.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Mohammad Yasin, you have one minute.

10:39

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. You said you would surprise me, and you really did. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Like those in many other areas, Bedford’s residents are suffering when it comes to GP and dentist appointments. One of the reasons my constituents are struggling is that we have shortages of GPs. We are trying to recruit from other countries, but we need local GPs. I am pleased that the Government have pledged to train more GPs locally.

Data from the 2021 census showed that the populations in each of the local authority areas covered by the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes integrated care board grew much faster than average, ranging from a 10.9% increase in Luton to 17.7% in Bedford. The population in England only grew by 6.6% in that period—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid I have to call the hon. Gentleman to order because we have run out of time. I am sorry that a lot of people will not be able to give their speeches.

I try to promote self-regulation, but it is worth reminding ourselves that paragraph 7 of the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” says that even if time limits are not imposed, Members

“should speak with reasonable brevity and be mindful of others. Brevity in debate will give other Members a greater opportunity to speak and increase…chances of being called early”,

on the next occasion on which a Member seeks to speak. I read that out as this is the first Westminster Hall debate of this Parliamentary Session. It is important that Members take into account that although I would prefer not to have to impose time limits, people then have to regulate themselves.

10:41

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this important debate.

The NHS used to be the envy of the world, but it is now in crisis, and services in the east of England are no exception. We have heard many examples in the debate of where our health and care services are in crisis. There is no doubt that the new Government inherit a litany of broken promises from the previous Conservative Government; that is why we Liberal Democrats have put health and social care front and centre of our campaigning in recent months and years. It is why, on the first day after the general election, we called for an emergency Budget to give the NHS and care services the money they so desperately need, and it is why we continue to urge the Government to act with real ambition and urgency on these issues.

In a debate on healthcare in the east of England, it is hardly surprising that dentistry comes out as the No. 1 issue. Dentistry is in an appalling state across the country, and particularly in the east of England, but arguably it is one of the easiest areas to fix. Under the previous Conservative Government we ended up in an absurd position where we had children having their teeth removed and people desperate for appointments, yet we had a £400 million underspend in one financial year. We also have thousands of dentists in this country who are willing to deliver NHS work, but who cannot because the contract is so convoluted.

I ask the Minister to outline the Government’s timeline for negotiations with dentists on fixing the broken dental contract. I also have a specific request from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who could not be here: he asks whether it could be made faster for people who want to operate NHS services to register to do so, because there are currently delays in the system.

A number of colleagues have spoken about the challenges with ambulance waiting times. The hon. Member for Norwich South and I have spoken in debates on this before and he will know, as I do, that the East of England ambulance service has had a very troubled history. To give credit where credit is due, there have been welcome improvements in the last 18 months, but there is no doubt that there are still huge delays in ambulance response times, which are very concerning to our constituents. Would the Minister support a Bill that I tabled in the previous Parliament to introduce localised reporting on ambulance response times, so we can see response times on a postcode basis?

Thirdly, I am surprised there has not been more talk about hospitals today. We know there is a legacy from the last Government of crumbling hospitals right across our region—the hospital in King’s Lynn is one of the worst such examples in the country and is being held up by stilts. In my area in west Hertfordshire, we have West Hertfordshire teaching hospitals NHS trust and Watford general hospital is in dire need of a new hospital. It is one of the hospitals in the country that is ready to go—it has the land, it has permission, it has the plans and it just needs the green light from the Government. I urge Labour Ministers to recognise that delaying those plans does not come without a cost, because the repair bill is getting bigger and bigger.

Finally, does the Minister recognise that we need an ambitious plan of recruiting 8,000 GPs? The last Government promised 6,000 and failed to deliver them. Does she agree that we should align the primary care estates strategy with the shift to community care? Does she also agree that the Labour Government will, as part of its consultation on the national planning policy framework, make sure that infrastructure comes first, so that places such as Wixams are no longer let down by the planning system we had under the Conservatives, where people got housing without infrastructure, GPs or dentists?

10:45

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank you for your comments about self-regulation. In the first Westminster Hall debate of the parliamentary term, especially as it is on healthcare, it is good to start off in the spirit of self-regulation.

I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing the debate, and for his speech, which was a tour de force. It was wide ranging, reflecting on socialist history. From the topics that he covered, and from his history of advocating for his constituents over the years, his deep-seated passion for delivering high-quality health services is clear, particularly as regards the cross-party campaign for a new dental school. He put a very precise question to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing her response. One subject that piqued my interest was the question of the NHS being in service of whom and to what end—particularly with reference to his points about the NHS being the greatest representation of socialism in the modern day. Dare I say it: I believe the NHS exists to serve the people, but the state does not exist to serve the NHS.

I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) focused on the importance of productivity and on delivering tangible results to our constituents, as well as to hear about his support for the dental school. He was right to point out that the challenges of the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the rebuild programme, which I will return to.

I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who again raised concerns about the James Paget centre and dental care, and the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), which covered his campaign for a new GP surgery in Wixams, which he is a very strong advocate for. He also made important comments on the accountability of integrated care systems.

I cannot cover all the speeches made today, but dentistry and delivery were the themes. We are all here because, as re-elected and newly elected Members of Parliament, we are passionate about delivering health services for our constituents. We want success on that both in our constituencies and across the UK.

In some ways, I think it is a bit easier for the Minister to make her speech than it is for me to make mine, and I wish I was on the opposite Benches—although obviously not in the Labour party—to deliver it. I anticipate that she will start by saying that, in some way, the economy is broken or that there are huge financial pressures. She will probably go on to say that the NHS is, in inverted commas, “broken”. I am quite concerned about that language, and particularly about the morale of our NHS workers when such statements are made.

The Minister will then describe her plans. That is where I feel for her, because she will be very pleasant and supportive, and I know she is passionate about the subject—she will recognise that this speech is very similar to the one she gave in a debate on dentistry back in 2022. Unfortunately, she will be evasive about her Government’s plans because she is on a bit of a sticky wicket. The Labour Government have decided that they will review a lot of work that has already been put in to deliver for people in the east of England. Hinchingbrooke hospital is at risk. Queen Elizabeth hospital, James Paget university hospital, Watford general hospital, West Suffolk hospital, Cambridge cancer research hospital and many other projects across the UK are under review, despite all the work that has gone into them over the years. It is on the Minister, because that is how integrated care system accountability works in our system under the Health and Care Act 2022—we are accountable to our constituents, but ICSs are accountable to her—so I ask her to reassure our constituents and the people who have put the work into developing those programmes that they will be delivered as promised by the previous Conservative Government. Will she think again about supporting dental vans to deal, on a temporary basis, with some of the dentistry challenges?

10:50

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will try not to be too evasive, and to be pleasant.

On his latter point, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) might want to look at some of the speeches I made during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022; accountability is writ large through them, although we may disagree about the form it takes. The previous Government had an opportunity to resolve some of these issues, and they did not take it. They destroyed accountability and, indeed, the foundations of the health service with the disastrous Lansley Act—the Health and Social Care Act 2012—which propelled me into coming to this place.

It is a pleasure to be here for the first Westminster Hall debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing it. I told my officials that it would be busy. Some of the people in this Chamber and some of those who have left are already my most frequent correspondents because of the state of the NHS in the east of England and more broadly. Getting the NHS back on its feet will be an enormous challenge, but we have the skill, motivation and commitment of our NHS staff. This Government will be unwavering in our support for them, and we will do what is needed to get the NHS back on its feet. We have committed to a 10-year plan because that is what it will take. We will deliver an NHS fit for the future. That is what we promised the British people at the election; that is what we were elected to do.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister says she will deliver an NHS plan for the next 10 years. Does that include a full rebuild of the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the James Paget?

[Karin Smyth]

I will come on to those hospitals. As hon. Members will appreciate, we are in the early days of this, so “We will come back to people” may do a bit of lifting—I apologise for that.

We want to be clear and honest with Members of Parliament and the British people. We want to move the health service from treatment to prevention, which hon. Members have raised; from hospital to home, which is very important in the east of England, which has rural issues; and from analogue to digital. As a first step, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Lord Darzi to give us a raw and frank assessment of the state of the NHS, and these debates and the work that hon. Members are doing will inform that. This autumn, we will also launch an extensive engagement exercise with the public, staff and stakeholders to inform the plan.

I have at least eight questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South and a number of others. I will do my best to get through them in the next eight minutes, but I will of course respond to people if they want to come back to me on anything I do not pick up.

My hon. Friend talked particularly about prevention, and touched on climate change, dentistry and mental health, which are clearly important to many people. Prevention is a key part of the Government’s health mission and our mission across all Departments. We want to support people to stay healthier for longer. My hon. Friend said that we want the security of good health; the NHS was set up to provide that so that people can lead fulfilling lives. That promotes greater independence and shortens the time people spend in ill health. We have not touched on that much, but that is a critical target for this Government.

The NHS health check aims to prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, kidney disease and some cases of dementia among adults between 40 and 74 years of age. Thanks to the hard work of NHS staff, the programme engages more than 1 million people and prevents about 400 heart attacks or strokes, but take-up of the health check is low—hon. Members could perhaps encourage their constituents to take part. We want to improve access to the service and develop a new digital health check that people can use at home. We have now launched the next phase to develop the service, and I am pleased that Norfolk county council has been selected as one of the three pilot sites that are due to start in 2025.

Hon. Members are right that access to dentists is a pressing issue facing patients. We all knew that before the election campaign, and that is why that is a core part of our commitment to the British public. Only 40% of adults have seen an NHS dentist in the past two years. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), in particular, highlighted what we all see when we visit primary schools to look at young people’s oral health. Hon. Members have read our manifesto and know what our plans are. To be clear, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), met the British Dental Association immediately on taking office and are meeting it regularly to resolve the issues with the contract. We will provide 700,000 more urgent dental appointments and recruit new dentists to areas that need them most. We will rebuild dentistry for the longer term by reforming the contract.

I cannot go into too much detail on the proposal from the UEA. It is a place close to my heart, as it is where I went, almost exactly 40 years ago, to university. It is where I fell in love and got married, but sadly I had to leave the east of England. That is a fantastic hospital. I know it is supported by the local ICB, and I understand that individual Members are seeking to meet with the Minister for Care. I hope we will be able to update Members on that shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South talked about the dire state of the mental health service and the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust. To update Members—although most will know—the trust has been in the recovery support programme since July 2021, after the CQC’s inspection report of “requires improvement”. To address quality and safety, the trust has implemented and completed a range of actions from that inspection report. In July it published the “Learning from Deaths” report, which was commissioned by the chief executive to review every death that occurred from April 2019 to October 2023. To improve the culture, the trust has launched Listening into Action, a trust-wide programme to improve how staff work together and listen to each other. In April, NHS England formally agreed a revised timeline for the trust to exit the recovery support programme at the end of 2024, and transition planning for post-exit has commenced. Obviously, we will be paying attention to that very closely, and I know hon. Members will also do so.

In response to the concerns about hospital buildings, we are all in no doubt about the inheritance that we have received from the last Government, particularly on capital, and about the state of our hospital estate. Each trust with a hospital with RAAC issues has invested significant levels of NHS capital to mitigate any safety risk. The safety of our patients must always come first. It is clear that the last Government’s promise to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030 was not achievable, and it did not have the funding required to deliver it. That is why we are reviewing the programme to put it on a sustainable footing, which means a realistic timetable for delivery and clarity of funding. We will be honest with the British people and transparent about what we can deliver, and we will update the House and hon. Members on the programme’s next steps as soon as we can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South touched on climate change. This is a really big issue for the east of England. I will not have time to go into some of the issues but personally, and, as far as this Government are concerned, the impact of climate change on health and the provision of the health service is a serious issue, with surges in demand for services during periods of extreme weather and heat-related disruption to utilities, such as power outages. We are cognisant of those, and I do think it is an important issue for the health service. The NHS is doing well to become on target to reach net zero by 2040, and all trusts have targets. That is something we will watch closely.

I will give some rapid fire responses. We are not going to look at changing structures. We want to work with the system that we have inherited. It has to work, it has to bring people together, and it has to bring services into neighbourhoods. We have talked about the contract as well. We are keen to work together with local services in the ICB structure. We all know in our own areas that geographies are never quite perfect, but we do not want another reorganisation. We think that detracts from what we need to get on with.

The matter of productivity raised by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is an issue—the concern about what we measure and how we measure it, and making sure that every taxpayer’s pound is used well within the NHS. Part of the issue is the breaking of the foundations of the system. Locally, that has meant it is very difficult for the service to deliver. That is why we are looking at this on a 10-year basis. The foundations need fixing.

Let me finish by once again thanking colleagues for bringing their own insights into heath and care in the east of England. Many new Members have come here from all parties. These are important debates, and it is important for Ministers such as myself to hear directly from Members’ constituents. Many of the issues are symptomatic of an NHS that is broken. That is why we are ending the sticking plaster politics. As the Prime Minister said a week ago, that is worth doing. It will be harder, and it takes more time. We are not going to give deadlines that we cannot meet. I hope that after just about two months in this role, I given answers today that show that we understand the scale of the issues that we face, and that this Government are committed to tackling them. If I have missed anything in particular, I will of course, correspond with hon. Members.

10:59

[Clive Lewis]

I thank everyone who has taken part, as well as those who could not speak in the debate. I was hoping that—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Paris 2024 Olympics: Team GB Legacy

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the legacy of Team GB’s performance at the Paris 2024 Olympics.

What a summer of sport we have been treated to! The Olympics, sadly, only come around every four years, but they leave us with enough to talk about until the next. Paris 2024 is no exception: a total of 327 Team GB athletes went to the games, winning 14 golds, 22 silvers and 29 bronzes, so Team GB secured 65 medals at Paris from 131 athletes over 18 different sports. Paris 2024 also saw Team GB’s 1,000th Olympic sporting medal: silver in the men’s cycling team pursuit.

The Olympics, however, are about more than medals. The spirit of the games is in every athlete who made it there and in everyone, like me, who was watching them on television. Behind the numbers, there are many stories to be told—stories of believing in oneself, overcoming adversity and working hard to achieve goals. We said an emotional farewell to Sir Andy Murray in his final tournament. We had Andy McDonald, aged 55, competing in the men’s park skateboarding. We watched Katarina Johnson-Thompson finally win an Olympic medal at her fourth games.

Such stories are reflected in everyday life. Most of us will not compete in the Olympics—present company included—but many of us need to persevere, believe in ourselves and work hard to achieve what we want. The success and stories of Team GB are to be celebrated but, for me, it is what happens next that I want to discuss more. Members might know that sport is one of my personal passions, and I feel strongly about getting people more involved in sport, whether competitively or just for pleasure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Every one of us takes joy in sporting achievement and memories of it. Does she agree that homecoming events, such as that at Newtownards for GB gold-winner Jack McMillan and gold-medal pommel-horse winner Rhys McClenaghan—both from my constituency—are truly inspirational for children? The real legacy must be change in the mindset of our children, so that they understand that hard work and the drive to push on after failure can make the moment golden. We can reinforce that with additional funding for sports clubs for our children.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I totally agree. It is lovely that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to celebrate those Northern Irish athletes at their homecoming. That is really magic and I look forward to the homecoming that the Paralympians will have as well. It is important that we have that funding. How do we find the next Kate Shortman and Izzy Thorpe? They are our first ever artistic swimming medallists, who trained in their local community pool. “Legacy” is a word that is thrown around an awful lot, and we are very familiar with its use around the Olympics. Legacy was a huge part of London 2012: a pledge to get 2 million people involved in sport and physical activity was at the heart of the bid. However, it is not enough to rely on major sporting events to drive up participation at the grassroots level. The sporting benefit promised by the London 2012 organisers sadly has not been fully realised. In 2022, a decade on from the games, only 13% of leaders across the sports sector agreed that the London 2012 Olympics had delivered the legacy promise—that was in a survey from the Sports Think Tank.

The biggest legacy failures were identified in the delivery of a sporting and physically active nation, and in inspiring a generation of young people to create a sporting habit for life. That is where I have an ask for the Minister. I have the passion and drive to work with the Minister and her Department in the new Government to make sport and activity something that we continue to do, from the time we can toddle around until we toddle off. I genuinely believe that that is what we need to do.

According to ukactive, 25.7% of people—11.9 million—in the UK still engage in less than 30 minutes of exercise a week. If we are going to create a legacy for future generations following on from the elite sporting events we saw this summer, we need a strategy and, importantly, we need infrastructure.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on calling this debate. She has an obvious passion for sport, which we all know about. The whole of the Team GB track cycling team trained at the Newport velodrome in the International Sports Village, including the world record breakers Emma Finucane, Sophie Capewell and Katy Marchant. The team return to our city time and again, and cite the Newport effect as part of their success. Does my hon. Friend agree as a Welsh MP that championing those kinds of facilities is massively important for us in Wales and across the UK in order to see that group of young people come through for the future?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

My hon. Friend is completely right. It is fantastic to see the velodrome in Newport in her constituency—it is a gem. In fact, if she does not mind, I would like to see one in Swansea.

I am pleased that UK Sport has taken the initiative of launching the changemakers fund, along with Team GB, Paralympics GB and the National Lottery. The aim of the fund is to get athletes into sports projects they are passionate about and to make a difference. Athletes can apply for funding towards projects that resonate with them. We saw that with the weightlifting bronze medallist Emily Campbell, who helped to launch the fund and said that she would be applying. She wants to use her platform to make a difference in her local community. We need to do more, and I will keep on saying so. I believe that we in Parliament should harness the buzz around Team GB going forward.

I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State commit to a review of the curriculum to put sport at its heart. Both sport and art are vital tools in allowing our young people to let off steam and express themselves. We all know that since covid that is something we need to put more emphasis on. I have another opportunity to invite the Minister to speak with me and Brian Moore about a project around sport in the curriculum that he has been vocal about.

We all know the health benefits of regular physical activity, so it is important that it is intertwined with education in a way that does not put students off. Having been a teacher for 20 years, I know that they are easily put off if they think they have to do something they do not want to do. It is all about engaging them in the right sports and activities at the right time, and making them want to improve. That improvement will drive their enthusiasm to be more active.

Sport needs to be accessible within our communities. The Secretary of State has committed to that, and I look forward to seeing how, through planning sport and new build houses and towns, we can push it forward. Sadly, according to Sport England, the opportunities to get involved in sport and physical activity continue to depend on people’s background, sex, bank balance and postcode. According to ukactive, only 42% of children from less affluent families meet the chief medical officer’s activity guidelines, compared with 52% from more affluent backgrounds. Worryingly, just 45% of children in the most deprived areas can swim 25 metres, compared with 76% in wealthier regions.

Research shows time and again that girls and women over all age groups are less likely to participate in sport than their male counterparts. We need to address that urgently. I hope that we will commit to a strategy to inspire women and girls to be more active. Women in Sport has found that only 29% of girls dream of reaching the top in their sport, compared with 52% of boys. I want to inspire all those girls in the future to be the best that they can. People know that I played rugby for Wales, but I did not have that opportunity growing up. When people have a sport or activity that they love and can share with their friends, it contributes to their wellbeing, happiness and future health. This Government will embrace that.

Sport England’s Active Lives adult survey for 2022-23 found that those who identify as Black, Asian—excluding Chinese—Chinese or other were less likely to be active than those who identify as white British. We need to think about the statistics that are being produced. The facts repeat themselves time and again, and while there are root causes, which have been revealed, they are rarely acted on. I would like to ask the Minister what plans her Department has to review participation levels and take steps to address this imbalance, because there are more benefits to participation than just improving physical fitness.

This morning I came into Parliament having played tennis with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), which was a joy—

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Jim wants to play.

[Jim Shannon]

I’m too old to play.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Jim, I’ll drop you a text.

I had not picked up a tennis racket since I was a child, and the only reason I played tennis as a child was that it was the nearest place I could go to play sport. I could not play rugby or cricket, but the opportunity was there for me to play tennis—perhaps my parents wanted to get rid of me on a Saturday morning for 50p. Those opportunities are here now, and being active is key, whatever someone’s size or ability. It makes me come to work really happy every day. It is all about picking up a sport and having a community and sense of belonging through team sports—as well as making lifelong friendships and cross-party friendships, which we know in this House are very important.

I have spoken about my rugby career, and I still pick up my boots, gumshield and put my shorts on for the Wooden Spoon Welsh women’s veterans team and for the Commons and Lords rugby team, which plays an important part in the lives of parliamentarians, who do not often have the chance to be active. That is why it is still important to me at the ripe old age of nearly 53.

Sport England’s “Moving Communities” report found that 7 million participants at 563 leisure facilities in England in 2023-24 generated £891 million in wider social value, the most significant contribution being from the higher wellbeing derived by participants from engaging in sport and physical activity. The average total social value per participant is estimated to be £119 in 2023-24. There are other positives examples to learn from. The FA launched the Inspiring Positive Change strategy in 2020 to create a sustainable future for girls and women’s football in England. When the Lionesses won the Euros in 2022, 41% of secondary schools in England offered football to girls in PE lessons. It should be 100%, but that is brilliant. After the team campaigned tirelessly, the previous Government committed to equal access to all sports in schools, and by the end of 2023, 75% of schools had met this target, a year before the FA’s own target.

Inspiring Positive Change was a multi-layered scheme that covered grassroots through to professional football. It focused not only on the game but on wider structures such as coaching and refereeing. If a child in school feels that they love a sport, then they should have that opportunity . If they are not at the top, they feel that they cannot compete, but it is really important that they are part of the game. If we do not have coaches and referees, we are not on the pitch playing, so those people play an integral role. Getting children to understand that is the part of the process that we have to push forward. As a great example of how we can utilise good results to improve uptake while not relying on them, the structures were already in place when the Lionesses took the trophy, which is wonderful.

I prefer a different-shaped ball, which I have already spoken about, and 2025 sees the women’s rugby world cup hosted in England. I hope that being able to see that, and believe it, will help women and girls across the United Kingdom to see that they can pull on the jersey for their country and represent themselves.

Getting people more active is, as I have impressed on everybody, not something that one Department can fix, because the reasons why people do not participate are so varied. Furthermore, there are metaphorical hurdles in the way even when people want to take part. Facilities may be too far away, too expensive or in too poor a condition. Over the past few years we will all have seen in our constituencies rising energy prices, which have led to so many leisure centres and swimming pools either closing or changing their opening hours.

We are seeing a lack of uptake in sports, and if we are serious about getting people moving, Departments across Westminster need to engage. This involves the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Treasury—the list goes on. We also need to work with devolved Governments, local authorities and community leaders, so will the Minister commit to a cross-Government approach to increasing participation in sport and physical activity and ensuring that, after Los Angeles 2028, we are in a much better place to discuss legacy?

I could talk all day—everybody knows that—but I want to end here and highlight the fact that 18 September is National Fitness Day. It is a great opportunity to grab the excitement from this summer and push it into long-term investment in sport and physical activity.

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend is making an important and impressive speech, and I commend her for it. I agree with her that legacy is really important. The Paris Olympics have made me almost as proud as I was after London 2012—who could forget not just the brilliant sportsmen and women but Her late Majesty jumping out of the helicopter? In my view legacy has to be about our young people seeing themselves playing the sports and on the pitches. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Dan Bigham, who won silver on the cycling track? He was born and raised in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and his success speaks to how we can maintain a legacy through our young people seeing those who did so well and following their lead.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. It is such a shame that we have only 30 minutes for the debate, because I think we could have filled this place and everybody could have spoken about how proud they are of their local Olympians and Paralympians—I am as well. Let us use National Fitness Day to see millions of people get involved, to highlight the role that physical activity plays across the UK, and to raise awareness of its importance in assisting us to lead healthier lifestyles.

We are being treated to a storming show from Paralympics GB. They are currently sitting in second place in the medal table. At the weekend, I was fortunate enough to be the guest of the national lottery operator Allwyn at the Paralympics. What an absolutely wonderful experience that was! If anyone is still not over the Olympics, I implore them to watch the Paralympics, because the coverage on Channel 4 is absolutely outstanding.

I have not touched on the legacy of Paralympics GB as the games are ongoing, so perhaps I will be back here soon to talk about grassroots disability sport. In the meantime, I pay tribute to Ben Pritchard from Mumbles, who won gold in the PR1 M1x rowing classification, and to Paul Karabardak, who took the bronze in the men’s doubles MD14 table tennis. I also wish good luck in the men’s discus throw F64 to another constituent, Harrison Walsh, whom I met a few weeks ago at the Principality stadium.

I feel very lucky to continue to feel the benefits of sport and physical activity. I do hope that in Scotland people will find a way to honour the legacy of Sir Andy Murray. I know there has been some disappointment around the planning arrangements there, so I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate his career and to celebrate the careers of all our Olympians and sportspeople. With a new Labour Government and a successful Olympic outing, I really hope that the whole country—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England —will get the opportunity to feel the joy that I do and to celebrate their Olympians and Paralympians.

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I of course congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important debate and on such a thoughtful speech.

As the Minister responsible for sport, I could not be prouder of the performance of our Olympians in Paris. The team brought home 65 medals, which was the third-highest haul of all time, one more than the number won in Tokyo, and equal to the number won in London 2012. There were so many incredible moments, with Tom Pidcock’s recovery from a puncture to take gold in the mountain biking, Alex Yee’s sprint finish to snatch gold in the men’s triathlon, and Keely Hodgkinson storming to gold on the track in the 800 metres, to name but a few. Barnsley’s own Becky Moody also brought home a bronze as part of the Team GB dressage team. The breadth and depth of Team GB’s success was amazing, winning medals across 18 of the 32 sports. All our athletes—whether they picked up medals or not—have had an impact that goes far beyond the pool, the velodrome or the track: they have inspired the nation and shown the next generation what is possible, and I hope they are all very proud of that.

I was fortunate enough to attend the games in Paris to see our athletes in action in road cycling and swimming, and to visit the Olympic village and witness at first hand how our athletes are supported. I was not alone in making it to France to cheer on Team GB—half a million tickets were snapped up by British fans—and for all of the fans who did not make it over there, there were millions more back home who were gripped by the amazing performances of our athletes on the other side of the channel.

With the Paralympic games now well under way, it would be remiss of me not to mention Paralympics GB and the incredible performances we are seeing from our athletes. The UK is the birthplace of the Paralympic movement, and Paralympics GB have finished in the top three at every game since Sydney 2000. I was delighted to be there last weekend to see the amazing team in action. It was fantastic to see Maisie Summers-Newton bring home a gold for Paralympics GB; I was absolutely gripped by the wheelchair tennis, where I was lucky to see both Andy Lapthorne and Greg Slade win their singles matches; and I really enjoyed seeing my first game of boccia and cheering on the amazing Claire Taggart. I know the nation is fully behind them to continue that success in Paris, and I wish them the very best of luck.

Sport is a huge part of our national story. British and Northern Irish athletes have competed at every single Olympic games since 1896, when the first modern Olympic games took place in Athens. The Great Britain and Northern Ireland teams have the distinction of being the only nation to have won a gold medal at every summer Olympic games since. Team GB have been in the top seven in the Olympics since 2008 and, other than the USA and China, we are the only nation to win more than 60 medals at the last four games.

The success of this year’s games was the culmination of years of hard work and dedication from not just our athletes but all the coaches and support staff behind the scenes, as well as the instrumental work of UK Sport and the national lottery. Every athlete has the raw ingredients of talent, determination and perseverance, but they need the right environment to nurture those skills.

When discussing the legacy for our future Olympians and Paralympians, the Government recognise the vital importance of funding. The investment of public money in Olympic and Paralympic sport allows UK athletes with the potential to achieve on the world stage to train full time and to fully focus on achieving their sporting potential. It provides UK athletes with access to the very best coaching in the world, as well as world-leading medical support and research, supporting athletes to achieve peak physical condition for competition and helping them to recover quickly from injury. Funding also provides access to the world’s best sports science and technology to support athlete performance.

All that means that UK athletes are provided with the best possible chance to achieve their potential, and that they arrive at the Olympic and Paralympic games as among the best-prepared athletes in the world. That has transformed British fortunes at the games, with Team GB rising from 36th in the Olympic medal table in 1996 to the top-seven finishes at every Olympics since 2008. Paralympics GB have also achieved top-three finishes in every games since 2000.

UK Sport invested £385 million of Exchequer and lottery funding for the Paris Olympic and Paralympic cycle. As we look beyond Paris, the Government are fully committed to multi-year funding for our elite sports system, to enable our athletes to excel on the world stage. That means supporting them financially to match, and build on, their success in Paris as we look forward to Los Angeles 2028.

Our athletes are ordinary people who, through hard work and determination, have gone on to do extraordinary things and who will in turn inspire a generation. Our success on the world stage is a huge source of national pride and helps to encourage people of all ages to get involved in sport and physical activity. I see the enduring impact that it can have at a local level. Barnsley’s Dorothy Hyman competed as a sprinter in Rome 1960 and Tokyo 1964, winning three medals, and she continues to inspire our community today. The sport centre in Cudworth named after her is a hub of sport and physical activity for the local community. We want to give the next generation every possible chance to chase their dreams of becoming the next Keely Hodgkinson, Max Whitlock, Caden Cunningham or Bryony Page.

From the chances it gives young people to the jobs that it creates, sport is helping to deliver this Government’s mission of kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity for all. Just last week, Sport England announced that, following Team GB’s performance in Paris, it is investing £120 million into funding the next generation of Olympic and Paralympic talent. That funding will increase and enhance opportunities for talented young athletes in England to explore and develop their athletic potential, regardless of their background or financial circumstances. It will support athletes starting out in grassroots environments, as well as those already on formal talent pathway programmes, and it will be available for the 2025-29 funding cycle.

The Youth Sport Trust hosted the school games national finals in Loughborough this weekend—a multi-sport event that brings together junior national ranked athletes and their peers who have shown potential via non-traditional roots. With more than 180 school games alumni represented at this year’s Olympic and Paralympic games, it is great to see how nurturing young talent can transform lives.

Our Olympic and Paralympic athletes are also being supported to get out into their communities and make a difference to the causes they care about. The Changemaker initiative is a partnership between the national lottery operator Allwyn, Team GB, Paralympics GB and UK Sport. It aims to help athletes to maximise their impact upon their return from Paris 2024 and give back to the local communities that have supported them. Athletes can choose the social impact project they wish to support, and it could be anything from grassroots sports projects to mental health initiatives—whatever cause they are passionate about.

I have noted the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower about the Andy Murray centre. Andy has of course contributed a huge amount to British sport throughout his long career. I understand that plans for the centre have now been withdrawn, but I am sure that many people will be working hard to find other ways to honour Andy’s legacy.

The legacy of the games is not limited to the elite support system. Team GB’s performance has the power to inspire everyone. We want to help as many people as possible to get active, whether that is someone completing their first parkrun or someone who is an inspiring future Olympian or Paralympian. The Government recognise that high-quality, inclusive facilities help to ensure that everyone has access to sport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke about in her area. We will continue to support grassroots sport, including through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which will invest £123 million throughout the UK this year. We will also provide support through our arm’s length body Sport England, which annually invests over £250 million of national lottery and Government money.

[Adam Jogee]

I welcome the Minister to her place in the first Westminster Hall debate since her appointment. I welcome the Sport England funding she just referred to, but I urge her to make representations to it to look beyond the big cities when it comes to how that funding is allocated—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) nodding—to places like Newcastle-under-Lyme.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As a Member of Parliament who represents a town, I hear my hon. Friend’s comments.

In the interests of time, I want to address the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower put to me. She asked that we work holistically across Government to address participation inequalities. As she will know, this Government are focused on delivering our five core missions, including breaking down barriers for everyone and fixing the NHS by improving the health of our nation. We recognise that increasing physical activity rates across the population is fundamental, which is why I will work with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that sport is a key part of delivering those missions. She also asked me to meet her and talk about the curriculum; as a former teacher, I would be delighted to do so.

This debate has been a brilliant opportunity to outline the Government’s commitment to maximising the legacy of our biggest sporting events. We are of course committed to supporting sport and physical activity, whether that be our Olympic and Paralympic future stars or funding our grassroots sports system to ensure that everyone has the access to sport and physical activity that they deserve. I again thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

International Special Tribunal: Ukraine

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

00:00

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of an international special tribunal on crimes of aggression in Ukraine.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The motion should refer to “the crime” rather than “crimes”. It should be singular because this debate is about the crime of aggression. I think it might have been amended to the plural by the Table Office, but I very much hope that we can keep the crime of aggression as the topic for this debate.

It is 15 months since we last had a debate on the crime of aggression and the potential merits of a special tribunal on Ukraine. On 9 May 2023, I opened a debate in this Chamber some 15 months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022. It is easy to forget the shock that many of us felt two and a half years ago when we woke up on 24 February to discover that our intelligence agencies had been right all along in their forecasts and that the Kremlin had deployed more than 150,000—some think nearer 200,000—of Russia’s armed forces personnel across the border into Ukraine. It is that original decision and original aggression on which this debate should focus.

The crime of aggression is defined as

“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State”.

It is called a “leadership crime”, because under the Rome statute criminal responsibility is limited to

“a person in a position…to direct the political or military action of a State.”

The key thing about the crime of aggression is that it is the original sin—the leadership crime from which flow other international crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

If Members have looked at newspapers this week, they may have seen that there has been press attention on Putin’s visit to Mongolia and suggestions that Mongolia should heed an International Criminal Court arrest warrant to transfer Putin to The Hague. That arrest warrant relates to an alleged war crime: the unlawful deportation of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation—like other war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine, that would not have occurred had it not been for the original aggression.

When I addressed the previous Government 15 months ago, I said to the Conservative Minister that the special tribunal should be as international in character as possible, because a national tribunal based on Ukrainian law, or a regional tribunal, would not be sufficiently international in character for the personal immunities—which relate to Heads of State, Foreign Secretaries and Presidents—to be disapplied.

The preference of G7 members has been for the creation of a Ukrainian court using Ukrainian law but based in The Hague, but the problem with such a proposal is that if the special tribunal is part of a domestic legal system, none of the international elements of the tribunal will apply. As Head of State, Putin would have immunity in a foreign domestic court. Only Russia would be able to waive that immunity. Foreign Ministers and diplomats also have a similar personal immunity under the domestic courts of other countries, such as Ukraine.

With the Minsk agreements, we saw a willingness on the part of the Kremlin to accede to some demands only to row back on those agreements subsequently. In any future negotiation we cannot have some sort of bargaining or bartering away of personal immunities in favour of a political agreement that the Kremlin can then renege on, as it did before. Immunity applies to Heads of State and Governments for acts performed in the exercise of their functions, even after they have left office, and as such they should be dealt with by an international court at an intergovernmental level.

Fifteen months ago, the then Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister stated that the UK Government did not have a definitive view about whether a special tribunal should be a Ukrainian court established with international support or a fully international court. They said at that time that all options were on the table. Previously, the UK has traditionally held the position that only the UN Security Council has the power to disapply personal immunities, but clearly that idea would not fly given that Russia has veto power over any Security Council resolution.

The Minister responsible for Europe, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was present at the debate 15 months ago in his capacity then as a shadow Minister. He asked the Conservative Government about immunities and said they were a

“critical issue…that we would need to address in any model”—[Official Report, 9 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 114WH.]

of a special tribunal.

In February this year, an international conference to consider a special tribunal took place just across the road from here, at Church House. The communiqué from the conference referred to the merit of a strictly international tribunal or a highly internationalised tribunal having key international features: an international agreement; reference to international law for the purposes of jurisdiction; significant international components, such as prosecutors, judges and venue; and firm international backing, where possible, from international and regional organisations. The communiqué said:

“We believe this would offer the best hope of disapplying relevant immunities and give a tribunal full legitimacy, and complement the ongoing work of the ICC (in investigating alleged acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Ukraine).”

The effect of lifting immunities could relate to that most precious thing for any tyrant: their reputation. The late Paddy Ashdown visited Slobodan Milošević several weeks before NATO military action against Belgrade in 1999. Lord Ashdown commented that Milošević

“seemed more frightened by the threat of indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, than...of NATO bombing”.

Twenty years ago, at the height of liberal interventionism by what at the time we called rather grandly “the international community”, Lord Ashdown reflected on international justice in relation to war, writing that

“these new courts and tribunals, which the world has established in recent years...have the potential to become instruments not only for justice, but also for prevention, since they can represent a...warning to belligerent or tyrannical leaders.”

These days, there is far less talk of a “global village”, and terms like “international community” are used far less readily and do not strike a chord in the way they did 25 years ago. In February 2022, when the UN Security Council considered a resolution condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, both India and China abstained. The Council of Europe is seeking to fill the gap. An international tribunal based on a treaty with the Council of Europe would be sufficiently international to overcome the personal immunities, if its founding treaty was open to any state to sign and it was ratified by at least 60 states. The involvement of the Council of Europe in the creation of a special tribunal, together with the potential accession of non-member states from outside Europe to the treaty creating such a tribunal, would contribute legitimacy to the effort to prosecute the crime of aggression committed in Ukraine.

Yesterday evening, I talked to someone else who participated in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Sir Geoffrey Nice was the lead prosecutor of Slobodan Milošević for the UN, and he wrote the following to me after our conversation:

“No self-respecting lawyer—indeed, no self-respecting human—should have anything to do with any court premised”

on

“an immunity, granted by political agreement”.

I know that this issue is of genuine interest to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing any contribution from her or from other Members about whether the UK should have a stance whereby personal immunities should be disapplied. Surely, we cannot see immunities applying for President Putin, President Lukashenko, Sergey Lavrov and other senior architects of the aggression in Ukraine.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob in their place if they intend to speak in the debate.

14:39

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. The fact that it is the second time in a year that he has brought the issue to the House, and his first Westminster Hall debate in this Parliament, shows his and the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to Ukraine, which is unwavering, as is that of the entire House.

Like Members from all parties, I have been appalled by the violence and devastation that we have witnessed on our doorstep since Putin’s illegal invasion. Homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed by Putin’s bombs. Communities have been turned into war zones. Although the conflict has faded from the headlines somewhat, the war wages on. Just one week ago, Ukraine was subject to an enormous air attack, with Russia launching 127 missiles and 109 attack drones overnight and into Monday morning. At least seven people were killed and dozens were wounded. The attack appeared to target Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik, a member of our sister party Holos, raised concerns that Russia

“keeps bringing us closer and closer to that total blackout.”

She says that homes in Kyiv do not have electricity for the majority of the day and people are really worried about how they will get through the winter.

It is clear that Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine are dangerous and destabilising. Its war is illegal and it continues to press forward with egregious breaches of international law, so I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth has raised the potential for a special tribunal on the crime of aggression. Human rights and the rule of law are at the core of Liberal Democrat values. Where there are breaches of international law, it is right that those responsible are held to account without fear or favour.

A crime of aggression consists of

“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression”.

In the case of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, there is clearly a case to answer. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly back our international institutions like the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. Their processes and judgments should be supported.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for taking my intervention and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. Does the hon. Lady agree that the international rules-based system has a crucial role to play and that, today of all days, the appalling attack on Poltava underlines the need for a tribunal?

[Layla Moran]

There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said to disagree with. The world is a tumultuous place and it has never been more important to have a strong international rules-based order. Right now, it feels very rickety. A special tribunal is another way in which we can show that the international community can act in concert to bring perpetrators of injustices to account.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said so clearly, the courts are restricted in the case of the crime of aggression in Ukraine. As neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation is party to the Rome statute, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the case of the crime of aggression. Given Russia’s membership of the Security Council, it would veto any efforts of that council to refer it to the court.

A special crimes tribunal would allow those responsible to be held accountable for their crimes and not escape international justice through legal loopholes. The fact that Ukraine supports a special tribunal should be reason enough to pursue one. President Zelensky said:

“If we want true justice, we should not look for excuses and should not refer to the shortcomings of the current international law, but make bold decisions that will correct the shortcomings of those norms”.

The Liberal Democrats were pleased to see the previous Government join the core group dedicated to achieving accountability for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine back in 2023, but there has been slow progress since then. Perhaps most concerningly, a lead King’s counsel suggested earlier this year that politicking within the ICC itself was halting the process. Philippe Sands KC, a leading advocate of an international tribunal, said it was

“so sad the institution that seems most opposed to this idea is the ICC in the form of its prosecutor and some of its judges. This is not an issue of principle for them, but an issue of turf.”

I sincerely hope that he is wrong in that assessment and that they will not stand in the way—nor, indeed, should anyone else. I am interested to hear what the new Minister has to say about the Government’s position and exactly what steps they are taking at a diplomatic level to advance the progress of a special tribunal.

Putin underestimates the brave resistance of Ukrainians and their commitment to their democracy, their liberty and their country. As Putin redoubles his efforts to attack Ukraine, so too must we redouble ours to stand in their defence. The spectre of a second Trump presidency has Putin rubbing his hands together. We only have one option: to stand with our Ukrainian allies as they seek to bravely resist Russia’s illegal invasion. That means working with international partners to establish a special tribunal to make sure that Putin is held to account for his crimes. As the new Government look to re-establish Britain’s place on the world stage, this is a golden opportunity to show the rest of the world that when we stand up for international law, we mean it.

14:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am a well-known advocate for Ukraine and have proudly worn a ribbon on my jacket for the last two years. I, and others, do not do that as a habit; it is a reminder for those across the world who think that things are getting better in Ukraine. The fact is that they are not.

I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for bringing forward the debate. I was happy to be a co-signatory in his request to the Backbench Committee. It is also nice to see a lot of new faces here, as well as those of some returning Members. They all stand united to support Ukraine in the world in which we live.

Wearing the ribbon is a reminder that all is not well in the world. I have often referred to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who said, “I think the world’s gone mad.” All I will say is that I think it has. The Bible refers to

“wars and rumours of wars”.

I cannot remember there being as many wars in the world as there are at this moment in time.

When I am opening a charity shop in my local high street, for example, my wearing the ribbon emboldens Ukrainian refugees—we all have them in our constituencies —to come and say that they are really pleased to see us wearing one. It is a way of encouraging the Ukrainians living in my and, indeed, everyone’s constituencies to be aware that their Member of Parliament is doing his best for them.

I also wear the ribbon because I want to remind others that steps need to be taken not simply to help Ukraine but to remind the despots in this world that there is a core value that emboldens the allies and all of us in this room collectively, irrespective of our political aspirations, to stand together. That is the cause of freedom, liberty and democracy; the right to make our own decisions.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in standing with Ukraine, as he quite rightly indicates, we should be pressing the Government to ensure the sanctions put in place are more rigidly enforced? The mistake that many in the west made did not just happen two years ago but, in fact, 10 years ago when Crimea was invaded. Unless Putin sees that the west is prepared to stand up to him, he will continue with his aggression, murder and butchery as before.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend always speaks words of wisdom, and those words are appropriate for where we are. I am not smarter than anybody else—I never profess to be—but many of us at that time thought we needed to stand up to what was happening in Crimea. We did not. I am not blaming anybody for that; it is just a fact of where we were. If we had done it then, the attacks in Donbas would not have happened with the same level of ferocity. We need to be clear on where we stand and what we are trying to do.

Like others, I have a thriving Ukrainian population in my constituency. The previous Government’s policy of letting in Ukrainians was very clear; I welcome what they did. I am pleased, by the way, to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her response. I do not mean to give her a big head, but she has shown a lot of confidence in the Chamber in the last few days and many of us have been impressed by how she has responded to questions. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), in her place. She and I have been friends ever since she has been here, and we look forward to her contribution.

I am happy to have helped many Ukrainians in my constituency of Strangford with visas for their time staying here, and with jobs and places in school. Ballynahinch high school in Strangford has greatly embraced Ukrainians; it has a class of specifically Ukrainian students coming from families who work in the businesses around Ballynahinch and further afield. It has teachers, classroom assistants and domestic staff from Ukraine. That is what they are doing in Ballynahinch.

I have probably talked to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry about this, but our intention is to have an event in September, or certainly in October if we are spared. The principal of Ballynahinch high school, Paul Marks, wants to organise an event where the chefs will make the meals and the pupils will serve the tables, but the guests will be those of Ukrainian descent living in Northern Ireland. I think it is a great thing to do; I know others have done it across their constituencies. It is a way of encouraging those Ukrainians and showing that they are very much in our thoughts.

I welcome the debate. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth for bringing it to the Floor to highlight not simply the plight of the Ukrainian people, but the fact that there is an onus on us all to call this issue out for what it is and take the appropriate international steps. The UN General Assembly in 1974 agreed the definition of aggression in article 1—and my goodness, we watch it every day with Russia against Ukraine. It lists some of the acts that could amount to aggression, and we could say that every one of them has happened yesterday in Ukraine or the day before that, because they have. Those acts include invasion, occupation or annexation of another state’s territory, bombardment of another state’s territory, blockades of ports or coasts, and attacks by one armed force against another. Russia is guilty of all those.

It is important to say this sometimes when we are blaming Russia. There are many good people in Russia who do not subscribe to what has happened, but they are not often heard because of the oppression that happens there. Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves that not all Russians are bad.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for saying that. I speak to our sister party, Yabloko, on a regular basis using forms of communication that it deems safe at the time. Over and over again, its brave protesters have ended up in jail. Some have had death threats, and they describe their own horror at what Putin is doing. They are keen to say that he does not speak for them but they find themselves completely silenced, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Does he agree that we should do more to raise their voices in this Parliament?

[Jim Shannon]

I do. When the Minister responds, perhaps she can give us some indication of what can be done to help those groups in Russia, as much as we can without drawing attention to them. I am conscious that it is easy for me to comment standing here in Westminster Hall, but if the Russian people we are encouraging take a stand, that may be detrimental to their future wellbeing. I am conscious of what we do, but the Minister may indicate some way in which we can do something.

It is abundantly clear that even in the most broad terms, Russia is guilty of aggression. The question is what we do with that information. This debate is an opportunity to show solidarity with Ukrainians, and to stand alongside Ukrainians both here at home and in Ukraine. Do we continue to sit on the sidelines and direct a few anti-tank missiles their way? The ones that we produce at Thales in Northern Ireland have been to the detriment of the Russian armoury, and they have been effective in every way. What makes them even more effective is that the Ukrainians have been able to adapt those weapons to take the threat and the battle straight to Russia.

I have had the opportunity, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to visit Thales—I know that we cannot talk about some of the things we were told, so I am not saying them. However, we can see, through their bravery and courage, what the Ukrainian soldiers can do with the right weaponry. So do we send another aid package, which will help in the short term but will not end this aggression? Or do we step up and stand with the Ukrainians to push back against the actions of Putin and his regime, and allow the country to rebuild?

Along with others in this House, and as a Christian, I regularly pray for the Ukrainians, and pray that God will deliver them. Simply put, I believe that that can happen, and that is why we lift those prayers to the God who answers them. I am always minded of the story in the Bible of David and Goliath; I suggest that Ukraine is clearly the David and Russia is clearly the Goliath—and we know what happened in that battle. We pray that this battle will be one that Ukraine will win.

It has long been my opinion that we should be doing more. That is not a criticism of anybody—I do not mean it that way. I just mean to ask: what more can we do? I believe there are things we can do collectively. We can encourage the Minister, our Government and our Prime Minister to take the stand that the Ukrainians wish us to take. I believe we should be doing more, and I will use the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth to hammer home that point.

If we have an international tribunal to report what we already know to be true, it follows that we must do more than what we are doing. I am minded also of the genocide that Russian soldiers have carried out against the Ukrainians—the murder of innocent people—as well as the sexual abuse of many women and young girls. I actually find it quite difficult to even imagine—indeed, I do not want to imagine—some of the things that have happened. Abuse has been carried out against children as young as eight and women as old as 80 by Russian monsters; that is what they are.

Like the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, I want there to be accountability. That is what everyone across this House asks for today: to have that accountability. Whoever those people are and wherever they want to hide, there will be no hiding place for them if we have anything to do with it.

I make this plea also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I have done it before—I did it way back at the time of Crimea, because I knew what was happening there. I am a member of the Baptist church, which does not make me any smarter or any better than anybody else, but it does give me access to some of the information that flows back. In the Donbas region, some Baptist pastors have gone missing and churches have been destroyed. There is a catalogue of hate, human rights abuse, physical torture and murder by Russians against people with a different religious viewpoint from that of the Orthodox Church. I am not being critical of those of the Orthodox Church; I am just making the point that there is no accountability. People have gone missing and we do not know where they are; I suspect they are no longer in this world. Again, that underlines that Russia has a lot to answer for.

It follows that the international community must determine together that the days of sitting on the sidelines are done and that attempts not to anger Putin must end. Putin must understand that his attempted invasion of Ukraine has failed and that he must withdraw his troops. His people must look to rebuilding their own nation, which he has ravaged with this war. It is not only the Ukrainians who deserve peace, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said in her intervention—let us remember that the good people of Russia also deserve that. We must help them to achieve it as well. If there was a change of Government in Russia, it would undoubtedly bring peace within the region and let people have a life again.

In conclusion, I welcome this debate. More than that, I would welcome a determination by the UN. With every single ally determining that such action is taken, the message sent to China, North Korea and any other despotic regime would be that the UN is not a talking shop. Their guilt will make them accountable. I support the people of Ukraine and of Russia, and the motion we are debating. Let us call this what it is, and get the work that needs to be done finished—the quicker, the better.

15:00

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. I was grateful for his co-operation in the previous Parliament on not only Ukraine but the Balkans, which is an area of particular interest to us both.

I am proud that, over the past few years, the UK has consistently led international efforts to support Ukraine. In government, the Conservative party made sure that we were the party that stood behind Ukraine and was its first port of call. In opposition, we will continue in that spirit of the UK being Ukraine’s safe harbour. Whether on pursuing justice through international tribunals, seizing Russian state assets, supporting the ICC in its investigations, enforcing sanctions, or ensuring that Ukraine has the weaponry it requires to win, the UK must continue to lead.

However, I will start on a disappointing note. I was heartbroken to hear President Zelensky say that Britain’s leadership on Ukraine has slowed down. It is vital that the new Government demonstrate the same commitment that we did; they must be resolute. It is extraordinary for another world leader to criticise the UK or to criticise any partner publicly. His words were that the UK had demonstrated

“true leadership—in arms, politics, and support for Ukrainian society”,

which had “saved thousands of lives”, but that that had now “slowed down”. The Government will have the full support of everyone on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, of the party of the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth—if they step back up to the plate. We cannot have our greatest ally question our support in any way at this time. Conversely, although the Government will have our full support if they do that, we will provide full scrutiny should such support slip.

I welcome today’s contributions by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who made a similar point, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They have both been consistent in their support for not only Ukraine but human rights around the world.

A special tribunal on Russia’s crime of aggression would formalise Russian culpability for the invasion of Ukraine. It would prevent Putin from embedding his counterfactual narrative in history, which we should be in no doubt is what he is seeking to do. It would ensure that the brave women, men and children of Ukraine—such as Nika, from my team, who joins us in the Public Gallery—do not suffer from Russia’s attempts to rewrite their history and eradicate their truth. It would give survivors their day in court, showing beyond doubt that the world cares and listens, and that they will be heard. It would also demonstrate—as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said—that even members of the UN Security Council are not immune from international law.

The moral case for seeking justice for Russia’s crime of aggression is indisputable, and the Government’s role is to find the legal means to deliver that. None of us should pretend it is easy; it is not, and the G7 countries have grappled with finding a way to deliver it. The crime of aggression was adopted into international law by the UN General Assembly in 1971. As the hon. Member for Strangford set out, the definition agreed by the UN makes it clear that there is a clear case for Russia to answer. Rather than repeating the list that he provided, I will just add a couple of points. The sponsorship of armed irregulars since 2014—the so-called “little green men” in Donbas—is an additional reason to bring a case against Russia. There is also a case against Belarus for allowing the use of its territory as a launch pad for the invasion.

Why a special tribunal? As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon stated, neither Ukraine nor Russia is a party to the Rome statute, meaning that the ICC cannot prosecute Russia for its acts of aggression, unlike in relation to other areas, such as Putin’s abduction of Ukrainian children. Ukraine is clear that the world must devise an alternative legal route for justice. As the initial crime led to all subsequent atrocities, ensuring accountability for it is key.

Likewise, we need to demonstrate flexibility and a determination to guarantee accountability for crimes, both to deter future breaches of international law and to strengthen it in an increasingly dangerous world. Ukraine and the principle of justice demand a solution, and the Conservative Government devoted a huge amount of time and energy to trying to deliver one: the UK is part of the core group of 40 states working on a deliverable form of tribunal; we led on the G7 proposals for a hybrid tribunal, which would solve some of the issues to do with immunity and legitimacy; and as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said, there was a special conference in London on the topic of the special tribunal, where I contributed to the published communiqué.

The moral case for a special tribunal is clear and has a firm basis in international and UK law, and the previous Conservative Government led efforts to find a solution, but that was not straightforward. We now need to hear how this Government intend to carry on that important work. Ukraine has made it clear that a special tribunal with elements of international involvement is not possible on its territory without changes to its constitution, and it cannot deliver that during a time of martial law. Likewise, the conventional route of establishing a special international tribunal through the UN Security Council is blocked, due to Russia’s veto. Finally, a tribunal must find a form that allows Russia’s leadership to be tried in absentia—to the conversation that took place in this debate about individual culpability—and the diplomatic immunities given in domestic courts must be dealt with.

There have been suggestions about holding the tribunal in a third country, and the Dutch Government have now stepped forward and reportedly expressed their willingness to host this special court. Given that the Netherlands has a long history of hosting international human rights courts, that would seem an intelligent and practical option, but it still requires an international mandate. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron supported the Council of Europe’s work to establish a viable special tribunal in co-operation with Ukraine. Today, I urge the UK to lobby for a vote at the UN General Assembly in September to establish a special tribunal in a third country, in conjunction with the Netherlands.

Holding Russia accountable for the crime of aggression is vital, but it requires imagination and drive in the face of deeply complex legal questions. As the war approaches its third year, the form of a viable tribunal appears to be taking shape: a special tribunal, held in a third country, established by a treaty between the Council of Europe and Ukraine, and supported by a wider membership in the UN General Assembly. That is the best route to justice. The previous Government’s work got us to this point and we sincerely hope the current Government maintain the focus necessary to finish the job.

Turning to my questions, I want to ask first for an update on any discussions held with my friend the prosecutor general of Ukraine, Andriy Kostin. Has the Minister for Europe held discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart on establishing the tribunal? Do the Government support a special international tribunal held in a third country? Can they update us on any progress made by the Council of Europe on agreeing a format? What conversations are the Government having with non-European partners to secure their support for an international tribunal? What form do the Government see as best placed to solve the diplomatic immunity issues regarding Russia’s leaders? Finally, will the Minister confirm that strong representations will be made to Mongolia following its failure to arrest President Putin when he was on its soil this week?

The crime of aggression is clearly defined in international law. It includes supporting irregular forces against a state, bombardment, invasion, occupation and annexation. It is the original sin from which all of Russia’s other crimes have come and it must now be tried. A special tribunal could determine formally that Russia committed an act of aggression against Ukraine, a peaceful neighbouring state. That would cement truth into history and block Putin’s revisionist nonsense from taking root. Truth is fundamental to the future, and atrocity denial is a deliberate attack on victims and survivors. Ukrainians know that more than most, having endured years of the Holodomor denial under the Soviet Union and the continued lies by Russia. Putin understands the power of narrative and deliberately uses a warped past as a weapon to justify present wrongs. The impetus for a special tribunal on Russian aggression is therefore clear but, yes, the legal route is complex.

The Conservatives’ work in government, with support across the House and in partnership with our allies, has brought us close to a solution. We now need to see it delivered for every Ukrainian who has suffered, for the victory of right over wrong, and to set a precedent to deter other oppressor states from their own acts of aggression. I again thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth for calling this important debate. I genuinely wish the Minister every success in these efforts. These issues are complex and thorny, but we finally have a way ahead, and it seems that there is international consensus.

15:08

[The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this important debate with you in the chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing it and for his great interest in this subject over a long period, including in the APPG on Ukraine. As I am sure the hon. Member knows, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), would have been delighted to take part in the debate—they visited Ukraine together previously—but my hon. Friend is travelling elsewhere on ministerial duties, so I am here, and I am pleased to be responding on behalf of the Government.

I want to start by re-emphasising the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the need for continued cross-party support for Ukraine and our united determination to stand against Putin’s aggression. We have seen that determination and commitment from the people of the UK in their hospitality and support for Ukrainians who have come here. That has been incredibly important.

It is always a pleasure to serve opposite the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), but I want to set out from the beginning that the new UK Government’s support for Ukraine could not be clearer. As I know she is aware, the Prime Minister himself was clear that there would be a commitment from the new UK Government of military support worth £3 billion a year until 2030-31 or for as long as is necessary. That is an unprecedented commitment. Of course, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary all spoke with their opposite numbers in Ukraine within the first hours of the new Government coming into post, and we have prioritised this issue within both NATO and the European Political Community. It really is important that we continue to see that united support and that we do not see this issue being politicised. That would be a terrible shame and would not support Ukraine in its hour of need.

[Alicia Kearns]

I think that the right hon. Lady would recognise, however, that President Zelensky cannot be accused of politicising the situation. If the Conservative party were still in power, and if the right hon. Lady had heard President Zelensky say what he did, I would have heard about it every single moment of every single day. We have been courteous in raising it, and it is right to raise it, because we can never again hear President Zelensky say—as he did no more than six weeks into a Labour Government—that he is deeply concerned. I am relieved and grateful to hear the right hon. Lady’s assurances today, and I hope we can move forward in exactly that spirit of seeing the support that Ukraine deserves.

[Anneliese Dodds]

That support and that united approach are incredibly important. I will come back to the reasons in a moment, but Ukraine needs a united, continued front and, above all, for the UK to play a role not just directly in providing military support along with other nations, but in ensuring accountability, which is the subject of this debate. I was talking particularly about taking party political approaches to this issue, which the current Government avoided doing in opposition. It is important that we continue in that way; I know that the hon. Lady will want to ensure that that is the case, and I am grateful for her comments just now. As was mentioned earlier, it is also important that, where we see an increased prevalence of conflict globally—sadly, I am well aware of that as the Minister for Development—we continue to have that unified voice on the UK’s position.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is clearly a violation of the UN charter, and it strikes at the very heart of the rules on which our security and prosperity depend. The atrocities in Ukraine are some of the worst we have seen in Europe since world war two. Over six million Ukrainians have been forced to flee the country, over three million have been internally displaced, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that over 11,000 civilians have been killed and at least 23,600 have been injured. The attacks that we saw, disturbingly, on 26 and 27 August represent continued evidence that Russia is intentionally targeting civilian energy infrastructure, without any regard for the safety and livelihood of millions of Ukrainians. Those attacks threaten civil access to power, heating and water supply, and they risk a further humanitarian crisis this winter. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), spoke eloquently on that subject in her contribution. We also heard from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about concerning evidence of developments even today regarding additional instances of Putin’s aggression towards the people of Ukraine.

Overall, Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General has recorded more than 135,000 incidents of alleged war crimes, including murder, rape and the deportation of children. They appal us all. The Russian missile that hit a children’s hospital in July is yet further evidence of Putin’s callous disregard for human life. Yesterday, in the House—a number of Members here were present—we discussed the recent attacks that impacted on children in a playground in Kharkiv, as well as a children’s rehabilitation centre and orphanage.

We really need to see accountability, which Ukraine obviously wants for both those hideous atrocities and the illegal, unprovoked invasion from which these war crimes stem. I appreciated the clarification at the very beginning from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth: there is the initial illegal, unprovoked invasion and what has followed from it—he was right to separate the two.

The UK is committed to ensuring that Russia is held to account for its actions, and is leading efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court and to ensure that it then takes action as an independent court. I can inform Members that the referral has secured the support of 42 other countries; it is the biggest state referral in the history of the ICC, enabling the prosecutor to proceed straight to investigation without the need for judicial approval. Having led the group referral, the UK is committed to making sure that the ICC has what it needs to continue that work. There has obviously been a financial contribution under the previous Government, for which we are grateful, including £2.3 million in additional contributions to the Court since the start of the war. That funding has increase the ICC’s capacity to collect evidence and provide enhanced psychosocial support for witnesses and survivors of the atrocities committed by Russia.

In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, I want to be clear that the ICC is an independent judicial institution, and it is for the ICC prosecutor to determine the nature and focus of the Court’s investigations. They are now well under way and making progress. In 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for President Putin and his children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. When we talk about indictment and the provision of warrants, I want to underline the existence of that warrant for Putin from the ICC. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, mentioned Putin’s visit to Mongolia and we have of course raised our concerns with the Mongolian authorities about their decision to host President Putin in those circumstances. We are absolutely clear that we respect the independence and the role of the ICC.

Following those initial warrants, we have also seen warrants issued in March for top Russian commanders Sergei Kobylash and Viktor Sokolov for directing missile attacks at civilian objects, including Ukrainian electricity infrastructure. In June, arrest warrants were issued for the former Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of general staff for the Russian armed forces, Valery Gerasimov. While the list of ICC subjects is growing, it will be in the courts of Ukraine—not The Hague—that the majority of cases will be heard.

In May 2022, under the previous Government—again, we are grateful for this action—the UK established the atrocity crimes advisory group, or ACA, with the European Union and the US to provide advice and support to the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and to enhance capacity to investigate and prosecute war crimes through their domestic system. Overall UK funding for this work has come to £6.2 million, and UK experts have provided advice on over 100 atrocity crimes cases at central and regional levels. That work very much continues.

UK support for Ukraine’s investigations has been further boosted by the deployment of our former ICC judge, Sir Howard Morrison KC. People in this Chamber will be well aware of his eminence as an adviser to Ukraine’s prosecutor general. Let me say in response to comments from Opposition Members that that support continues. He has overseen the delivery of war crimes training to 294 Ukrainian judges, 86 prosecutors, and 19 investigators.

We support Ukraine’s calls for accountability for the crime of aggression, as well as for the decision to invade Ukraine illegally and without provocation, from which so many further crimes have followed. As we made clear in our manifesto, the new Government will support work towards establishing a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine—those responsible for the hideous atrocities we have seen there must be held to account for their actions.

Agreement on the details of the tribunal will matter if it is to be legally sound and to attract the broad international support that will be crucial to its legitimacy and, ultimately, its impact. If we want this to work, and we do, we need to get it right, so we continue to play an active role in the core group, established and led by Ukraine, to explore options for achieving criminal accountability, including through a special tribunal. As some Members will know, the group brings together many experts.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. How we think through the special tribunal and the difficulties in establishing it have been well covered in the debate. Forty of the greatest legal minds have come together to consider the issue, including Professor Akande, a member of the UN international law commission, in a group convened by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Would the Minister consider meeting the group to think through some of the complicated issues that are a part of achieving what we all want to see, which is Putin and others facing accountability for their crimes?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. UK legal expertise is already directly involved in the process through that contribution to the group, but I am sure that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, would be keen to speak to those pre-eminent lawyers to understand more about what we can do in that area. The need is clearly urgent, but we are also resolutely focused on ensuring that any tribunal has the broad international support that it needs to ensure its legitimacy.

As well as doing what we can as the UK, bilaterally we are making sure that we are working with international partners, as Members would expect. That process will need to address all the critical issues. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth raised the specific issue of Head of State immunity, which is one of those critical issues and one that we, together with partners from more than 40 states and institutions, are discussing in the core group established by Ukraine. We appreciate the necessity of holding all those responsible for this war of aggression to account.

The UK, alongside 40 other states, is also a founding member of the international register of damage for Ukraine, which allows individuals to file claims for loss, injury and damage caused by Russia’s illegal invasion. It is an important first step as part of an international compensation mechanism as well as in achieving the required accountability.

Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war in Ukraine. That includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damage that it has caused. Together with our G7 partners, we have agreed to make approximately $50 billion available to Ukraine by the end of the year by advancing the extraordinary profits generated by immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the European Union.

The critical subject of sanctions was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place. The new Government are absolutely determined to ensure that sanctions are not circumvented and that we have a robust regime. I am sure Members will be pleased to know that, very soon after the election and through the European political community, the UK managed to ensure a call to action against Russia’s shadow fleet, which has unfortunately been significant in the avoidance of sanctions. We are taking resolute action in that area.

The hon. Member for Strangford, who I thank for his kind remarks, rightly mentioned sanctions. He is right to detail the dreadful situation in Russia. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, also mentioned it. For two decades, Putin’s Kremlin has presided over a significant deterioration of human rights. That has intensified over the past two years, and we stand with those who have been impacted by it. We have been particularly concerned about those detained on political grounds—the very brave individuals who have stood for human rights and human dignity. We continue to raise cases, particularly those of British nationals. We have seen some developments, but we still see the dreadful persecution of those who have raised human rights issues.

I will round off my remarks by thanking all Members for their interventions, which have been incredibly powerful and important. I reiterate that this Government are determined to hold Russia to account for its illegal and barbaric actions in Ukraine. With Ukraine and our other partners we share the goal of securing accountability for the crimes that have been committed. We are supporting Ukraine to investigate and prosecute those responsible for atrocities, as well as supporting the investigation by the ICC. We will continue to engage in international fora, including the core group looking at the special tribunal proposals, and to actively work on those.

Tomorrow, the Lord Chancellor will be in Vilnius to attend the conference of the Ministers of Justice of the Council of Europe, where we look forward to engaging with our partners on achieving justice for Ukraine. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford rightly referred to the significance of action within the Council of Europe in that regard. We are seeking to make progress there, including this week. Together we will ensure that allegations of international crimes are investigated robustly and independently, and we will continue to stand by the brave people of Ukraine for as long as it takes as they defend not only their freedom but our shared security and prosperity.

15:26

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) took us back to first principles when he talked about freedom, liberty and democracy. It is a reminder that while we are talking about arcane legal matters, this is also a matter of the self-determination of the Ukrainian people and their ability to choose their own future. He also gave us the image of David and Goliath, and it is partly through the proposed special tribunal that it is suggested the international community could try to tip the scales in favour of David.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in the Chamber, talked about the loopholes in sanctions. He was right to do so; I was informed earlier this week that oil services companies are still actively doing business with Russian energy companies. SLB, which has UK offices at Buckingham Gate, is one such company. Essentially, though inadvertently, it is contributing funds to Moscow’s war machine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, reminded us of the important work of the core group of more than 40 states established in 2023. It is encouraging that the UK is part of that group, but we could be a more prominent voice were the Government to choose to go down that route. In addition, my hon. Friend talked about the spectre of a second Trump presidency. We know that Donald Trump regards himself as a dealmaker; he thinks of himself as someone able to broker a deal and get a compromise. When we are dealing with absolutes such as international justice and the crime of aggression, there is no room for that sort of grubby compromise, because on the line are the deaths of the 11,000 civilians that we have heard about this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) talked about the rewriting of history by Putin, which we definitely need to be wary of. He tends to engage in historical revisionism. Even before the full-scale invasion, he was engaged in that in relation to Ukraine. In December 2019, he talked about how Poland was somehow responsible for the attack by Nazi Germany because it had laid itself open to attack by Hitler’s military machine. We need to make sure that the record of history is written correctly in relation to Russia and Putin.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford also talked about UK support for Ukraine. I think that we should be very wary of getting into party political turf wars on that one. I see nobody from the Reform party in the Chamber, but that is the only political party in this Parliament not to buy into the consensus on UK support for Ukraine—long may the solid support between political parties continue. In the last Parliament, Grant Shapps, as Defence Secretary, announced an uplift in military aid for Ukraine from £2.5 billion to £3 billion, and that was welcomed automatically. We should not seek to score political points on this issue.

Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I will continue to press the Government on the point about personal immunities that I led on, and I will talk to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who I know is very interested in this matter, too.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

For future reference, summing up is meant to be brief, but I was generous because we have plenty of time left.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of an international special tribunal on crimes of aggression in Ukraine.

15:31

Sitting suspended.

SEND Provision: Somerset

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I will call Sarah Dyke to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be the opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND services in Somerset.

I do apologise for being late, Mr Efford. I am slightly out of breath, but it is an honour to serve under you in the Chair. Before I start, I draw my fellow Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a sitting Somerset councillor.

The current special educational needs and disabilities system is broken. Those with experience all report that it is far too adversarial, pitting families against councils and schools. The recent Isos Partnership report, produced in partnership with the County Councils Network and the Local Government Association, found that all stakeholders are acting reasonably, but are being failed by the system.

It is important to set out why the system is broken and the challenges that it faces. More children are being identified as having SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—than ever before. In January 2022, 14,000 children in Somerset were identified as having SEND; 4,000 of those children had education, health and care plans and the other 10,000 had some form of SEND support. Somerset is far from unique; SEND numbers have risen nationally. Since reforms to the system under the Children and Families Act 2014, the number of EHCPs has risen by 140%. More children have also had their needs left unmet in mainstream educational settings, a fact that places more emphasis on specialist schools.

Between 2014-15 and 2023-24, there has been a 60% increase in SEND placements in state-funded schools. Somerset Council officials have told me that the linchpin for the system failing has been the inability of mainstream education to cope with the sheer increase in demand within such a short time. The reality is that under the previous Conservative Government, schools and councils faced a huge real-terms cut in funding, which has undoubtedly had a negative impact on the provision that mainstream schools can provide.

The reliance on independent specialist schools has also increased pressure on councils. Somerset Council funding for children with EHCPs in mainstream settings is about £12 million a year and, despite having a quarter as many children in independent schools, the cost is more than double and, in addition, costs the council over £30 million per year. The difference in expenditure between children with EHCPs in independent schools and those in state-funded schools is vast. A typical child assessed as band 3 in a mainstream school will get £13,359 of total funding, whereas an independent school place can cost up to £100,000, plus £50,000 in transport costs. That is more than 10 times what a child with similar needs in a mainstream school is getting.

That brings me on to another element of failure. Even though the Government are investing more than ever in SEND provision, it is still significantly less than the actual spend by local authorities. Government funding in the high needs block allocation has risen from £4.8 billion in 2014-15 to £9.2 billion in 2024-25, but analysis has shown that the actual figure for high needs spending by local authorities is £890 million more in 2023-24 and could rise to more than £1 billion over the next two years. Somerset Council’s high needs forecast was evaluated by Newton Europe, which concluded that by 2027-28 the council would be carrying a formal deficit of £160 million. The statutory override on the debts means that they are kept off the books, but half of council leaders surveyed recently said that they would be insolvent in three years if that was removed.

The funding is also unequal across the country, leading to a postcode lottery in provision. Somerset Council is part of the f40 group, which includes the poorest funded councils in the country. Somerset will receive less than £8,000 gross dedicated grant funding per mainstream pupil in 2024-25—more than £5,000 less than the best-funded local authority in England, illustrating a massive disparity.

Rural areas such as Somerset also face huge costs in home to school transport due to the sheer size of the county. The average cost to Somerset Council of transport for a child with SEND is £10,000 per year, while some individual transport arrangements cost the council over £60,000 a year. Despite that investment and support, the outcomes for children with SEND have failed to improve over the last decade since the reforms in 2014.

I am inundated with casework from desperate parents who are at breaking point over their child’s being unable to receive the education they deserve. One parent from Wincanton told me that their bright, intelligent child deserves to be cared for rather than ignored by the system following what was a harrowing experience. Even though their child has gone through the SEND system and has a placement in a specialist school, their needs are still not being met properly. To summarise, there is more demand than ever before and the system is costing more than ever before, but it is failing to deliver for some of the country’s most vulnerable children.

I turn my attention now to a consequence of the failure of SEND services in Somerset. About 2,000 children in Somerset receive a home education. Although the council believes some of the children are receiving a home education for an entirely legitimate reason, many are being forced into home schooling as the child could not cope in school. Issues arising from a forced home education are twofold.

When a child moves to receive education at a place other than a school, they are automatically deleted from the school roll, resulting in the council’s being unable to receive the dedicated grant funding for that child. Somerset Council estimates that that is costing the education system between £8 million and £10 million a year. It is almost impossible to retrieve that money to create space for the child in the system once they are off-rolled. That then creates a one-way exit from the system unless an EHCP is granted for the child at some point in the future. In any case, it would be a very slow and arduous process, because we know that nearly half of EHCPs take longer than the 20-week statutory period to be granted.

The tribunal system is far too traumatic and stressful for parents. While 98% of tribunal cases find in the parents’ favour, that does not change the reality that councils are struggling to provide sufficient and appropriate services. For parents who do not know how to navigate the tribunal process, it can be even more turbulent for them and their child. Somerset is struggling with the issue more than many other places across the country.

Somerset has the third-highest rate of school exclusions and the second highest rate of suspensions in England for children with SEND. Those exclusions and suspensions are primarily for persistent disruptive behaviour. Even where a child has not been identified with SEND, it has often subsequently been discovered that there is an undiagnosed need. That leaves them excluded from the system and fighting for a diagnosis and an EHCP in order to get back to school, where they should be, and receive the education that they deserve.

It is not surprising to learn that there is also a detrimental impact on parents. There are around 60,000 economically inactive adults in Somerset, and the council has reason to believe that at least some of those people have been forced to give up work because they care for their child at home. We can often forget the important childcare aspect of education. The impact of a breakdown in a child’s education can have a wide range of consequences; sadly, in some cases, it can lead to a family breakdown. We need to undertake work on a national level to get to grips with the scale of the problem. I know the Government are proposing a register of children not in school, to understand the issues better, but we still need to create better routes to get children back into school.

Somerset council is supporting efforts to bring in a more flexible education system that would work to support children at home and to rebuild their ability to enter the system, but they need national support.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate to Westminster Hall. I have only been the Member for Bridgwater for two months and already have many letters from parents concerned about the system in Somerset for SEND. It is clear that the system is too adversarial and not working correctly. I support her plea for Somerset to be more generously funded—not more than others, but brought up to the average of the country.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Is this an intervention on the hon. Member or a speech?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the most pressing problem is delays in the system, particularly in making decisions, in creating an EHC plan and in assessing what the contents of that plan would be?

[Sarah Dyke]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. We know that, as I have already said, there are significant delays in children receiving their EHCP, so I call on the Government to speed up that process. As I have said, the most important thing is for our children to receive the education they deserve. We need to get them in school, where they should be, to have the best possible education.

Somerset council’s flexible approach involves taking more compassionate actions to put children’s needs at the forefront and to support them in their journey back into mainstream education. The Liberal Democrats want to support that work by creating a national body for SEND that would fund support for those with the very highest needs. A national body would support services to identify where early interventions are needed. That would lower future costs, since needs are so often exacerbated due to inaction.

We must look at other solutions and reforms that could make the system more efficient. Somerset council is utilising the funding it has and equalising funding between mainstream and specialist schools, but currently mainstream schools get a third less money than specialist schools. Somerset council believes that by spending the money in a smarter way, it can improve mainstream provision and create better opportunities for children. The new Government have pledged to take a community approach to SEND, and I await further details of what that will look like.

Aside from the children’s wellbeing Bill, there was little mention of SEND in the King’s Speech. The Government pledged to put children at the heart of education and children’s services with that Bill, but to make real change we must put early interventions in place and create support within the mainstream system to reduce costs and the demand for specialist schools.

Part of the solution is to give local authorities with responsibility for education the powers and resources to act as strategic education authorities for their area, including responsibility for places planning, exclusions, administering admissions and SEND functions. The importance of those issues cannot be overstated as evidenced by the three debates on SEND happening in this place this week alone.

I have spoken about issues specific to Somerset, but the crisis affects children and families across the country. We simply cannot let it go on any longer. Delays in action and reform will cost those within the SEND system and will increase the cost to the public purse, as the finances needed to fix the system just carry on increasing over time. I would like to hear more details from the Minister on how the Government will resolve the issues embedded in the system and support the nation’s children to secure the education that they deserve.

16:15

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing a debate on this incredibly important subject. She is right—three such debates are scheduled for this week, which shows how important and pressing the matter is.

The hon. Lady has a keen interest in special educational needs and disabilities, which she has expressed today in her comments, and she demonstrates strong advocacy for the children and families in her constituency. She described the SEND system as broken, and I agree. She made some very thoughtful comments on how we can seek to address some of the current challenges, which I will come on to.

As a Government committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and giving every child the best start in life, we know that that means ensuring that all children and young people, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive lives.

There are more than 1.6 million children and young people in England who have special educational needs. For far too long, too many families have been let down by a system that is not working. The previous Secretary of State for Education said the system was “lose, lose, lose” and she was right. For years, the Conservatives knew the system was not working, but they left families to be failed.

Despite high needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities rising to higher and higher levels, confidence in the SEND system is low. Tribunal rates are rising, as the hon. Lady described, and there are increasingly long waits for support. Far too many children with special educational needs fall behind their peers and do not reach the expected levels in fundamental reading, writing and maths skills. Just one in four special educational needs pupils achieve expected standards at the end of primary school.

Families are struggling to get their children the support they need and, more importantly, deserve. This must change. After years in which parents have been frustrated by empty promises and by reform programmes that have been delayed time and again, this Government will be honest with families.

We are utterly committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools—as the hon. Lady highlighted, that is an important part of solving this issue—as well as ensuring that special schools can cater to those with the most complex needs. We are determined to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support they need to flourish.

We know that effective early identification and intervention can reduce the impact that a special educational need or disability may have in the long term. That is why in July we announced that funded support for 11,100 schools registered to the Nuffield early language intervention programme would continue in the year 2024-25. That will help pupils who need extra support with speech and language development to find their voice.

There are no quick fixes for these deep-rooted issues. After 14 years, I can scarcely see a system that is not broken or in desperate need of reform, and which is so important that we fix. Let me be clear. We have started the work already. Fixing our SEND system will be a priority for this Department, but it will take time. A decade of national renewal is what we must deliver to give every child the best start—one that they deserve. However, the Government cannot do it alone. We will work with the sector as an essential and valued partner, to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered with parents, schools and councils, and with the expert staff who go above and beyond to help children.

We are acting as quickly as we can to respond to the cost pressures in the SEND system, which are causing real financial problems in some local authorities, including in Somerset. Before the parliamentary recess, we announced a new core schools budget grant, which will provide special and alternative provision schools with over £140 million of extra funding in this financial year of 2024-25, to help with the extra costs of this year’s teachers’ pay award and the outcome of the negotiations on an increase for support staff. That is in addition to high-needs funding allocations for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities, and to the existing teachers’ pay and pension grants, which total £10.75 billion this year.

The Department for Education budgets for 2025-26 have not yet been decided, and how much high-needs funding is distributed to local authorities, schools and colleges next year will depend on the outcome of the first stage of the Government’s spending review, which is due to be announced at the end of October. That means that next year’s allocations of high-needs funding to local authorities have not been published within the normal timescale, but we are working across Government and we will announce next year’s funding allocation for Somerset and all other local authorities as soon as we can.

We are acutely aware not only of the financial pressures that local authorities are facing because of the increasing cost of supporting young people and children with complex needs but of the financial pressures that the Government as a whole are facing because of the economic climate that we have inherited. As I have said, resolving these problems will not be quick or easy, but I am keen that we develop long-term solutions and I welcome contributions across the House, such as the one by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, on these very important issues.

It is important that there is a fair education funding system that directs funding where it is needed and where it can best provide support. One aspect of that is the national funding formula that is used to allocate high-needs funding to local authorities, so we will take time to consider whether or not to make changes to the formula and the impacts of any such changes on local authorities, including in Somerset.

Every young person with special educational needs or disabilities should have access to high-quality services, and local authorities are critical in ensuring that children and their families can access the support they need. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission jointly inspect local authorities’ SEND provision to ensure that there is joined-up support for children and young people. These inspections enable the Department for Education to intervene in cases of significant concern and to work with local authorities and professional advisers to address areas of weakness.

We therefore welcome the publication of the Big Listen response today. We will work with Ofsted to consider how outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities or in alternative provision are better reflected in the educational inspection framework and the area SEND inspection framework in the future.

I am concerned that a joint local area inspection of Somerset’s SEND services, which was undertaken by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission in March 2020, identified nine significant areas of weakness. Following the actions that were taken, the CQC has subsequently confirmed that seven of the nine areas have made sufficient progress and were therefore stepped down. Somerset was required to produce an accelerated progress plan to address the two remaining areas, and progress against the plan is being closely monitored by officials from the Department for Education and NHS England.

The Department has implemented a support programme in Somerset, which included workshops and support focused on the importance of the data in joint commissioning. Somerset has drawn on the specialist advice of a SEND adviser, whom the Department commissioned earlier this year, and it also receives ongoing support and challenge from the Department and NHS England at six-monthly accelerated progress plan meetings. The combined impact of these interventions has shown improvements over the last three years.

As the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton also expressed, we want a holistic approach to school place planning, which considers how mainstream settings can offer high-quality support to children and young people with SEND, alongside sufficient special school places for those with the most complex needs. Local authorities are able to use their high needs capital funding allocations to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as other specialist settings. That will also be used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings.

Somerset council, for example, has been allocated just under £20 million in high needs capital funding between 2022 and 2025. A new special free school, Hillview school, opened this month in Martock, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton. It joins the eight existing special schools in Somerset. In addition, seven mainstream schools in Somerset have established resource provision that provide access to a mainstream curriculum and classroom, alongside specialist support. Enhanced learning provisions have also been created in five mainstream secondary schools to provide informal support to young people with moderate learning difficulties as they transition from primary education. This Government are committed to working with Somerset council, school leaders, and other sector partners, as well as their national counterparts, to develop and improve inclusive education in mainstream schools.

The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton mentioned the challenges around exclusion, and I appreciate her concerns. Every pupil deserves to learn in a safe, calm classroom and we will always support our dedicated, hard-working teachers to make this happen. Schools can use sanctions as a measure to improve behaviour. In the most serious cases, a suspension or permanent exclusion may be necessary to ensure that pupils are protected from disruption and can benefit from education. Our statutory guidance is very clear in all cases: decisions to exclude a pupil must be lawful, reasonable, and fair. The guidance sets out that headteachers should consider underlying causes, or contributing factors of misbehaviour before issuing an exclusion, including where a pupil has special educational needs. That should ensure appropriate support is put in place when concerns are raised about a pupil’s behaviour, rather than waiting for it to trigger action.

The hon. Lady also referenced the letter sent to the Secretary of State for Education by Somerset council. I thank Somerset council for writing directly to the Secretary of State to set out its thoughts on the SEND system. The Government recognise that, for too long, the education and care system has not met the needs of all children, with too many parents struggling to get their children the support they need and deserve. My officials will be pleased to meet representatives from Somerset council, who have set their thoughts out very helpfully, and they will be in touch in due course to organise a meeting.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton again for bringing this matter forward, and also those who have contributed and attended the debate. Somerset SEND services, along with SEND outcomes across the country, are issues we all care passionately about. I absolutely recognise that the SEND system needs to improve. I acknowledge the hardship that too many families face when seeking to secure the right support for their children with special educational needs and disabilities. I am determined that this will change.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work taken on by so many working in education, health and care, to support children and young people with special educational needs, both in Somerset and right across the country. I thank them for their commitment and service.

Question put and agreed to.

Fly-tipping

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of fly-tipping.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, in the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured since being elected the MP for Ealing Southall. I have chosen the very important issue of fly-tipping for this first debate.

After 14 years of chaos from the previous Conservative Governments, we have an NHS in crisis, an economy that came close to collapse, communities living in fear of crime and a failure to act on the threat of environmental breakdown. My constituents in Ealing Southall recognise that fixing the NHS, putting police back on our streets, tackling the climate crisis and kick-starting growth in the economy need to be the new Government’s first priorities. However, for many of my constituents, it is what is outside their front door that matters most.

Let us imagine walking out of our homes every day to see a big pile of black sacks, broken furniture and kids’ toys at the corner of our streets. That is not the first thing we want to see on our way to work. Then, let us imagine we have invited our family or some friends around that evening. It is embarrassing to ask people to pick their way through sacks of rubbish and furniture when they come to visit. As one of my constituents told me,

“It’s disheartening to go out of your house.”

Another told me:

“I dream of the day I don’t have to pick my way through piles of rubbish to get down the street.”

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, communities in Morecambe in particular are blighted by fly-tipping. I have noticed the damage that has done to their feelings of community pride. When someone treats people’s streets like a rubbish dump, it makes those people feel like rubbish. I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the psychological impact on communities. Does she agree that there is a deeply psychological impact and that this is not merely a matter of street cleansing?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is certainly right: that, too, is the experience of my constituents in Ealing Southall, where they have very much said that this is an issue of pride in their community. Much research has also been done on what is called the “broken windows syndrome”, in which fly-tipping also encourages crime and antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend is certainly right in that regard.

My residents in Ealing Southall have identified Beaconsfield Road and Bridge Road, along with George Street in Hanwell, as key hotspots, but there many more. In fact, more than a million cases of fly-tipping are recorded every year in this country. Of course, many will not be recorded at all as communities just give up. One third of all fly-tipping takes place in London and eight London authorities were in the top 10 areas with the highest number of fly-tipping incidents in England, according to the most recent statistics. I am afraid to say that all too often it is the poorest areas of the country that are most likely to face such issues. That is due to overcrowded housing and a lack of outside space for bins, which are particular issues in London.

There are some great organisations fighting the scourge of fly-tipping. In Ealing, LAGER Can, whose representatives are here today watching the debate, does amazing work in partnership with the council—not just to clear litter, but to clear and report fly-tips. Nationally, Keep Britain Tidy has strenuously campaigned on the issue. The previous Government periodically announced new crackdowns on fly-tipping, but has that made a difference? I do not think my constituents in Ealing Southall noticed any improvements in 14 years of that Government’s supposed crackdowns; in fact, it is clear the problem has got worse.

Why did the previous Government fail to get a grip on the issue? First, only about 1% of fly-tips result in a court prosecution. That is because councils lost about two thirds of their funding over 14 years of Tory austerity, so they cannot afford to pay for the detailed and expensive investigations needed to take a fly-tipper to court. Even if they do try to take a fly-tipper to court, the average fine is only about £500, which does not pay the council’s costs. It is much quicker and cheaper for the council to just pick up the fly-tip. That solves the immediate problem, but of course people then start to think, “Well, I can dump my mattress or these few bags of rubbish on the corner because the council will pick them up.”

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree that when councils seek to investigate, prosecute and prevent fly-tipping, they should be able to recover the full cost, including when issuing fixed penalty notices to those who are guilty? After all, it is the polluter who should pay.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I certainly agree. I will return later to my hon. Friend’s point about making the polluter pay. Currently it is certainly not worth councils’ time or money in many instances to take fly-tippers to court because the fines, and indeed the sentencing, do not act as a deterrent. Some people feel it is okay to leave their rubbish at the end of the street because the council will pick it up. This is a vicious cycle and we need to break it.

Secondly, in the small number of cases that do go to court, magistrates do not take the issue seriously enough or understand how fly-tipping blights the life of local communities. The sentencing just is not enough to make people think twice. The criminals who make a pretty penny by offering to take away waste for 20 quid tell the court they are unemployed, so they get away with not having to pay. The waste carrier licensing system is also so lax that it is hard for someone to lose their licence, even if they have broken the rules and been convicted.

Thirdly, there is a problem with housing in London. We know that there is not enough of it and that is why this Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes. Right now, in Ealing Southall, there are people living in overcrowded accommodation, where there is often not enough space for a bin. I have also been told by many of my constituents that tenants sometimes illegally sub-let a room, but insist that the new tenant does not use the rubbish bins so that the landlord does not find out.

Finally, there is just too much waste in the first place. As a nation, we are drowning in unnecessary packaging, single-use drink containers, and household items that are difficult and expensive to recycle. We have to be honest about fly-tipping. In a Keep Britain Tidy study, one in five people in London admitted that they had fly-tipped themselves—this is often black-sack fly-tipping. It is simply not an excuse that the council is not doing enough because every council in London offers a free kerbside collection for black-sack rubbish. However, people often do not see this as fly-tipping, and it is very difficult to change their behaviour. No amount of education seems to work.

Trying to stop people from fly-tipping is a huge challenge. Keep Britain Tidy has piloted a number of schemes, including in Newham, that have had some success, but the schemes often simply move fly-tipping to the next road. Some councils have tried community skips, including my neighbouring authority of Brent. However, despite the council’s hard work, Brent sadly still has the highest fly-tipping rate in London, at 34,000 incidents a year. Although residents like the community skip, it does not stop people from fly-tipping.

The recycling charity WRAP has found that there is no evidence at all to link free bulky waste disposal with a reduction in fly-tipping. Even the Conservative Hampshire County Council acknowledged that fly-tipping did not increase when it started to charge for DIY waste. Just as it is clear that there is not one cause of fly-tipping, so it follows that there is not one answer.

This is a complex problem that needs a number of different approaches. Crucially, it needs to be led by Government, not by cash-strapped councils. We need a national strategy to combat fly-tipping, which will bring together the Environment Agency, councils, Keep Britain Tidy, waste disposal authorities and other stakeholders to crack this problem once and for all.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The Environment Agency found that 86% of farmers have been affected by fly-tipping this year. However, many of those incidents are not reported because the reporting process is time-consuming, confusing and frustrating, and it does not stack up for farmers to do it. So they clear the waste themselves. Does the hon. Member agree that a single reporting mechanism needs to be developed to help farmers and land managers? I appreciate that the hon. Member is leading a very urban debate, but I think that the mechanism is important. A single mechanism should be in place so that a fly-tip should have to be reported only once.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. As she has said, Ealing Southall is certainly not a rural area of the country. However, my father’s family are from Tipperary, and they were farmers; I do appreciate, and am well aware, of the cost of fly-tipping to farmers in particular. As it is on private land, they are, in most cases, liable for the costs of removal themselves. It is a massive issue, and I do hope that we will hear from others today on that issue. Certainly, there is more that we can do on reporting because, as I said earlier, the reports that we currently have are only the tip of the iceberg as a lot of communities just do not report.

Having gone through the problems and realised that the solutions are complex, what solutions do I feel should be included in the national strategy? To combat the organised criminals, we need a national fly-tip investigation team. Why should environmental crime not be taken as seriously as other types of organised crime? We need national financial investigators who can use proceeds of crime laws to go after the assets of these criminals and hit them in their pockets, where it really hurts.

We also need sentencing guidelines to be reviewed so that the courts do not continue to allow fly-tippers to get away with it. We need to reform the waste carrier licensing scheme so that it is worth the paper that it is written on. We need stronger rules for bins when houses are broken up into flats; I am delighted that Ealing council is introducing a new requirement for planning permission for HMOs—houses in multiple occupation. But we need to ensure that waste facilities are rigorously assessed as part of landlord licensing schemes and before permission is given for flat conversions, and that councils have the funding to carry out those inspections.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the progress she is making on such an important topic. Keep Manchester Tidy established a partnership with Manchester city council to encourage residents to actively help make their communities cleaner. As part of that strategy this year, Manchester saw its highest number of volunteers supporting the national Great British Spring Clean, with more than 100 litter-picking events and more than 2,000 litter-pickers. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all the volunteers who work extremely hard to make our communities cleaner and greener? Does she agree that they should not have to do this in the first place?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I certainly agree that the work of local volunteers is hugely beneficial in preventing this problem from being even worse than it is at the moment. I know that, in Ealing, we would not survive without the work of our great friends in LAGER Can, and it sounds as if my hon. Friend has similarly civic-minded residents in his constituency too. I congratulate them on the work that they have done.

The most obvious answer to the fly-tipping crisis is to reduce waste in the first place. Let us turn off the tap of all of the waste that we see on our streets. That could be a real game changer. I know that the Minister has already committed to introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers by 2027 that would mean that empty cans and bottles could be returned to shops to get a deposit back. As well as cutting down on empty cans and bottles in black-sack fly-tips, research by Eunomia found that a return scheme could save councils in England up to £35 million annually. We could then spend that money on something else.

I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of a scheme that covers all reusable containers, including glass, from the outset, and it would be useful if she laid out a timetable for bringing that forward. Manufacturers should contribute to the costs to councils of clear-up by providing more take-back services so that people can hand in old furniture and mattresses when they buy new ones. The big prize is to persuade manufacturers to make their goods fully recyclable; the best way to do that is to make them pay for the cost of disposal. That is based on the idea of making the polluter pay. I hope the Minister will also set out a timetable for that approach, known as extended producer responsibility. It will encourage manufacturers to stop producing so much packaging and items that cannot be easily recycled.

Fly-tipping is not a low-level crime. It stops people from feeling proud of where they live, it encourages other crime and antisocial behaviour, and it costs millions of pounds to clean up—money that could be used for vital public services. I look forward to the Minister giving my constituents in Ealing Southall confidence that, after over a decade of inaction by the Conservatives, this new Labour Government will finally take fly-tipping seriously, with a national fly-tipping strategy, stiffer penalties for the culprits, and ways of reducing waste in the first place.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

If a Member intends to catch my eye in the debate, they must be on their feet now. I will impose a time limit of five minutes.

16:46

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Fly-tipping sounds faintly amusing but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) so expertly pointed out, it costs millions and blights lives. A constituent wrote in about how, on a daily basis, he sees stuff—including “gas canisters” and “rotting food”—

“blown all over the street after foxes have”

opened bags. He says, “It’s relentless and tiring” and that something needs to be done. Another constituent posts daily Facebook pictures of a dump where there are all sorts of things—dining chairs, a sofa, a divan bed, a TV in bits and decorators’ leftovers. She says it

“looks like a flat clearance.”

The most recent figures we have show that, in 2023, fly-tipping cost councils hundreds of millions of pounds and that there were over 1 million incidents. As has been stated, there are a lot of logistical issues. Fran, who volunteers with the aforementioned group LAGER Can, says that the overlapping, different fly-tips in her street have created a sort of illegal, unofficial dump. Even once it is cleared, it reappears because the cycle continues. One email to me says:

“the council should figure out who keeps doing this and should come down hard on them with big fines.”

As was pointed out, fly-tipping is a criminal offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It can result in imprisonment, unlimited fines and even being deprived of rights to the vehicle used to commit the offence. However, as my hon. Friend said, there is a perception that this is low-level stuff, and the likelihood of being caught is low. People are unaware that leaving items in the street, or outside a charity shop, is an offence.

Solutions should combine carrot and stick. The attitude to fly-tipping should be that it is completely socially unacceptable, and we should treat it more seriously as a crime, enforcing penalties and punishment. However, we should also make it as easy as possible for people to dispose of waste. It is not rocket science that since the Acton dump closed, the prevalence of mattresses on street corners in the area has exponentially risen. Alternative sites at Greenford or out of borough on the north circular are further away, necessitating more emissions. Sites also require pre-booking, with a lot of intrusive personal details—inside leg measurement, hat size. As a small Asian woman with a car, I know that dumps are often not the most user-friendly places, so let’s make things easier. People are not allowed to take a neighbour’s items, and items cannot be walked in either. That fails to understand that not everyone in a street will possess a car.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

When I went to Germany 35 years ago, there was one day a month—towards the end of a month, as it happened—when the rubbish removal people would come around and take away big items. So those who lived in a flat or who did not have a car, or who had any of the problems just described, did not have to think about how to get rid of their mattress. Has the hon. Lady considered that option?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and the idea of the community skip, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall raised in her speech, sounds like a good one. Why not take the solution to the people, rather than expect it from them? We know that all our local authorities are cash-strapped, so I wonder whether the Minister might propose a trial and give that idea a whirl everywhere, because it is free. I now have two boroughs in my constituency—Hammersmith and Ealing—and bulky items collection is at a charge. When I suggested the community skip, I was told, “But it would fill up with builder’s waste.” Great! Surely that is better than having it on every street corner. When I put to an officer the idea of CCTV, which I had received from people who email in with solutions, he answered:

“In order to carry out the sort of enforcement your constituent is asking for with cameras, we would need an infrastructure and network the likes of which one finds in novels by George Orwell.”

There is literally a “computer says no” attitude that comes back. Let us be a bit more creative.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

Local councils battling this torrent of fly-tipping tend to deploy CCTV, but it then takes people to watch the CCTV to find the culprits. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should give councils the funding to staff that CCTV surveillance but also make use of the footage, such as by creating an online wall of shame, as we did in my previous council? That might put that footage to good use.

[Dr Huq]

It sounds like a panacea, but we do not know who these people are, so there are a lot of issues. But yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall pointed out, having more funding from central Government would be great after 14 years of cash-strapped councils. If we get rid of the booking system, the possibility of spontaneously mowing the lawn and taking the waste down to wherever would also be opened up.

I think we are running out of time and there are lots of Members present, but I want to praise LAGER Can and Kathy Swift on tirelessly doing community clean-ups. It terms of the necessity of having such groups, it is a bit like food banks: the fact that we have more food banks than branches of McDonald’s in this country is really a sign of state failure. It should not be Kathy who is cleaning up every unofficial dump in a borough of 360,000 people.

This has been a great debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall. Let us install some community pride in areas, because well-maintained areas are less likely to become hotspots for dumping. I hope our suggestions do not fall on deaf ears. In a similar way to the Jubilee 2000 debt campaigners, let us make fly-tipping history.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that giving way eats into the time of those who want to speak later. I call Jim Shannon, who has four minutes.

16:52

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

That is okay—I will keep to the four minutes and I will not take an intervention either. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) on setting the scene with much information, detail and good ideas. I fully support her idea for a national strategy, which is one of the things I was going to ask for, ever mindful of where we are. It is nice to see the Minister back in her place after a short time away from the House, and I look forward to hearing her contribution at the end.

Very quickly, I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective and to reinforce what the hon. Member for Ealing Southall said—these things are mirrored all across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Fly-tipping has become such a massive issue, including in my constituency of Strangford, where constituents report countless incidents of fly-tipping to my office almost every week. It is time for us to have a debate in Westminster Hall on how we can work together to tackle this issue.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has revealed that, from 2018 to 2020, it cleaned up 306 illegal waste sites across Northern Ireland, with taxpayers paying the half a million-pound bill, which is equivalent to employing 15 nurses. That is what we could do with the money if we did not have to spend it cleaning up afterwards. Fifteen nurses would be a big thing for us in Northern Ireland and a big thing in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing Southall as well.

Collective action is required to tackle fly-tipping. It is a serious crime, and that is without mentioning its devastating impacts on our environment. In the past, my council—Ards Borough Council, as it was then—used to have a system of skips that went around all the villages. Whenever a skip was filled up, the council brought a new one. Unfortunately, as the years passed, that seemed to fall by the wayside. New councils were amalgamated and that strategy was lost.

In 2023, the then Prime Minister’s antisocial behaviour action plan set out how councils would be supported in taking tougher action against those caught fly-tipping. That included raising the upper limit for on-the-spot fines to £1,000. In 2018, there were 74 cases of fly-tipping in the constituency of Strangford, and many fear that that will increase due to the new recycling centre booking system introduced just recently. There is no doubt that fly-tipping is wrong, and we must have a punitive system in place to ensure that it does not happen. However, we must also ensure that waste centres are accessible to constituents to ensure that fly-tipping does not become more common. If we make it illegal, we have to put something in its place.

It is important for residents to report fly-tipping, but not to touch it. I want to put out this caution: in many cases, there might be contaminated waste, such as syringes—that is the society we live in—broken glass, asbestos, or toxic chemicals and other hazardous substances that can severely harm individuals, and especially young children, or animals. In addition, it is important not to disturb a site in case there is evidence that could identify the fly-tippers and lead to their prosecution.

To conclude, it is an unfortunate reality that there are numerous incidents of fly-tipping and illegal dumping across the UK on a daily basis. Our local councils are working hard to prevent them, so I ask the Minister to do the very thing the hon. Member for Ealing Southall has referred to: introduce a national strategy covering all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—because we always do things better if we do them together—and, with that in place, ensure that all councils are given the powers to enforce tougher fines and even prosecute fly-tippers. We can do better, and we will hear shortly from the Minister on how she will do just that.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I will bring in the Front Benchers at 5.8 pm. In order to do that, I have to bring the time limit down to three minutes.

16:56

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue that continues to blight our communities. In Crewe and Nantwich, the scale of the problem is staggering. Over the past year, Cheshire East council has recorded a significant increase in fly-tipping, with more than 1,200 reported incidents. That represents a worrying trend, with law-abiding citizens and businesses left to deal with the consequences of the irresponsible and often criminal behaviour of others. However, Crewe and Nantwich is not alone in facing this challenge; as many colleagues have said, the figures in our community highlight the urgent need for a national framework to effectively tackle the issue.

As I know only too well as a former councillor coming to this place, the burden on local authorities is immense. Cheshire East, which oversees the Crewe and Nantwich area, spends nearly £1 million each year just to clean up after fly-tippers—that money could be spent on other vital public services, which is exactly what our residents would expect. Of course, it is about not just the financial costs, but the deeper impact on our communities. Residents have expressed to me their deep frustration and anger at the constant blight of illegally dumped waste, whether on farmland or in residential areas, our parks or our green spaces. Farmers, in particular, are often left to shoulder the burden of clearing up hazardous waste from their land—a task that is both time-consuming and expensive. Of course, there is also the impact on our environment, wildlife and natural habitats.

As we have heard from many other speakers, enforcement remains a significant challenge. Last year, only a handful of fines were dished out in Crewe and Nantwich, with the majority of fly-tippers escaping punishment altogether. That is simply unacceptable. The current system does not serve as a sufficient deterrent to those who think they can flout the law without consequence. We need a national framework to bring together the relevant agencies to tackle this issue in a co-ordinated way.

In conclusion, I encourage the Government and the Minister to take the necessary steps to create a comprehensive national framework to tackle fly-tipping—one that will empower local authorities such as Cheshire East council to protect our communities and environment. I am confident that together we can make a real difference in the fight against this blight on our communities.

16:59

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this important debate on fly-tipping. As we have heard, fly-tipping blights communities and landowners, on both publicly and privately owned land. There is a misconception that fly-tipping is a small-scale crime committed by individuals or unscrupulous small waste removal businesses. The reality is that it is often connected with organised crime.

I give credit to my local authority, Gravesham borough council, for the work it has done on tackling the problem in my constituency. It recognised the impact of fly-tipping and in 2020 set up the environmental enforcement team. The team uses a range of enforcement actions to prevent and tackle the issue, from verbal advice right up to criminal prosecution. Indeed, in the past year the team prosecuted 39 cases, each resulting in successful prosecutions. They work closely with the media team and Kent police to raise awareness and deter other potential offenders. I put on record my thanks to the team and its partners, as well as to the over 500 Gravesham community champions, for helping clear up our streets.

That good work, however, is often not enough, and there are outstanding issues to be addressed, of which I will raise a couple now. Small authorities such as Gravesham do not have access to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, so if a person is suspected of committing an offence, small authorities have to follow the DVLA rules. It would help those agencies if they could have access to the database, so that they could do more forensic investigations. The other issue is about justice in the courts system. We know that there is a huge backlog in that system, but it is also about the chasing of unpaid financial penalties that do not necessarily cover the cost of clean-up. Again, it is about the flexibility of the fixed penalty notices.

My final reflection is about the legislative framework. When I reached out to Gravesham borough council, it quoted six main pieces of legislation that it operates under. Simplifying that legislation and putting it all in one place will make it easier for local authorities to use, our courts to prosecute and the general public to understand. I hope that that could be looked at over the course of the Government’s term. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out her Department’s policies in that area, and to working with Government on the matter. We can all agree that those who blight our beautiful countryside and streets should be the ones to pay to clear it, or, better still, that they should not dump in the first place.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

You are all being very good.

17:02

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this important debate. As for many colleagues, fly-tipping has been one of the top issues in my mailbag since I became an MP. Constituents contact me most days worried about our local environment, public safety and the pride they want to have in their community.

It is easy to talk about fly-tipping as though it is just about rubbish—and it is—but it is a serious blight on our constituents’ lives and health. It can be a serious hazard, such as when it is blocking an emergency exit; in one case I dealt with for a single mother with three children, they had to climb over a fence, a metal barrel and a mattress to get to their home in an emergency. It is a serious public health issue, with massive piles of rubbish attracting rats to my constituents’ property. In any case, it is always an eyesore that lets our area down and damages our sense of community.

In 2022-23, Birmingham city council issued over 270 fixed penalty notices and prosecuted 14 individuals and businesses for fly-tipping, with punishments ranging from fines to community orders. But in a city of over 1 million people that is just not enough.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I represent the neighbouring constituency, and as the hon. Member knows, fly-tipping in Birmingham is becoming an enormous problem. It is almost contagious, starting in the smaller wards, then the inner-city areas and then the outskirts. Does she agree with me that where we have fly-tipping on privately owned land that has shared owners, the city council should remove the hazardous and dangerous build-up? Does she agree that if the council does not act, the Government should intervene to ensure that local councils do remove it?

[Paulette Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Member. On this occasion, because I was at the top of a local council and I know how expensive it is, I feel that the responsibility should be on the private owner to secure their property and to ensure that it is kept free of fly-tipping. If it is not free of fly-tipping, I, Paulette Hamilton, because I worked on a local council, believe that they should work with the local council to try to remove it, but the cost cannot be borne by the council because they have not got the money. I will carry on—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. You won’t. I call James Asser.

17:05

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing the debate. It is a huge issue for residents, as other contributors have said, but it is also a huge area of pressure for councils, as finances and resources have been squeezed very hard and bin and street cleaning services are already resource-intense, taking up a lot of time for all of our local authorities.

It is worth asking how we define fly-tipping, because often it is presented just as a man in a van dumping white goods by the side of the road. That is an issue, as we have heard, but, in many areas, it is more about low-level rubbish being dumped on streets, often through ignorance of a system that creates fly-tipping hotspots or a lack of understanding about when one should present waste.

Councils have the dilemma of whether to collect the waste, thereby hiding the problem rather than solving it but clearing the streets, or to leave it for investigation, which creates distress for residents because the streets are a mess. In my borough, we have found that this problem can be tackled through education and awareness. In Newham, we saw success by working with residents and Keep Britain Tidy. We piloted wrapping waste in crime investigation-style tape and painting messages where the fly-tips were removed that both highlighted the cost of the removal and what the council could have spent that money on. We found that had an effect: in the immediate term, there was a 64% drop in fly-tipping; in the long-term, there was a 40% drop.

It is worth saying that it did not work in all areas. It was particularly useful in areas where there were residents rather than in areas with high footfall, but the council has moved on to other measures in high-footfall areas, which have led to a 32% drop in those spaces. This is a key point: one size does not fit all. Different areas—both urban and rural—have different problems and we all need different solutions, even within local districts. We need a range of options.

We also need ways of working with the public. As we have heard, they play a vital role. Local people care. They are the eyes and ears, helping to keep their area safe. So, what is the ask of Government? Money and resources for local councils, yes—we all know the demand, but, to help the Minister, this is not just about cash. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall and others have made the point that we need to share initiatives. We need to share policy ideas and pilot projects. It is difficult for councils to work on their own, and therefore a national strategy and national ways of working are important. In this regard, regional and central Government can do more, bringing together different agencies and bringing together different councils to share those ideas. A national strategy will look at that and at ways we can bring those together and share those good ideas. I hope this is the start of a longer debate that we can make some progress on.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Josh Babarinde.

15:31

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Efford, for your chairmanship this afternoon. This is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I am very pleased to be able to use it to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) on securing such an important debate on an issue that blights so many communities, including mine in the sunniest town in the UK, Eastbourne. With a million incidents a year that, according to Keep Britain Tidy, cost local authorities and private landowners more than £200 million a year to clear up, the scale of this waste crime epidemic demands debate in this mother of all Parliaments. I thank the hon. Lady for securing it. Although the debate has been devoted to talking trash about trash itself, the quality of the contributions from hon. and right hon. Members has been more reminiscent of treasure—treasure that makes me proud to be a new Member of this House.

Pride has been mentioned a number of times and, fundamentally, it is what the issue of fly-tipping comes down to. Whether the intention is nefarious or not, to fly-tip is to dishonour the pride represented in so many of our communities, such as by Plastic Free Eastbourne or Mucky Mermaids in my patch, who do lots of voluntary work to clean up community spaces. To fly-tip commercially is to dishonour the pride of local waste-collection businesses. We have a number who jump through all the hoops to do things the right way and to earn an honest living, but they are undercut by those cowboy waste-collection companies that are the perpetrators of some of the worst fly-tipping. To fly-tip is also to dishonour the pride of our waste-disposal workers in their jobs, and in keeping our streets clean—people such as Sean Towey, Martin Hobbs, Karen Cavie and Richard Westgate in Eastbourne, whom I met recently. They are proud to keep our streets clean, but their work is blighted by fly-tipping.

To fly-tip is to dishonour pride in our environment, the beauty of which is destroyed by wrongly dumped waste, with wildlife put at risk by often hazardous materials. Only last week, we had a case of asbestos being dumped on Paradise Drive in Eastbourne. To fly-tip is to dishonour the pride of our farmers, who have been mentioned in the debate, and 85% of them report that it is a problem on their land. On average, each removal costs about £1,000. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) mentioned that in his speech as well.

All those things and more make fly-tipping an inherently antisocial practice, and one that the law is right to sanction. The problem is, however, that at the moment such sanction feels like an offer that is not properly taken up. If we look at the figures from the Office for National Statistics, we find that of the 1 million fly-tipping incidents that happen a year, only 2,000 led to a prosecution last year—that is 0.018%. More than that, last year only about 1,800 fines were issued by courts for fly-tipping incidents, with a total value of £837,000, which equates to just 77p per incident. It is not working, and local council resources have been gutted by the previous Government, which means that their capacity to enforce fixed penalty notices has been gutted as well. That is tantamount to legalising littering, and we need a clear change.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for court fines to be increased substantially and for the proceeds to be pumped into a fly-tipping fighting fund to invest in local authorities’ capacity to crack down on waste crime on the ground as part of a national effort to get to grips with it, as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) discussed. From my career tackling youth crime and antisocial behaviour before I entered this place, I can say that enforcement is only part of the story. In the first instance, prevention is just as critical.

We can check out amazing initiatives such as Newham council’s social impact stencils, mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser). That initiative involves painting short, bold and stark messages to educate people about the social, environmental and financial impact of fly-tipping, spray painted on the very spots where it happens most. In one of the pilots in Stratford, a 67% reduction was observed. Beautification is an effective tool as well, making areas particularly beautiful. That was done in in Dover, clearing space—but we can do lots more. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing Southall for securing the debate—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Robbie Moore.

17:14

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this important debate. I also take the opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place.

Having just defended a majority of slightly more than 2,000, I must say it is fantastic to be re-elected to this place. I am a little relieved that I am still here, even though it is now sitting on the other side of the House as a shadow Minister.

Often, it is here in the Westminster Hall Chamber that we have a real opportunity to focus on issues that matter at a micro local level. It is great specifically to be discussing an important issue that matters to all our constituents. I will start by echoing the comments made so far in this debate: fly-tipping is a blatant attack on our communities, and it damages local habitats and the environment, creates a danger for local wildlife, and places an unfair economic burden and cost on those who are forced to clean it up.

While in government—including in my short time in the Department as a Minister, when I was pleased to see through a number of steps to tackle this issue—we gave tougher powers and grants to tackle fly-tipping hotspots. We increased the maximum penalty that councils can issue for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000, and we made sure that the money was ringfenced specifically for enforcement and clean-up. We increased the penalty for householders who give waste to fly-tippers from £400 to £600, and we worked with stakeholders to co-design a fly-tipping toolkit to help landowners, councils and businesses to tackle this common issue.

We also increased the scrutiny of how councils were using the powers awarded to them through the publication of a fly-tipping enforcement league table, so that there was more transparency in the system. Since those measures were introduced, statistics show that the tide has begun to turn, with fly-tipping on public land down for the second year in a row. Of course, there is much more to do, and I look forward to working constructively with the new Government to help to build on the substantial action taken in previous years.

The two issues that I will touch on specifically, based on my experience as a constituency MP and in Government, are fly-tipping on private land and the proper use of enforcement. On enforcement, it is paramount that local authorities use the tools and powers that have been awarded to them. As I mentioned, when we were in government we increased the maximum penalty notices for local authorities to utilise, but it is clear that local authorities are not using those powers.

I will not upset the many Members who have mentioned their own councils, so let me begin with statistics from the Labour-run Bradford council that operates in my constituency. In the past year, despite receiving over 15,000 reports of fly-tipping, it has issued only 86 fixed penalty notices. That ranks Bradford 217th out of all local authorities in the country for fixed penalty notices per incident. To compound the issue, that was on the back of it taking action to close household waste and recycling centres not only in my constituency but elsewhere across Bradford. The council has resisted local opposition and kept those centres closed.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will carry on because Government Members have had enough time.

Councils have to make use of the powers that are awarded to them. To put the closures into perspective, if my local authority took the same action as the local authority of the hon. Member for Ealing Southall, it would be able to set the precedent in creating a clear deterrent. In other words, those who pollute must feel the consequences. How does the Minister plan to work with councils such as Bradford to ensure that they properly utilise the powers and resources that were awarded to them under the previous Government? What specific steps will the new Government take to support councils and hold them to account if they do not take action? As many Members have rightly indicated, a national strategy is the right approach, but how does the Minister intend to utilise those powers and the additional powers that she wants to award to local authorities to address the issue?

On the issue of fly-tipping on private land, what additional measures will the Government take to hold people to account when it is not necessarily their fault that fly-tipping has taken place on private land? Could they potentially be awarded for clearing up the mess rather than facing the full force of the law? As many Members have said, collective responsibility is vital, so we must work together with local authorities—with proper law enforcement—community members and all stakeholders to address this issue.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I will stop the Minister after 10 minutes so that I can give the mover of the motion time for a short summing-up speech.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

What a pleasure it is to be back and serving under your esteemed chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank all honourable colleagues for their kind words on my return to the House after my short enforced sabbatical.

Can I say how thrilled I am to respond to this debate? As an Environment Minister, I know that everyone’s environment starts outside their own front door. It is clear from the passion in this room that those on all sides of the House care deeply about the need to educate people on the fact that there is no such place as “away”. There is no throwing away. There are only materials that come into our possession, get used and are then disposed of, and the disposal and collection of those materials is essential if we are to create a circular economy.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this debate and pay tribute to LAGER Can, who are here, and the many community groups up and down the country, including my local Ball Hill residents’ association in Coventry East, that organise litter picks and are stepping in to fill the gap left by 14 years of devastating cuts—two-thirds cuts—to local authority spending power caused by the Conservatives.

[Anna Dixon]

In my constituency of Shipley, which falls within the Bradford district, swingeing cuts to local government budgets under the previous Government have forced the council to make impossible choices, including the closure of two tips, at Sugden End and Ilkley in the shadow Minister’s constituency, used extensively by my constituents. Of course, residents fear that there will be an increase in fly-tipping, which is already a problem. Does the Minister agree that cash-strapped councils cannot be expected to solve this problem alone? Let us stop blaming them and look at what support can be given from the national Government.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and agree that if we are to create a zero-waste economy, which is the stated aim of this Labour Government, we have to start by ensuring that we increase collection and follow the environmental principles that ensure that the polluter pays. It comes back to some of the points about full-cost recovery and the fact that it is not in the interests of councils to enforce prosecution.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of Bradford council, but I can tell him that I intend to write to all 13 councils that reported zero enforcement actions in the past reporting year. They are Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, which is Lib Dem and Tory-run; Colchester, which is Tory-run; East Devon, which has no overall control; Exeter, which is Labour; Fylde, which is Tory; Isles of Scilly, which is independent; Lewes, which is Lib Dem and Tory; Sedgemoor, which is not clear; Somerset West and Taunton, which, again, was Conservative; South Hams, which is Lib Dem; South Somerset, which no longer exists—there are a few that have merged; Uttlesford; and West Devon. All those reported zero enforcement actions in the past year. That is not good enough.

Looking at the tally, I see that it is not Labour councils that are doing nothing. The shadow Minister was quick to criticise Bradford council, but 86 fixed penalty notices is actually not a bad record given where some local authorities find themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall, as the former Chair of West London Waste, knows only too well about what happens at the very end of this long pipeline of waste and recycling.

I pay tribute to Members in this debate. Fly-tipping is a crime that blights local communities and, indeed, poses a great difficulty to landowners. We heard some comments about whether we can have a whole-nation policy, but this policy is devolved. As the granddaughter of a Fermanagh farmer, I know all too well about the issues of fly-tipping around Rosslea. It is a devolved matter and responsibility for addressing and managing fly-tipping lies with each devolved Administration. As we have seen through the debate, approaches to tackling fly-tipping change and need to be responsive to local needs, not least because what works in inner-city Newham will not necessarily work in Strangford.

[Shaun Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a cross-Government approach to fly-tipping? We need the Home Office to recognise that it is often linked to organised crime, particularly in respect of the bigger fly-tips. There is a role for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and for the Ministry of Justice. Will my hon. Friend work with her counterparts across Government to focus on this work?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I want to correct the record on what the shadow Minister said about the waste figures, because the methodology changed in 2019-20. In that year, there were 980,000 incidents of fly-tipping. The numbers to 2022-23 increased by 10.5% to 1.08 million incidents, so the numbers and the trend lines are all going in the wrong direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) made an absolutely valid point. Far too often, when people come to collect stuff from households, we are hiring Messrs Bodgit and Scarper. We need to make sure that the carrier number is printed on the side.

On the point about the DVLA, we all have access to DVLA tax and MOT information on our phones. It cannot be beyond the wit of officials to make sure that the databases are joined up. It does introduce complexity, but we are actively looking at that.

Whether someone lives in the countryside or in a city, they should be able to take pride in their place. The story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) of people climbing over rubbish to get out of their house in an emergency is simply intolerable in the sixth richest country in the world.

Local authorities have reported over 1 million incidents, and the cost to local authorities was £392 million in 2018-19. That is why our manifesto committed to taking back our streets from the fly-tippers and vandals and forcing them to clear up the mess they have created as part of a crackdown to tackle antisocial behaviour.

The National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group has produced guidance to help councils to present robust cases to court, but where the gain is not worth the candle because the fines are too low or the fly-tippers are allegedly too poor, we need to get a little cannier about what we do and how we get back to the principle of polluter pays. As the shadow Minister said, fixed penalty notices can be issued, as can notices of up to £1,000 or £600 to the householder who passes on their waste to someone without a proper licence, but we need to educate the public about their responsibilities as well.

We recognise the efforts made by the London borough of Ealing to tackle the issue. It is in the top 10% of councils for issuing fixed penalty notices and I hope it will continue to do that good work. There are lessons to be learned from throughout the country. According to our statistics, the council did not carry out any prosecutions, so we encourage it to use its powers to the full.

[Paulette Hamilton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I really have to make progress because I will run out of time.

On the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime, who gets to carry the licences? We heard of a dead dog called Oscar signing up for a waste permitting licence. Over the last 14 years the scheme has been wide open for criminals and abuse. We need to make reforms and make it easier for regulators to enforce against non-compliant operators—for example, by requiring the permit numbers to be displayed on their advertising.

We want to make waste digital—we want to track waste and to know where it goes—and we will lay legislation next year to provide transparency in the waste system. Whether it is with councils, individuals or businesses, we must continue to work together. In rural areas, we must work with the National Farmers Union and the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, using toolkits and helping to spread best practice. Some 80% of farmers in rural areas have said that they have been affected by fly-tipping.

To come back to where my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall finished, we have to reduce waste in the first place. There is no such place as away. We will move to a circular economy. Everything that is not put back into the system through a deposit return scheme—I hope we will see legislation on that very soon—is a waste to our economy. We will convene a taskforce of experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to develop a circular economy strategy.

17:28

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I am delighted that there was so much interest in it; that makes it clear that fly-tipping is extremely important to people across the country and not just to my constituents in Ealing Southall.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister takes fly-tipping seriously. I am particularly happy to hear that she has understood the need to make sure that we stop waste in the first place—that we turn off the tap of waste. I am also delighted that she is taking seriously the need to make sure both that there are stiffer penalties for offenders and that the waste carrier system works better than it does currently. I know that my constituents in Ealing Southall will be happy to hear that fly-tipping will now be a priority for the Minister, and I hope we will move towards the national strategy that we need.

17:29

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).