House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
The Government take very seriously our role to ensure the resilience of Government suppliers. The Cabinet Office takes an active role in monitoring the Government’s strategic suppliers and putting in place contingency plans where there is risk of distress. More broadly, the Cabinet Office works alongside other Departments, from the Department for Business and Trade and the Insolvency Service to the Treasury. We are supported by UK Government Investments, which is the Government’s centre of excellence in corporate finance, with experience of corporate finance, restructuring and insolvency in the private sector. Any taxpayer support must be used wisely, balancing the need to ensure value for money and support jobs and the economy.
Jodie Gosling
Following the collapse of five companies of the SK:N group, a large employer in Nuneaton, the health services that the companies offered have been impacted. Will the Minister please explain what steps the Government are taking to ensure that Departments have contingency plans to sustain the work of those companies to private healthcare patients?
Georgia Gould
I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on the specifics of the case that she mentioned, but when any business collapses it causes huge distress to the customers and people who work there, including those in her constituency. In general, independent providers of NHS services must hold an NHS provider licence unless exempt. Licensed providers of services that are hard to replace are subject to financial and risk-based quality governance oversight to safeguard the continuity of services for patients. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with further details, I will ensure that the relevant Minister gets back to her.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Almost 48,000 companies in the south-west are now classed as in significant economic distress, according to the latest Begbies Traynor’s “Red Flag Alert” report. That is visible in market towns in Glastonbury and Somerton such as Wincanton and Street, which are losing high street stores. What steps is the Minister taking with her Cabinet colleagues to support businesses in the south-west?
Georgia Gould
This Government are determined to support growth in this country, as one of their driving missions. Work is going on across Government to support economic growth and investment and to ensure that high streets thrive again.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
We will end the waste, inefficiency and cronyism that set in under the previous Government. Under this Government, procurement will deliver value for money, better public services and our national missions. As a first step, we are bringing forward a new national procurement policy statement under the Procurement Act 2023, which will deliver a mission-led procurement regime. It will drive value for money, economic growth and social value. We have also taken steps to cut down on wasteful consultancy spending, and have worked to set up a new covid counter-fraud commissioner. As set out in our plan to make work pay, we will also take further reforms set out in our manifesto.
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for mentioning cronyism in her answer. The biggest procurement scandal I have seen in my lifetime was under the last Conservative Government, when Ministers gave dodgy contracts to their mates and donors. They took our country’s reputation for honesty and integrity and trashed it. Residents in my constituency are not only angry but disgusted and ashamed. Will the Minister update the House on the steps the Government are taking to ensure that there will never be a repeat of this episode?
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend can see just how keen I am to act on this issue. He is right that taxpayers are paying the price for the Conservative Government allowing waste and fraud to spiral out of control. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently took decisive action by appointing a new covid counter-fraud commissioner to help us recover public money and ensure that this never happens again. I am working closely with the Public Sector Fraud Authority to push every avenue to detect fraud, from advanced artificial intelligence and analytics through to strengthening our enforcement powers.
Jo Platt
Does the Minister agree that, when done right, public procurement can deliver positive change in our communities, especially given the poor state in which the previous Government left the public finances? What steps will she take to ensure that social value is properly embedded in our procurement frameworks, while delivering value for taxpayers and contributing to growth in our local economies?
Georgia Gould
I agree that procurement can be a powerful tool for delivering change in our society. Public sector procurement can help to drive our ambitions around growth, opening up opportunities for communities across the UK. The Government are currently consulting on a new national procurement policy statement that will set out our expectations around mission delivery and social value.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her very helpful answers. What steps have been taken to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland, and further afield in the United Kingdom, have readily available access to the public procurement system, to ensure that they can secure the best goods for their business and thereby help our economy in Northern Ireland to grow?
Georgia Gould
Supporting SMEs through procurement is a huge priority for the Government. It is one of the things that we are consulting on as part of the new national procurement policy statement that I talked about. We are looking across our work in government to ensure that SMEs are part of the procurement process. This is a subject on which we will come back to the House.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary staff do excellent work on behalf of the Royal Navy and for our national security, and I pay tribute to them for that work. I have been in contact with the Secretary of State for Defence on this issue. I am hopeful that a resolution can be found on the pay matters currently under discussion between Nautilus, the RMT and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and that the current dispute can be resolved.
Mike Amesbury
I welcome the efforts of the Cabinet Office and other Government Departments—unlike the previous Government, who sat on their hands—to resolve this dispute in the not-too-distant future. I urge Ministers to double their efforts with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury.
Pat McFadden
Government officials are in negotiations with the trade unions. We want to see an end to the dispute that results in a fair pay offer for the workers involved and delivers value for money for the taxpayer. That is what we will try to achieve.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Prime Minister and President von der Leyen have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU. Vice-President Šefčovič, whom I met in Strasbourg on Tuesday, and I will be getting the reset moving this autumn. As part of this, the Government will seek to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and remove other barriers to trade.
Clive Jones
The British Poultry Council has recorded a 50% drop in poultry-linked exports since 2020. Between 2019 and 2022, UK agrifood exports to the EU contracted by 5% and have struggled to recover to 2019 levels. Rural businesses are being held back from exporting to the EU due to costly border charges and administrative hurdles. Has the Minister’s Department assessed the impact on food prices if a veterinary and plant agreement with the EU is not reached before Christmas?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman’s question sets out exactly why negotiating an SPS agreement is so important. The Government have set out that there will be a UK-EU summit in the first half of next year, and it has been made clear to me, and indeed to Vice-President Šefčovič, that there should be progress by then.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I offer the congratulations of Liberal Democrat Members to our hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the safe arrival of his baby son yesterday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I offer our very best wishes to David, Gemma and all the family.
I am sure the Government agree that support to provide opportunities for young people should be central to the policy of any Government. We are glad to see the new Government working to build closer economic and cultural ties with Europe. We want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, built on co-operation, not confrontation, and move to a new comprehensive agreement. We must rebuild confidence by agreeing partnerships or associations, helping to restore prosperity and opportunities for British people. Will the Minister consider the extension of the youth mobility scheme and acknowledge the breadth of ways in which it could strengthen our cultural, educational and economic links with Europe?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, I add our congratulations to the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the safe arrival of his new baby.
On the specific point that the hon. Lady makes, we will not give a running commentary on the negotiations. We will obviously consider EU proposals on a range of issues, but we are clear that we will not return to freedom of movement.
Mr Speaker
I remind the Front Benchers to look towards the Chair now and again, because sometimes I cannot hear what is being said, so that would help me, since Members are speaking through me in the third person. I am trying to get the House to work how it should.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
We were elected on a manifesto with five missions to rebuild Britain and turn the page on 14 years of decline under the Conservative party. Those five missions offer real and tangible benefits to people living in every part of our country: higher living standards, cleaner energy, safer streets, longer and healthier lives, and a renewed confidence that the future will be better for our children. I am delighted to report to the House that we have already begun the change that we set out in our national missions, making our economy stable, launching a new border security command, setting up Great British Energy and setting out ambitious plans for housing.
Alan Gemmell
The excellent Ayrshire chamber of commerce is helping Ayrshire businesses to grow. After 17 years of the Scottish National party failing business in Scotland, businesses in Ayrshire need that support, as well as this Government’s five missions. Does the Minister agree that, to deliver the change that our country needs, we need a new way of doing politics, working in partnership with communities, business, civil society and trade unions?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and commend the work of the Ayrshire chamber of commerce and businesses in his constituency. The Prime Minister has set a clear direction for missions to mobilise action beyond Government, including across business, civil society and local government. Missions require wider sectoral and societal engagement and action across the UK; they are not simply tasks for one agency or sector. I am pleased by the progress that we are making in this area, and was delighted last week to see the launch of the civil society covenant, which marked a new beginning in the Government’s relationship with, and made clear the pivotal role of, civil society in delivering our missions.
Mr Charters
Brew York and Piglets Adventure Farm are just two examples of highly innovative businesses in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that, from lager to lambing, businesses will play a critical role in delivering the five missions, so business engagement is key?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work that Brew York and Piglets Adventure Farm do in his constituency. I absolutely agree that engagement and working with business will be key to delivering on all five of our missions.
Emily Darlington
I congratulate the Government on trying to use the missions to stop the siloed working between Departments in order to achieve the change that the country needs. On the housing mission, it is important that we link in the Treasury and the Departments for Health and Social Care, for Transport, for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Energy Security and Net Zero, to ensure that we build the 1.5 million homes that we need. In Milton Keynes, we have seen how house building can create opportunities, but public support is lost when the necessary vital public services and infra- structure do not come alongside new houses. How is the Cabinet Office bringing together all those Departments so that we can achieve our housing mission?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of housing, which is central to what we are doing in government. Each of our five national missions is ambitious and will require input and action from a number of Government Departments. That is precisely why we are running them as missions, and not in the traditional departmental silos. As would be expected, the Cabinet Office is key to supporting that; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is deputy chair on all mission boards, and myself are playing active roles in facilitating that cross-Government working, supported by a specialist mission delivery unit in the Cabinet office.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
Our first duty as a Government is to keep people safe. It is clear that we need to act on recent public inquiries that have called for reform, such as those into the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the covid-19 pandemic. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading a review into national resilience against the range of risks the UK faces.
Adam Jogee
In the last year alone, we have seen a mini-tornado in Nottingham, flash floods in Madeley and rain like no other across Newcastle-under-Lyme. We see the devastating effects of climate change every day. What is the Minister doing to improve resilience and preparation across central Government, local authorities, local communities and emergency services, to ensure that Newcastle-under-Lyme and the rest of our country are prepared for any and every extreme weather event?
Ms Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. As the Environment Secretary has said, it is a matter of some regret that the previous Administration left our country’s flood defences in the worst condition ever recorded, and it is communities such as my hon. Friend’s that have unfortunately had to pay the price. I can assure him that the resilience review will strengthen our approach to resilience across the whole range of risks that we face, including those in his constituency. We have already taken steps to improve resilience across government.
Dr Gardner
If we are to ensure that the UK is resilient to the potential threats that face our country, it is vital that people who work to bring communities together and keep us safe are given the training, knowledge and skills that they need to play their part. My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South knows the importance of that more than most, with people working tirelessly to tackle and calm the racial tension at the centre of the violent disorder we saw over the summer. Organisations such as the Emergency Planning College do fantastic work to deliver crisis management and resilience training. Can the Minister tell the House what steps she is taking to support their work in that area?
Ms Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in September I was delighted to visit the Emergency Planning College, which has served as the UK Government’s centre for resilience expertise since its founding 80 years ago. I am pleased to report to the House that the UK Resilience Academy is on track to be established next April. It will build on the training currently offered by the Cabinet Office’s Emergency Planning College, providing a wide range of training for organisations, businesses and individuals. Of course, as part of the resilience review we will further consider whether policy is working in respect of training and skills, and where it needs to be improved.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The right hon. Member is right to raise that question. We will ban China’s economic engagement, and make sure we strengthen our national security.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Last week, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority issued a small number of invitations to begin testing a new claims service. Furthermore, I can announce today that applications for interim payments to the estates of people whose death has not yet been recognised have now opened. This is an important step in getting money into the hands of victims of the infected blood scandal.
Sarah Owen
My constituent Sharon Moore has been a fierce campaigner for victims of the infected blood scandal and their family members. After decades of Government negligence, Sir Brian Langstaff was clear that the community of infected and affected people should be included to enact his inquiry recommendations. However, the previous Government engaged in little to no communication with patients or organisations such as the Haemophilia Society and the Terrence Higgins Trust. I am delighted that those recommendations are being enacted today, but could the Minister please tell us how he will be working with the Department of Health and Social Care and his colleagues in that Department to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Sharon Moore for all her campaigning. As I have said to the House, I have now given the instruction for interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected to open today, and I expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to make its first payments before the end of the year. Subject to the House’s processes, I would hope that regulations for those who are affected—the second set of regulations—will be completed by the end of March next year, and I expect that payments to the affected to begin next year as well.
Adam Thompson
I am very pleased to hear that the Minister has opened applications for interim payments. Will he elaborate on how those payments may be accessed, so that my constituents in Erewash can get their hands on them as fast as possible?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to go on the gov.uk website, which gives the details for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. I urge people with an interest to register with the authority, which is already sending out newsletters. However, right hon. and hon. Members are also very welcome to write to me at the Cabinet Office about specific cases. I will of course look into those cases and ensure there is a response.
Patrick Hurley
I welcome the urgency with which this Government have moved this important issue forward, especially now that we know there is a timescale for applications being opened. Will the Minister update the House on when victims can expect to receive their final compensation payments?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I have indicated to the House, I expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to make its first payments before the end of the year, and to start payments to the affected next year. The Government are moving as quickly as they can to ensure that people receive the compensation that, frankly, is long overdue.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement on the £100,000 interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected, thereby maintaining the momentum that was established earlier this year, and I thank him for his thorough statement to the House yesterday introducing the statutory instrument. Will he confirm that it is his intention to ramp up rapidly from the payouts to the test case cohort of 20 infected? Can he give the House as much detail as he can about when others in the infected cohort should expect to receive their payouts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone he has taken throughout the debates under this Government. That continues the work we did when I was the shadow Minister, when we worked together to try to deliver these payments as quickly as possible.
The whole purpose of having the test cohort is to enable a range of different cases to be considered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, to give us the best possible opportunity to ramp up as quickly as possible. That is why I expect the first payments to be made before the end of this year. I then expect payments to the affected to begin next year, and I will ensure that regulations are placed before this House to make sure those deadlines are reached.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
The behaviour of Conservative Ministers in their 14 years in power—partying in Downing Street while people in the whole country sacrificed their freedom, handing lucrative covid contracts to friends and donors, and failing to expel MPs caught breaking the rules—shattered trust in politics. This new Government are determined to restore trust in politics. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he expects the highest standards from those who have the privilege of serving in his Government, and he will soon be issuing an updated ministerial code. Alongside this, we are taking a range of other measures to restore confidence in government as a force for good.
Dr Chambers
As a veterinary surgeon, I am expected to maintain the highest professional and behavioural standards at all times, as are those in many other regulated professions such as doctors and teachers, and if I fail to meet those standards I face the very real prospect of being struck off. Given the behaviour of previous Ministers and even a Prime Minister, does the Minister agree that, if we enshrined the ministerial code in law, that would restore trust in politics and ensure that people who lie and break the rules face very real consequences?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the Leader of the House has said:
“This new Parliament offers a chance to turn the page after the sorry and sordid record of the last.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 857.]
That is why we will be issuing a new robust ministerial code. As we promised in our manifesto, the House has established a Modernisation Committee, which will be tasked with driving up standards and addressing the culture of the House. That sits alongside the work the Cabinet Office is doing to improve standards and confidence in politics.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?
Ellie Reeves
Anything in relation to the former chief of staff will be announced in due course. It is not right for me to comment on the terms and conditions of any individual.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
This Government were elected to deliver for people throughout the United Kingdom, and whatever political differences we have in different parts of the UK, the public expect us to work together for the common good. That is why we held the Council of the Nations and Regions recently in Edinburgh, which was focused on investment and good jobs across the country.
Mr Forster
I am sure we all agree that local communities know what is best for their own affairs. Will the Minister formalise the council of Ministers so that the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with regional leaders in England, can meet regularly to shape their communities?
Pat McFadden
The idea is that the Council of the Nations and Regions, which met in Edinburgh the other week, will meet twice a year. However, I believe that these relationships are about more than formal meetings. It is important, underneath the formalities, to establish as good and as normal a working relationship as we possibly can.
Graeme Downie
This new Labour Government have already outlined that they are going to invest in sectors vital to the economy of Dunfermline and Dollar, including renewables, defence and engineering. That investment can only fully deliver if there is alignment with the Scottish Government to deliver the pipeline of skills needed for local people to fill those jobs, which is an agenda that the SNP has singularly failed to address in 17 years in power. Will the Minister outline how this Labour Government will co-ordinate with and press the SNP to ensure that the opportunity of this investment is fully realised?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress investment. Investment was the theme of the first meeting; it was also the theme of the investment summit held last week. Through that, we were able to announce over £60 billion of inward investment to the United Kingdom. This will benefit people in all parts of the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that to make the most of it we have to give people the skills to do the jobs this investment will bring.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
As is set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords. Our objective is to bring about a renewed focus on active contribution within a smaller House of Lords that better reflects the country it serves. As an immediate first step in reform, the Government have introduced legislation within our first 100 days to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
Abtisam Mohamed
It is extremely welcome that this House overwhelmingly supported the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The Lords must be more reflective of society. Currently, it is not reflective of society or of regions like South Yorkshire and Sheffield. Does the Minister agree that there should not be places in our Parliament that are reserved purely for those from certain families, as that only preserves the privilege of the aristocracy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party seems to stand for few things currently, and it was astonishing that it decided that one of them is hereditary privilege in the House of Lords.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Last week’s legislation was welcome and was supported by the Liberal Democrats, and we were glad of the Government’s suggestion that these were initial steps ahead of broader reform. Will the Minister outline a timeframe for when further legislation will be brought forward for democratic reform of our upper Chamber, and can he assure me that safeguards will be put in place to protect against cronyism, with improved mechanisms to review appointments to the other House?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive approach to this matter. Clearly, we want to see the current Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We will then move on to the second stage of our reforms, looking carefully to build a consensus to have that smaller, better value, active House of Lords that we all want to see providing more considered scrutiny of this House. We will certainly consider her specific points about the appointments process.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
In the aftermath of the flooding experienced at the end of September, and as the final figure of flooded properties is confirmed, discussions are ongoing between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business and Trade about the activation of the flood recovery framework, which is a core package of business and community recovery support. There are stringent criteria for activation of the scheme by Ministers and the current estimates of localised impacts and a relatively low number of properties flooded in September are below the threshold for activation. However, the Flood Re insurance scheme, a joint initiative between the UK Government and the insurance industry, is available to a wide range of eligible households in flood risk areas.
Edward Morello
Climate change means that West Dorset faces a growing flood risk, with increasingly frequent heavy rainfall flooding fields, making roads impassable and turning villages like Stratton and Maiden Newton into islands. Last year, 700 properties in my hometown of Bridport, including a school and a vital healthcare centre, were put at risk by flooding. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the necessary funding and resources are available for flood prevention and emergency response in rural constituencies like West Dorset, where large geographical areas can create additional challenges?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department for flooding in England and it stands up its emergency operations centre when a flood forecast or flooding incident justifies that. This includes when flooding may exceed the capacity of local response networks to manage. The EOC works in tandem with Government. We have also set up the flood taskforce, which is looking at how we can deal with flooding in the future to make sure we can address issues like those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
As we have heard, last week we had the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to modernise the Lords. We have also delivered on our manifesto commitment to hold the first Council of the Nations and Regions. We are working hard to deliver justice for the victims of the infected blood scandal. We have published a written statement today on the implementation of the UK biological security strategy. Finally, we have set out the position on the right balance of flexible working and time in the office for civil servants.
Sonia Kumar
What plans does the Cabinet Office have to support small and medium-sized enterprises in building resilience to future economic shocks and crises, to ensure that they can continue to operate under difficult conditions?
Pat McFadden
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Our agenda for growth will help small businesses. We are determined to support them. I assure my hon. Friend that they are an important part of our resilience strategy and our resilience review. Earlier this week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) met a range of businesses to discuss shared goals in respect of resilience and to ensure that they can have input into the strategy we are preparing.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster provide an update on the current situation for British nationals in Lebanon, including the measures being taken to ensure their safety? Are there any plans for further evacuations, given the ongoing instability in that region?
Pat McFadden
The situation in Lebanon is serious, and there are several thousand UK nationals in Lebanon. The Foreign Office advice for some time has been simple: leave now. The Government have chartered several flights to help UK nationals to leave. We are also running a “register your presence” site, to ensure we can track anyone who is in country and have the best possible communications with them. We have made preparations for other evacuation measures, should they be necessary for the protection of our citizens in Lebanon.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for that answer. May I echo from the Opposition Benches that the correct approach for British nationals is to leave now, rather than to rely on the Government to take further steps for them? However, in the event that the situation deteriorates further, what contingency plans do the Government have in place to ensure the swift and safe evacuation of British nationals, particularly in high-risk areas?
Pat McFadden
We have been monitoring the situation closely for some months. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House that the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and all parts of Government are putting in place the necessary measures, should the situation on the ground change to a point where we judge that more needs to be done to get people out of the country.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
Whether workers are working in-sourced or outsourced, we always want them to have a good deal and a fair deal at work. That is why the Government brought forward this week a powerful Bill to improve employment rights for people right across the board. We believe that when people go to work they deserve fair pay and decent conditions.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Pat McFadden
It is very important that the voter ID system does not prevent people who have a legitimate right to vote from exercising their democratic right, so we are keeping it under review, and we are already making a change to make it easier for veterans to get the ID necessary to vote.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; she is a long-standing champion for justice for victims of the infected blood scandal and, indeed, the nuclear test veterans that she mentioned. We are looking to introduce a broad duty of candour—a general duty of candour. I should also point out that criminal sanctions will be really important to punish the most egregious breaches, and I am pleased to confirm today, as the Prime Minister announced in September, that the Bill we will bring forward will include criminal sanctions.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I withdraw my question.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
As the Minister responsible for public service reform, I am clear that every single pound saved on unnecessary consultancy spend is a pound invested in the renewal of our public services and delivering our ambitious missions to change the country. We are taking tough action to cut down on wasteful consultancy spend. We are acting to stop all non-essential Government consultancy spending this year and to halve Government spending on consultancy in future years, with a target saving of £550 million in 2024-25 and £680 million in 2025-26.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
As you can imagine, Mr Speaker, the people of Scotland are beside themselves with excitement—I would go so far as to say we are fair giddy—at the prospect of receiving a visit from the Prime Minister’s special envoy. As we prepare the red carpet and the massed pipe bands to welcome her, may I ask exactly what was the Cabinet Office’s role in the creation of the post, when we will see a job description published, and when the special envoy will finally take up the post officially?
Pat McFadden
I thought the hon. Member would be joining me in satisfaction at a nil-nil draw away from home last night. As for the personnel matter that he raised, all I will say is that I am enormously grateful to the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff for her efforts as chief of staff. I do believe that we want good, normal working relationships with the Scottish Government, and anything to do with the post will be announced in due course.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
As I mentioned earlier, the resilience review will strengthen our approach to resilience across a range of risks we face, including flooding. We have already taken important measures through the creation of the dedicated floods resilience taskforce, the first meeting of which I attended last month.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The provision of blue-light escorts is clearly a matter of operational policing, but last week my colleagues on the London Assembly wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asking for an inquiry into the provision of tickets to politicians, including the Labour Mayor of London, and the pressure that was then applied to the Metropolitan police to provide an escort to Taylor Swift. Will the right hon. Gentleman conduct a review so that we can see what happened and ensure that, if mistakes were made, they are rectified and this does not happen again?
Pat McFadden
These are operational decisions for the police, but I am glad that the person who is currently the biggest pop star in the world was able to play in London, particularly following the threat of a terrorist attack at her previous concerts in Austria. I am glad that the show went on.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
At the Five Eyes summit last month, I reiterated this Government’s firm commitment to tackling fraud and learning from our closest intelligence allies. Fraud does not respect international boundaries. This is a top priority for this Government, and we are taking action to build a wide anti-fraud coalition on advanced artificial intelligence and analytics, and to take further action on enforcement.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that we are coming to the end of Whistleblowing Awareness Week. Civil servants and others are Ministers’ best friends. They are the people who can indicate where to find evidence of fraud, corruption and other criminal activity. May I press Ministers to create the office of the whistleblower, to give new legal protection, to normalise speaking out and to promote greater public awareness of whistleblowing rights, demonstrating the importance of whistleblowers in a fair, open and transparent society?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to two things: the good work that civil servants do and the valuable role that whistleblowers play. That is why the last time we were in government, we legislated for legal protection for whistleblowers. It is important that people can come forward without fear of what they have to reveal.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
We have seen record numbers of our fellow citizens—2.8 million—excluded from the workforce because of long-term sickness. This Government recognise that taking action to improve health outcomes and address economic inactivity is vital for achieving sustainable economic growth. We will produce a White Paper to get Britain working. That will support other steps that we are taking across Government, creating more good jobs in clean energy through our modern industrial strategy, making work pay and improving the quality of work through our new deal for working people. We are also committed to cutting NHS waiting times, improving mental health support so that we can tackle the root causes of inactivity and fix the foundations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), gave a very helpful reply to a question on infected blood compensation. What discussions has he had with victims and families of the infected blood scandal in Northern Ireland since the final report was published in August this year?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this matter and his words of support about the progress the Government have made. Sir Robert Francis conducted an extensive engagement exercise during the general election period, and the Government responded to that by adopting 69 of the 74 recommendations that were subsequently made. I met victims of the scandal in the days before I made the announcement back in August. I also work closely with the Health Ministers of the devolved Administrations, including Northern Ireland.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm that the procurement reforms will consider social value and local impact in contracts of Government and partners, such as the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, in important areas where there are World Trade Organisation non-competition exemptions, for example floating offshore wind contracts in the Celtic sea? They can provide a critical boost to the economies of places such as Cornwall.
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I can absolutely confirm that we will do everything we can to ensure the new national policy procurement statement drives social value around communities in the UK, in line with our trade obligations.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome yesterday’s publication of the child poverty taskforce framework. Is the Minister able to say more about the delivery of the strategy, other than that it will come out in spring?
Pat McFadden
This shows the importance of the issue to the Government. The last time we were in office we reduced child poverty; it is an issue dear to our hearts. That is why the strategy is coming forward and why Ministers are working hard on it. We have been clear since we took office that while we want economic growth throughout the country, we also want the benefits to be felt by people in every part of the country and in every income group.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am proud to be part of a mission-led Government, but mission-led government is not just about missions; it is about how the Government do that. Does the Minister agree that it should be data-driven?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Here, in the spirit of the exchanges this week, I want to pay tribute to something the previous Government did, which was to improve the data operation at the heart of government. That does help when the Government are forming policy. We want to build on that and use data. It is important that we modernise how government works. The accurate use of data can help us to make better policy and that is what we want to do.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Almost 29,000 families in Scotland benefited from maternity pay last year, worth over £200 million. Does the Minister share my concern about suggestions from a Conservative party leadership candidate that it should be reduced?
Pat McFadden
I very much share my hon. Friend’s concern. In fact, the only economic policy we have had so far from the Conservative leadership contest has been the suggestion that we reduce maternity pay. That will do nothing for families, nothing for mothers and children, and nothing for the good operation of our economy. I hope they think twice about that suggestion.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Ahead of any Budget, there is always talk about tough decisions. Could the Minister remind us why we are in this difficult position in the first place, and will he please update us on progress on clawing back covid fraud, where we saw taxpayers’ money being handed over to former Ministers’ mates?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We knew we would inherit a difficult position, but it was much more difficult than we thought when we came into office. Anybody who objects to difficult decisions announced in the Budget next week should know where the responsibility for those lie: squarely on the shoulders of the Conservative party. It falls to us to clean up the mess we have inherited from the Conservatives. That you will hear more about when the Chancellor gets to her feet next week.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Over the last few years we have seen an increase in attacks by foreign Governments on UK cyber-security. Will the Minister please update us on what steps his Department is taking to ensure our public services across the UK are fully protected?
Pat McFadden
This is vital work for the Government. We have a combination of legacy systems with vulnerabilities and, of course, constant investment in new systems to ensure our public services can work in the most modern way. It is really important that we guard against either foreign state interference or other malign actors who would try to disable institutions and disable public services through cyber-attacks. That is an important part of resilience and an important part of protecting services for the public good.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend tell me what steps he is taking to keep Scotland at the heart of the Union and keep Ayrshire’s economy growing?
Pat McFadden
I believe that people in Scotland have tired of the politics of grievance and division. They expect Governments, whatever their political colour, to work together to promote economic growth, get inward investment in, get good jobs for people and have good public services. Would that not be a refreshing contrast to some of the division we have had in recent years?
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Every child deserves the opportunity to achieve and thrive, but at the moment far from every child is being given that chance. Today’s report from the National Audit Office is, sadly, bang on the money: the system has totally lost the confidence of families. Families and children with special educational needs are being failed, on every measure, and even shadow Ministers have admitted that they should hang their heads in shame at the failure to support them.
Our promise to families is that we are absolutely committed to regaining parents’ confidence in the special educational needs and disabilities system, but that will be a huge and complex reform. There is no magic wand and no quick fix, so we continue to ask for patience as we work as quickly as we can to make the changes that I know families are crying out for.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Today we have published independently commissioned insight that suggests that if the system were extensively improved through early intervention and better resourcing in mainstream schools, the needs of tens of thousands more children and young people could be met without an education, health and care plan, and in a mainstream setting rather than a specialist placement. That can pave the way for a sustainable system in which schools cater for all children, and special schools cater only for those with the most complex needs.
Our plans include strengthening accountability for mainstream settings to be inclusive, for instance through Ofsted, and helping the mainstream workforce to have SEND expertise. It is clear that we need to work with the teachers, parents, children, therapists and councils who, for so long, have been trying but have been set up to fail by a broken system. This work forms part of the Government’s opportunity mission, which will break the unfair link between background and opportunity and will start by giving every child, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, the best start in life.
Munira Wilson
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Today’s National Audit Office report confirms what parents, carers, children and young people across the country have been telling us for years: that our system to support those with special educational needs and disabilities is in crisis and on the brink. The last Conservative Government’s abject failure to tackle the systemic problems facing SEND provision has been laid bare for all to see. With half of children waiting longer than the statutory 20 weeks for an education, health and care plan, with outcomes not improving, with special schools over capacity and, damningly, with the Department for Education not knowing how much capacity is required to meet future need, we are failing our most vulnerable children. Shockingly, 43% of councils are at risk of bankruptcy, given the deficits that they are racking up in their high- needs budget.
This is a nationwide issue. Colleagues on both sides of the House have, like me, been inundated with casework from concerned and often desperate parents who just want to know that their children will receive the support they need without waiting for months or years. The report makes clear the urgent need for whole-system reform, with joined-up thinking across local and national Government, the NHS and schools.
Will the Minister please give us a clear timeline for the full reform called for by the NAO? Will she consider Liberal Democrat proposals for a new national body for SEND to support children with the most complex needs to tackle the postcode lottery? What steps is she taking to incentivise early intervention, including training specialists for assessments and reducing the contributions that schools have to make before they can apply for an EHCP? What is she doing to speed up the building of state special schools, given that local authorities are spending a staggering £2 billion on independent special schools? Is she pressing the Chancellor for an urgent cash injection in next week’s Budget so that we can start cleaning up this mess?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue and bringing it to the House. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the National Audit Office report and its damning indictment of a system that has lost the confidence of families and is failing children with special educational needs and disabilities. She rightly calls for the system to be reformed. That is what this Government are absolutely focused on and determined to do.
One of the first differences that we made on coming into office was moving the special educational needs and disabilities remit within the schools sector. Our vision is one of mainstream inclusive education for all children who would benefit from it, while having specialist schools where we know that children with the most complex needs can have those needs met. That is not being delivered, and for far too many families it is not the reality. It is a reality that we urgently need to see, not only to address the local authority deficits to which the hon. Lady rightly refers, but to create better outcomes for children.
At the moment, the system costs the Treasury a significant amount. The hon. Lady tempts me into anticipating next week’s Budget statement or making announcements ahead of it, which she knows I cannot, but she is right to identify that the system costs an increasing amount but is not delivering the outcomes that children deserve and families want.
We are absolutely determined to reform the system. We are working at pace. All the changes that we have made since coming into office are to that end. We have launched the curriculum and assessment review, which will support a broad and inclusive education for all children. We have made changes to Ofsted; those changes are continuing at pace to ensure that the system takes into account the whole school life and journey. That includes creating an inclusive environment for children with special educational needs.
Most of all, we are determined to restore parents’ trust that, in our education system, if their child has special educational needs they will be identified early— we know that early identification is key—and supported. We are continuing to support early language and speech intervention and to prioritise the roll-out of special educational needs training for the early years workforce to ensure that children’s needs can be identified at the earliest point. We are expanding our childcare system to ensure that more children can get into settings as early as possible, so any needs can be identified and so we can rebuild the public’s trust that every child in our state sector will get the opportunity of a fantastic education, regardless of any additional special educational needs or disabilities.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The National Audit Office report could not be clearer: children and young people and their families are being failed by a SEND system that cannot meet their needs, and local authorities are being driven to the edge of a financial precipice by a £3.4 billion funding gap. This Government have inherited an appalling legacy. The Government are clear that their focus is on the early identification of need and the inclusivity of mainstream schools, but the report notes that there is currently no process or funding to support early identification, and no specific funding or Ofsted measure on SEND support or inclusivity. Can the Minister say more about how the Government will provide the resources and the levers of accountability to address the scale of the crisis?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can Members please all look to the Chair? You are speaking to me, not the Minister. Look to the Chair, so I can hear, and then I can help. Minister, you can be a good example for everybody.
Catherine McKinnell
I welcome my hon. Friend to her position as Chair of the Education Committee, which I know will undertake vital work scrutinising the Government’s approach on this issue and on many others.
We know that wider change is needed, which is why we have started to make improvements as quickly as possible. The changes that I outlined to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) amount to a whole-system change to ensure that the inclusive mainstream education that the National Audit Office has identified will provide the education that many children deserve but are not currently receiving. However, it will take time, and we will not be making promises that we cannot keep. There are some things that we can move on very quickly, but there are others that will take time to show. The change that the NAO report highlights as being desperately needed will take time, so we ask for patience while we make these incredibly urgent changes.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this urgent question.
The Opposition welcome the NAO report. Every hon. Member will regularly be dealing with constituents’ SEND cases. The growing demand is why we put major increases in funding in place to ensure that children get the support they need. The last Government worked with the sector on comprehensive reforms, but since the election we have heard very little from this Government about their plans for reform. We look for more clarity, and we certainly support greater inclusivity. With too much variation in the system and parents often having to battle for support, do the Government plan to continue with the Conservatives’ national standards and bring forward a standardised approach to EHCPs?
More than 100,000 pupils with special educational needs are educated at independent schools without EHCPs. How does the Minister think hitting those pupils with a 20% education tax, with more pupils moving into the state sector as a result, will help pressures on schools? What assessment has she made of the increase in EHCP applications that that will generate, putting further burdens on local authorities? Can she confirm that the axe that the Education Secretary is holding above free schools does not apply to free special schools? Finally, council budgets are under huge pressure, so is the Minister making the argument to the Treasury to extend the statutory override beyond March 2026 or not?
Catherine McKinnell
As I have said, one of the first acts of the Education Secretary was to reorganise the Department to make sure that the SEND team sits within our school team and is not separate from it. That speaks to the vision that we have for reform: a vision for our whole education system, to create the inclusive mainstream education that we know will provide the best opportunities for the maximum number of children and, as far as possible, keep children with special educational needs and disabilities within the mainstream system with their friends. That is why we have launched the curriculum assessment review.
We need to look closely at the key challenges to attainment for young people and the barriers holding them back from accessing the current mainstream education system. We are working with Ofsted to introduce report cards to look at how inclusion can be reflected as part of how schools are monitored by Ofsted. We are also increasing training for early years providers. We have extended the Nuffield early language intervention programme to make sure that no child’s needs are missed out and that every child can find their voice. We have been very clear: full reform will take time, but nothing is off the table to make sure that every child with SEND can achieve and thrive in mainstream schools. We have also started legislative change: the children’s wellbeing Bill will be introduced in the coming months.
The shadow Minister made a point about private schools. Ending tax breaks on private schools will help to raise the revenue to fund our educational priorities for next year, including recruiting 6,500 new teachers. As he knows, the Treasury is consulting on plans to enable those changes to come into force in January and on how to design those plans to make sure that no child with special educational needs on an education, health and care plan will be adversely affected.
On the question of free schools, the review announced this week relates only to mainstream free schools. We are starting a process with local authorities and trusts with the mainstream schools that are in scope, with a strong focus on assessing that need to make sure that school places are in the local area, where they should be, and that they align with our vision for mainstream inclusive education for every child who needs it.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Nearly 5% of children in Hackney have an EHCP—and that is not accounting for others who have special educational needs. With schools closing, we have an opportunity to create alternative provision. The other week, one poor headteacher told me that more than a third of her reception class has special educational needs, most of which were not identified before the children started school. Clearly, there is a need for a different vision. Will my hon. Friend meet me and people from Hackney—or even visit Hackney—to see what we can do with spare school spaces to motor this change forward in Hackney, faster than is possible nationally?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She rightly identifies the need to ensure that we have the right school places for children whose needs are currently not being met in the most productive way possible. We are open to meeting hon. Members to discuss where in their constituencies this can best be achieved. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Cambridgeshire county council is failing to meet the conditions of the dedicated school grants safety valve agreement, with only 5% of EHCPs being granted within the 20-week timeframe; the average in England is 49%. Families in my constituency face huge challenges in ensuring that their children’s education is not disrupted or negatively impacted. How do the Government plan to address these unacceptable delays?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Member is right to identify those challenges. In its analysis, published today, the National Audit Office said that the current system was not working and not serving the needs of children and their families in the way that it should. We are moving at pace to review the system in a wholesale way, and the changes that I have outlined will support that. In addition, we will legislate to ensure that local authorities can plan properly for places and admissions in their areas. We want every state school, regardless of how they were established, to co-operate in ensuring that places are there for the children who need them. I have outlined a whole range of changes that will seek to address the problem that he mentioned.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am in no doubt that the Labour Government have a terrible inheritance on SEND provision, but children in my constituency of Easington who rely on services provided by the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust face unreasonably long waiting times. Incredibly, they have to wait up to five years for assessments for autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other related conditions. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce those unacceptably long waiting lists, and support both children and their families during these lengthy waits for assessments?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reiterate that the Government have inherited a terrible legacy, not only on special educational needs and disabilities, but on our public spending and the state of our public services overall. The example he raises is good, as it highlights the importance of working across Government to resolve issues and help the families who need support. Whether that is done through the education system, which my Department is responsible for, or through the health service, we need to work collaboratively across Government to address the huge backlogs that far too many people face in getting the support that they need. I can assure him that that is a priority for us.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
In the past two weeks, I have met two families whose children are suicidal, one of whom is nine years old. The other one was committed to a secure unit for most of 2023. The cause of their suicidal thoughts was their educational needs not being met by the education system. Neither of those children have EHCPs. Conservative-controlled West Sussex county council is completing only 9.4% of EHCPs within 20 weeks. One block is the lack of educational psychologists. Does the Minister agree that increasing the supply of educational psychologists is essential?
Catherine McKinnell
I am so sorry to hear about the cases the hon. Lady raises. She highlights very well the huge challenge that we face in addressing needs—in ensuring that we have not only the inclusive mainstream education system that every child should feel they belong in, and that provides the education they need, but the mental health support that we know is sadly lacking. The waiting lists are too long for far too many children and families. We are prioritising investment to ensure mental health support and educational psychologists are available in schools, because we know how important it is to get the right support in place to help the families and individuals affected, and to enable schools to address these needs.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
After today’s shocking report, does the Minister agree with me that we need to rebuild the SEND system from the ground up?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This change needs to be delivered in conjunction with teachers, families, councils, educational psychologists and the health sector. We need to work together to ensure support is available at every stage. The system needs reform and significant change. We cannot carry on as we are with this “lose, lose, lose” system, which is letting down far too many families.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Are the Government surging support to local authorities to help them process and complete EHCPs within the statutory timeframes? My communities are seeing a significant increase in applications because of the decision to impose VAT on independent schools. I have three SEND schools—[Interruption.] Government Members may shout, but that is the reality my councils face. I am asking for urgent support for those councils that have to deal with these increased numbers.
Catherine McKinnell
We have been clear about our manifesto commitment and our approach in Government. Our priority is to ensure that we have the investment in our schools that we need in order to ensure that every child has the teaching and the school experience that they deserve. We know that councils are facing significant challenges processing applications and delivering for children with special educational needs after 14 years of a system that has let down families and children, and which the former Secretary of State for Education herself described as “lose, lose, lose.” This is the legacy we are dealing with and the mess we are clearing up, but we are determined to do that for families and children who we know deserve better.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Sadly, today’s report confirms what many parents in my constituency of Leeds South West and Morley have been telling me since long before the election: the SEND system in this country is failing. As a secondary school maths teacher, I know all too well that SEND provision is not up to scratch. I have seen at first hand that, after 14 years of negligence by the Conservative party, parents and children have lost hope of ever seeing an improvement in the system, following the SEND crisis. Does the Minister agree that although there is no silver bullet, we must improve the SEND system and give people hope that it will improve?
Mr Speaker
Order. This urgent question will run until about 11.30 am, so if I am to get everyone in, we will have to speed up the questions and answers. I want to take as many questions as possible, as this is a very important subject to all of us.
Catherine McKinnell
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is understandable that a huge number of hon. Members want to ask questions on this subject. We have inherited an appalling legacy of failure on this front. We have prioritised the issue and we are determined to fix it, but that will take time, as hon. Members have recognised, but we are moving at pace to fix the broken system.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Parents and teachers in North Herefordshire tell me how concerned they are that special educational needs funding has stagnated for the last 10 years, while needs have increased. I visited Westfield school in my constituency, which is in desperate need of capital investment. It was allocated funding under the school rebuilding programme, but the implementation of that programme has been very slow. Can the Minister assure me that she remains committed to the programme, that it is on track, and that she will amend the way that the funding system works to incentivise mainstream inclusion?
Catherine McKinnell
On the hon. Lady’s final question, I can assure her that we are determined to prioritise mainstream inclusion, and to ensure that schools are supported. We will have the framework in place to encourage, incentivise and support schools to do what we know will create the best outcomes for the vast majority of children in this country: inclusion in a mainstream system where they can thrive.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Given today’s report, and the shocking and devastating impact that the reality has on children, young people and their families, what message does the Minister have for the children and young people with SEND and their families in Portsmouth North?
Catherine McKinnell
We recognise how challenging this situation is for families who are not getting the support they need for special education needs or disabilities. We know that the system is broken—the National Audit Office report lays it out bare. We are determined to fix this; that is the message that I want to send.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Within five months of entering office, this Government will introduce VAT on independent schools, with all the impact that may have on the state sector. How long will we have to wait for an actual plan for SEND children, rather than just political posturing around VAT?
Catherine McKinnell
The changes that we have set out and are determined to make all aim to improve the situation that we have inherited, after 14 years of neglect and decline under the previous Government. I have set out at length all the changes that we seek to make through legislation—and the changes we have already made—to our education system to ensure an inclusive mainstream, and high and rising standards and opportunities for all.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Today’s report is damning but not surprising. It is an indictment of the former Government and their 14 years of failure. Even today, they shamelessly deflect and gaslight the very families whom they have failed. Independent SEND provision is growing in Southampton Itchen and across the country. Those places are needed, but councils are left at the mercy of market price and—often, when it comes to residential care—venture capitalists. That is wrong. Does the Minister agree that as part of whole-system reform we must return to basics, and that profiteering from SEND is the wrong approach? Will she meet me and my constituents to hear what they want from this whole-system reform?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important challenge that we are determined to address. We want mainstream inclusive education in our state school system, which every child should have access to and thrive in. However, we need specialist places for children with complex needs when that is the only place where their needs can be met, and a system that not only best serves the needs of children but is sustainable. I will take away his comments, and that will be part of our thinking as we go ahead.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Other Members have asked about educational psychologists. There is a real shortage right now. Are the Government considering enabling other professionals to undertake some of the assessments to help unblock the waiting lists?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Lady for the constructive way in which she put her question. I will take it away, and consider how it would fit into our broader plans to ensure that we have an education system that can meet the needs of children in terms of both their educational requirements and their mental health, special educational needs and disability requirements, within a broader health system that can meet those needs as well.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Far too many families in my constituency have come to me in tears, not just at the lack of support for their children with SEND but at a system that seems set up to stop them getting that support. How many appeals are successful because they should have got through the first time around? People feel they are being let down by the system, so will the Minister please ensure that our reformed system will not make families have to fight to get the support that their children so desperately need?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is right: the system is letting down families and children, and creating a situation where not only are educational outcomes impacted by the poor response but too many families’ lives are affected by trying to deal with the system. That is why we are determined to reform it. The evidence shows very clearly that inclusive mainstream schools that meet demand will reduce the need for education, health and care plans, and the need for families to go through the process in the first place.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
What additional resources will the Government provide to Worcestershire county council, given what will undoubtedly be the profound and devastating impact of the Government’s education tax?
Catherine McKinnell
The changes that we are looking to make to remove the exemptions for private schools will be used to fund more teachers in our state sector and create the inclusive mainstream education that we know every child deserves.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
SEND provision in Conservative-run Norfolk has collapsed after years of adversarial mismanagement by the county council. I welcome the steps that my hon. Friend has taken so far. Will she commit to recognising the value of co-production to ensure that SEND family voices are valued and money is spent wisely?
Catherine McKinnell
We are very clear that this reform is a journey that we want to go on with all those who support our children and families, whether that is teachers, school staff more broadly, education professionals, health professionals or local authorities. Everybody wants this to work better, and we need to work together to achieve it.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Data for autumn 2023 and spring 2024 shows that more than a third of children with an EHC plan were persistently absent—more than double the rate for pupils without identified SEND. Persistent absence is a very complex issue, and a multi-faceted approach is needed to tackle the problem. In the light of this damning report from the National Audit Office, does the Minister agree that we cannot have parents facing prosecution for the failings of the system? How will she work across Government to ensure that parents of children with SEND can be sure that their children will get the support that they need to attend school safely and receive the education that they deserve?
Catherine McKinnell
The Government have inherited an absence epidemic in this country. Last year, one in five children were persistently absent from school, missing a day every fortnight or more. We know that strong foundations are rooted in attendance at school. Children cannot receive an outstanding education that unlocks opportunities if they are not in school. I recognise the challenge that the hon. Lady has set out. It is important that we work together to create an inclusive mainstream education system that every child wants to attend and feels they belong to, so that those opportunities are unlocked for them, as they should be for every child in this country.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement on this damning report on SEND. Last week, the Minister and the Secretary of State visited my constituency. We went to Mount Pleasant Primary, a shining example of inclusive mainstream SEND provision in the state sector. Does the Minister agree with me and the teachers there that children with physical conditions and disabilities could be referred for an EHCP by their GP much earlier, so that they arrive at school with everything they need in place, ready to excel in their education?
Catherine McKinnell
The visit to that school in my hon. Friend’s constituency was wonderful. The school is one of many examples of the provision of inclusive mainstream education. We need such provision to be in schools in every community and available to every child. She rightly recognises the challenges of co-ordinating between health services and education provision, and the vital importance of those systems working together to achieve outcomes for children. I will certainly take away her specific suggestion and share it with my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Parents in my constituency are not interested in what the Minister thinks about the Conservative party. They may recall that EHCPs were introduced under the coalition Government. They want us to work together to make things better. We all know that a problem with EHCPs has led to a tripling of costs for county councils. In the Westminster Hall debate that the Minister took part in with me recently, she was much more constructive than she is being today, and I would like to believe that that is the approach that she wants to take to these issues. Does she have a timescale for the reform of EHCPs?
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I will always work cross-party with colleagues to achieve the best for all children in this country, but levelling the blame for the current situation at a Government only five months old cannot be accepted; the inheritance that we have taken on cannot be underestimated. We will continue to work on putting right what has been failing for the past 14 years, and the Department for Education is moving at pace on work to that end. We will make specific suggestions for legislative changes, and for any other necessary systemic changes, in due course.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Many concerned parents wrote to me at the start of term because they had finally been given a school place for their children with special educational needs but had no transport to get their child to and from school. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that we will take measures to ensure that every child with special educational needs has a reliable and safe means of getting to and from school?
Catherine McKinnell
Transport to school is the responsibility of the local authority, and families need to work with their local authorities to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in getting their children to school by transport. I appreciate that that is a challenge— our transport system, too, is in crisis after 14 years of Conservative Government—but we will continue to work across Government to ensure that all our public services meet the needs of families. In the interim, my hon. Friend’s constituents should work with the local authority to ensure that they get the transport they require for their children’s educational needs.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Zak is nine years old. He is one of dozens of children in my constituency who have been failed by the SEND system. Zak was traumatised by his experience in an inappropriate school setting, causing his learning to regress and both his parents to stop work. Oxfordshire county council has an accumulated high needs deficit of £56 million because of inadequate funding, which has failed families such as Zak’s. Has the Minister pressed the Treasury to increase that funding and maintain the statutory override in next week’s Budget?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman tempts me into commentary on next week’s Budget, in which I cannot indulge him.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I speak both as a parent whose child was badly failed in SEND provision under the last Government, and as an MP whose surgeries have been visited on every single occasion by a parent who is struggling not just to get an EHCP but to get from a school the flexibility that matches their child’s need. I say respectfully to Opposition Members—including the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—that until and unless you have walked in my shoes and the shoes of your constituents, you should show a little humility and decorum in how you respond on this issue. In the review, will the Minister encourage schools to be more flexible in their SEND provision for children who need it?
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, they mean me—and I do not want responsibility.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and compassion on behalf of her constituents, and I agree with everything that she says. I reiterate that what she outlines is the epitome of what we are seeking to achieve on inclusive mainstream education, so that it can meet the needs of the vast majority of children with special educational needs and disabilities in our country.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Children with special educational needs in Harrow face long journeys to get to the schools they need in order to deal with their problems, something that the previous Government recognised. The three MPs in the area, on a cross-party basis, the council and all the headteachers agreed that there was the need for a new special educational needs school in Harrow. The site has been acquired, but since the general election everything has gone quiet. I do not expect the Minister to give an update here and now, but will she undertake to review the position and come back to the three MPs and the council to ensure that we provide that school for the benefit of the children of Harrow?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify the current significant transport requirement to meet the needs of children. Obviously, the way that we wish to address that is to ensure that there is inclusive mainstream education available in every community for every child, and we are working at pace to achieve that. The special school is under review and we will report back as soon as possible.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
What more can the Minister do, working with her ministerial colleagues, to ensure that integrated care boards such as those in Cheshire and Warrington meet their part of the statutory obligation of 20 weeks for EHCPs?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need for the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and all those working to provide the services that children and families rely on, to work together to achieve that statutory obligation. I will take his question away and feed it back to my colleagues in the Health Department.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I would like to raise the issue of children being off-rolled and put into alternative provision. I speak as not only an MP but a parent who this has happened to, and I have a constituency meeting on Saturday where it is the subject. Is the Minister aware that children who are put in alternative provision are entitled only to 15 hours a week of education? There is absolutely no way they can recover and go on to achieve properly on 15 hours a week. I ask the Minister to consider how that fits with the new curriculum plan.
Catherine McKinnell
We are looking at the system in the round, which includes ensuring that we have inclusive mainstream education, and making sure that schools are required to work with local authorities on admissions and off-rolling, so that there is the provision within communities that children rely on. Where special schools or alternative provision is required, it is important to ensure there is an opportunity to break down the barriers for young people. Ideally, the vast majority of children can go back into the mainstream system as part of that inclusive provision. I will take away the hon. Member’s specific query. It is an issue we are looking at as part of the wider system.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I know from speaking to families in Oldbury, Oakham and other parts of my constituency, just what a SEND crisis the last Government left us with. Even when children finally get their EHCPs, parents still feel as if they are having to fight for every bit of support that they need. We cannot fix that overnight, but can the Minister set out what steps she is taking to give families in Sandwell some hope that things will change?
Catherine McKinnell
Although the urgent question today has come about because of a damning report from the National Audit Office, which lays bare the huge challenge we face in this area, my main purpose in responding—an opportunity I am grateful for—is to restore hope for families: it is a priority for this Government and we are determined to fix it. That should give hope to the constituents whom my hon. Friend serves.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
On a recent visit to a school in my constituency, it was put to me that not all schools fully participate in dealing with special needs children, and my casework over the years substantiates that. What efforts is the Minister making to ensure that all schools participate fully?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is right to identify that all schools are part of solving this huge challenge that far too many children and families face. That is why we have made changes to how Ofsted assesses schools, changes that are still in progress; it is why we are carrying out the curriculum and assessment review and looking at attendance measures; and it is why we are looking at local authority co-operation with schools, to make sure that all schools within a local area can work together to ensure that inclusive mainstream education is available for all.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
A mother in my constituency came to see me. Her son has been off-rolled from mainstream primary school, which she would like him to attend, and offered only a distant special school that is entirely inappropriate for his needs. She would like to know why Durham county council is prepared to spend £30,000 a year on transport for her son to attend a school that she does not feel is appropriate for him, but will not spend the same amount on a classroom assistant who could help him to be in mainstream school. That is happening under rules introduced by the previous Government. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this?
Catherine McKinnell
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. He has outlined just one example of how the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Parents and children in Chichester have lost confidence in the SEND system, with families effectively pitted against each other and against Conservative-led West Sussex county council, which this year delivered only 10% of its EHCPs within the 20-week statutory framework. Does the Minister agree that is unacceptable, and will she meet me and other West Sussex MPs to discuss this specific issue that West Sussex county council seems to have?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady has outlined how the system is broken. We know it is broken. We want to fix it, and I am happy to work with colleagues across the House in order to do so, so I would be happy to meet her, as she suggests.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
This damning report will come as no surprise to too many families across Oldham and Saddleworth. Given that there is a difference of nearly 20% between SEND children being in education and training and non-SEND children, what are we doing to ensure that SEND provision and support is available in foundation apprenticeships?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend highlights the fact that not only is the system creating stress and failing far too many children and families, but it is not creating the outcomes that we want to see for every child, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. I will raise the important point she has made with my colleague in the Department of Health who has responsibility for apprenticeships.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On Friday afternoon, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), I arranged a meeting with parents, governors and teachers at independent schools. They were unanimous that imposing an education tax partway through an academic year will have disastrous impacts on the education of every child, but especially those with special educational needs. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of Labour’s education tax on the caseload of EHCPs, and on the capacity of local authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire to meet them?
Catherine McKinnell
The Treasury will produce its impact assessment as part of the normal course of implementing new taxation, and the hon. Gentleman can refer to that assessment once it is published.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been working with parents of children with SEND for a number of months now. They talk to me about their children’s experiences in mainstream schools and the fact that the support has not been what it should be, even though they are looking for an inclusive education for their children. Can the Minister outline what support mainstream schools might need in the near future in order to provide that truly inclusive education to so many children who have been let down?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point: it is right that we require schools to provide inclusive mainstream education, and that we put in place the work- force, the training, and all the support that is necessary for that to be delivered. That is why one of our priorities is to have 6,500 more teachers within our teaching system, to ensure we have the specialist teachers that every child should have. We are looking at training; additional training support for special educational needs and disabilities has already been rolled out for the early years, and we want to ensure all schools have access to high-quality training that supports them to meet that need.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Demand for EHCPs for children in Somerset has tripled in six years, and the county’s SEND budget is forecast to be in deficit by £290 million in the next five years. Previously, Somerset spent, on average, £22,000 per child with an EHCP, but now that is £18,000. So this is not about overspending; it is about the increasing number of children needing help. As a start, could the Minister look at the current legislation, which lacks clear definitions of which children should be assessed or funded? This ambiguity, especially post covid, has led to a huge and rapid increase in the number of children needing support.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We will be looking at the system as a whole, and at any legislation that needs to be amended or brought in to achieve our vision for an inclusive mainstem education that not only provides education for all children regardless of their special educational needs and disabilities, but provides specialist places for those with the most complex needs that cannot be met within mainstream education. We know the evidence shows that, where those needs are being met within the inclusive mainstream education system, the need for EHCPs is significantly reduced.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Last year alone, my local authority of North East Lincolnshire spent £1.3 million sending 114 children out of area to special educational needs settings. Could the Minister reassure constituents across North East Lincolnshire and in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes that the actions she is taking will not only support local authorities and reduce these additional costs, but provide the kind of education their children need closer to home?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend sets out very well the vision that we are seeking to achieve for all children. The purpose of all the changes we are making in our education system is to ensure that inclusive mainstream education is available to all children and that there are specialist places for children with the most complex needs.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
With more and more children requiring SEND provision, the scale of the challenge is undoubtedly large. The previous Conservative Government did offer a beacon of hope for children in Buckinghamshire, with the previous Secretary of State confirming funding for a new SEND school in the county. Can the Minister confirm whether those funds are still secure and whether Buckinghamshire will still get that new SEND school?
Catherine McKinnell
As the hon. Member is aware, we are looking at the whole system in the round to ensure that we have the inclusive mainstream provision that the vast majority of children will not only benefit from but do better in, and that we have specialist places where they are needed. We are working at pace to ensure that we have the right places for the children who need them as fast as possible.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as a governor of a special educational needs school. The Minister has rightly pointed out the failure of the SEN system over many years, but it is important that we recognise the herculean effort made by teachers and support staff in schools, and it is not those individuals who have failed young people. Further to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), could the Minister outline how she will engage with representative bodies of teachers and support staff in schools to ensure that they are included in the rescue plan?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in government cannot deliver any of the change we want to see; it will be delivered by the teachers, the support staff, the education professionals and the health professionals in our system. He is right to draw attention to their valiant efforts in a system that has been letting down them and the children and families they serve. We will be legislating to bring in the school support staff negotiating body to ensure that the support staff in our schools, who are the lifeblood of so much of what is provided to our children, have their voice as part of the national conversation.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Somerset has the third highest rate of school exclusions and the second highest rate of suspensions in England for children with SEND. Does the Minister agree with today’s National Audit Office report confirming that the Government must develop a whole-system approach, to ensure that the most vulnerable students in Glastonbury and Somerton get the education they deserve?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely agree with the National Audit Office. Although it is a damning report, we recognise much of what it says and are determined to fix it and put it right in the way the hon. Lady suggests.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
SEND is the single greatest issue facing schools in my constituency, and I have had far too many heartbreaking conversations with families who are not getting the support they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that supportive early intervention and diagnosis is the single most effective way of reducing this demand and ensuring better outcomes?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Early diagnosis and early intervention are known to significantly improve the opportunities and outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities, but one of the biggest challenges in this space is the battle that many families face with a system that is letting them down, and we are determined to change that.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Special needs education was underfunded by the previous Government, affecting many families in my constituency. I know that the Government have been left with a £22 billion hole in the country’s finances, but will the Minister ensure that there is an increase in funding for SEND education in the local government settlement at the end of this year?
Catherine McKinnell
I recognise the challenge that the hon. Gentleman raises. He tempts me into anticipating the Budget statement next week, but I will say that we recognise the challenges that many local authorities are facing and are alive to those concerns.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The adversarial system has caused such damage and upset. Can the Minister confirm that she will look towards a system in which expectations are clear and co-produced, and will she also look at the funding formula more generally, because some places have far less high needs and direct funding for students than others even though they have to cover much greater distances?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises a number of issues and I fear we are running out of time to give them the response they deserve. I will be happy to respond in more detail in writing because she does raise some important issues that we are determined to address.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Projections show a cumulative deficit of over £4 billion on educational balance sheets by 2026, and the override mechanism ending, which will allocate those deficits to county balance sheets. This is a pending disaster for local authorities, and the report suggests that it will push 43% into bankruptcy. The report’s conclusion is that the SEND system, if unreformed, is financially unsustainable, yet we have not heard meaningful plans for reform. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to the national body for SEND that was included in the Liberal Democrats manifesto, which will end the postcode lottery, ensure funding for higher needs students and address the urgent funding crisis for local government?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is right that the NAO has identified that the system is currently unsustainable, and not only is it financially unsustainable but it is not sustainable for the children and their families that are being let down. The Government are determined to fix this and are working at pace to do so.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
A whole 10% of my constituency casework relates to SEND provision, so I recently issued a public letter to Conservative-led Derbyshire county council expressing my deep concern over the state of its provision as many affected families feel voiceless. What steps will the Government take to ensure that councils, including Derbyshire county council, actually fulfil their responsibilities to children and families?
Catherine McKinnell
Councils are at the forefront of seeking to meet the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families, and they are being let down by a system that is broken and that the NAO shows is completely unsustainable. So we will work at pace in government, working with teachers, parents, schools, school support staff, the health service and local authorities to ensure that children get the opportunities they deserve.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Devon county council projects an overspend on special educational needs of £38.5 million. That is explained partly by additional travel costs in rural areas such as mine in mid and east Devon. The last Conservative Government threatened that such an overspend would put at risk the so-called safety valve for Devon. How will the Minister help enable good-quality SEND support to be delivered closer to home?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is right that the solution to many of these challenges is to create inclusive mainstream education in every community, so that every child can benefit from it and thrive.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Parents want the best for their children, schools want to deliver the best for their children and local authorities want to provide the best for their children, but the system sets everybody up to fail. It is adversarial instead of being person-centred, and it actively incentivises bad outcomes. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that we need to rebuild the system from the ground up, but does she agree that that needs to go hand in hand with rebuilding child and adolescent mental health services and improving the speed of diagnosis for autism and ADHD? Will she commit to working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to help deliver that?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes the case very well. I agree that we need to work at pace to improve the mental health support available for young people, to improve the availability of educational psychologists and to work across government, including with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that we are unlocking opportunity for all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answers to the questions and for always trying to be helpful. Movilla high school in my constituency has increased its enrolments from 402 to 600 pupils. That is because staff have worked hard, but also because education authority support has enabled the school to extend the special provision for pupils with autism to include 10 and 11-year-olds. It has established two nurture classes in the mainstream. Does the Minister agree that additional funding to create SEND units within the mainstream for the pupils who need support is a way forward? Will she consider that suggestion to make lives better?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is, as always, characteristically constructive in his contribution, and I thank him for that. I am more than happy to take away his suggestion and consider it as part of our wider reform of the system.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
There are more than 20 cases in my constituency of children with special educational needs and disabilities who are missing out on care and school placements, and I am meeting the council about them tomorrow. I thank the Minister for speaking with me this week about the concerns of families. Can we make it a priority to help local authorities to offer these children the best possible placements?
Catherine McKinnell
I wish my hon. Friend well in her meeting tomorrow. We know the challenges in the system, and they are laid bare in the National Audit Office report. There is no shortage of will right across the House to get this right and to put the system right. As we draw to the end of these questions, I must reiterate that it will take patience, because there is no quick fix to the situation we have inherited. However, we are determined to fix it, and we will do so on an ongoing basis and as quickly as possible.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Saxon Hill academy in my constituency does amazing work to support young people between the ages of two and 19 with physical disabilities and complex needs, but for many of the students, it is much more than a school. It is literally a home away from home, due to its sleepover club, which allows pupils to stay at the school overnight one night a week. The funding for that provision was extended for two years in December last year. Can the Minister assure me that as part of the Government’s SEND review, we will look at sustainable funding for such additional provision?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We need to move to a more sustainable footing in the longer term and make sure that councils can plan ahead. That is something we are looking at.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
An entire generation of Milton Keynes children with SEND needs has been let down by the previous Government. In addition, the cuts to local councils and schools have made the situation much worse, particularly in respect of high-level teaching assistants, who are crucial to ensuring early detection of and ongoing support for children with SEND in mainstream education. Will the Minister ensure that the school support staff who do that important work are included in this essential review to support children in Milton Keynes?
Catherine McKinnell
Absolutely. I am always very careful to say that we thank and applaud both the teachers in our schools and the incredible support staff, who not only support teachers in their role but ensure that every school can function and provide the opportunities that we know will enable all children to thrive.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question, but let me say to all those in the Chamber that I think this is a very important issue. I do not think there is a constituency that is not affected by it. Thanks to the Minister and thanks for all the contributions, which are certainly on the record now.
Business of the House
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House update the House on the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 28 October includes:
Monday 28 October—General debate on remembrance and the contribution of veterans.
Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Great British Energy Bill.
Wednesday 30 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.
Thursday 31 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 1 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 November will include:
Monday 4 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 5 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 6 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 6 November and return on Monday 11 November.
Chris Philp
It is rather telling that only one Government Member appears to be excited about the prospect of the Budget next week. They obviously know what is coming.
Let me start by congratulating Morgan Edwards on his appointment as director of customer experience and service delivery here in Parliament. He starts his role in December. Apparently he was previously employed at Legoland in Windsor. Quite why the parliamentary authorities thought someone with experience of presiding over squabbling juveniles was well suited to working here, I really do not know.
I have to say that the business has been a little thin in recent weeks. We have a general debate today and a general debate on Monday—we have had no fewer than 10 days of general debate so far. Yesterday, we had regulations that would ordinarily be taken in Committee, and business ended early on Tuesday. We expect that at the end of a Government’s time in office, but it is a little early for this Government to be running out of steam.
At this point in the 2019 Parliament, we had had 31 new Bills introduced; we currently have only 18, a third of which had been published or consulted upon previously, and those Bills that are coming forward are being rushed. The Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday, has much of its policy deferred into regulations, to be debated in Committee at some point in the future, denying the full House the opportunity to properly debate those important issues.
When it comes to the winter fuel payment regulations, which we discussed previously, we should have had the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee before we debated and voted on that important measure. The committee has now finally written its report, and it says that it is concerned about the take-up of pension credit, that the Government’s forecasts of fiscal savings have question marks hanging over them and that we need a full impact assessment, which the Government did not bother providing. The committee has also called for specific changes to the regulations. Will the Leader of the House bring the regulations back to the House for us to consider again now that we have the committee’s report and it has recommended changes?
I believe that the Prime Minister is in Samoa attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will make a statement upon his return next week? I understand that one of the topics under discussion is the question of reparations. My view is that it is totally wrong to be demanding money, amounting to as much as £18 trillion, for sins—very serious sins—committed hundreds of years ago. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is her view and the Government’s that it is totally wrong to entertain discussions about reparations in relation to things that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago? I believe that is the Government’s position, and I believe the Prime Minister has ruled out even entering into discussions on that topic, quite rightly. Will she confirm that that remains the position of His Majesty’s Government?
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to organise a debate on foreign interference in elections—an important topic that concerns us all, and something that Members on both sides of the House have criticised. I understand that more than 100 Labour party staffers are enjoying themselves in the United States in the presidential election that is under way. Ministers have claimed that this is all spontaneous and has all been organised and paid for by the staffers themselves, but that claim appears, to put it politely, grossly implausible now that it has emerged in a now-deleted social media post that the whole thing was arranged by the Labour party’s director of operations, Sofia Patel. She wrote in that deleted post that there were “10 spots available” for campaigning in the swing state of North Carolina, and she said,
“we will sort your housing”.
It looks to me as though that is being organised by the Labour party’s director of operations.
Does the Leader of the House agree that it is damaging to our national interest—this is a serious point—if the governing party, the Labour party, is organising interference or campaigning in another country’s election? [Interruption.] Does she agree that it will make it difficult for His Majesty’s Government to deal with the newly elected Administration in America if the other side wins, and that that will undermine our national interest? Does she accept that by engaging in organised campaigning in this way, Labour is putting party interest before national interest, and will she organise that debate? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I do not need further comments. I am sure Members are trying to catch my eye, but that is not the best way to do it.
Lucy Powell
I join the shadow Leader of the House in welcoming Morgan Edwards to this place. I am sure he brings great experience from Legoland that can be brought to bear in this Chamber.
I send my condolences to the family of Geoff Capes. As a child of the ’80s, I remember what a legend he was, and I believe his shot put record is still unbroken.
I take this opportunity once again to point the House to the call for views launched by the Modernisation Committee last week. Tomorrow, new limitations on MPs’ second jobs come into force. The House will remember that before recess, we voted to remove the exemptions on paid advocacy roles. I wanted to give Members time to adjust to the new rules, hence why they are coming into force tomorrow. That was a manifesto commitment and we are determined to restore trust in politics, raising standards and delivering on our manifesto commitments.
The shadow Leader of the House again mentions winter fuel payments. I gently remind him once again that we published an equality impact assessment, which we were not required to do, but we were forthcoming with it. We brought forward to this House—I do not think this would have happened under the previous Government —a full vote on the measures, and they were clearly passed by this place.
The shadow Leader of the House asks about the Prime Minister’s visit to CHOGM. I can confirm that there will be a statement from the Foreign Secretary next week about that and other matters, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman asking some questions. The issue of reparations is important, and I am glad that he has raised it. We recognise the horrific impacts and the understandable and ongoing strength of feeling across the Commonwealth and other communities about these matters. He is right, however, that our position on reparations has not changed. At the conference this week, we are committed to working with our Commonwealth partners on the very pressing issues that we face today, and looking forward to the future, not looking to the past.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of campaigning in the United States and elsewhere. I note that he wants a full debate on that while also questioning why we are offering full general debates on other issues; I am not sure whether wants that general debate or not. Campaigning abroad happens in every election. People do that in a personal capacity, as well he knows. This is a bit rich, really, coming from the Conservative party. Its would-be leaders have spent weeks debating and arguing over who would or would not vote for Donald Trump. The former Prime Minister Liz Truss went to the Republican national convention and spent her time there discrediting the sitting President.
Lucy Powell
I feel that it is a bit rich. It is for the American people to decide who their next President is and this Government are committed and determined to work with whoever wins that election.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised issues of business, which I will happily come on to. Today marks our 30th sitting day since we won that landslide general election victory. In that time, we have introduced 20 Bills—that is 20 Bills in 30 sitting days: over half of our King’s Speech programme has already been introduced. I remind him that that is way more than the coalition Conservative Government managed in the whole of 2010, which was the last time we had a change of Government. We have passed our first Labour Act in 14 years and made 34 statements to Parliament—more than one a day.
There is still much more to come, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants to know about it—on planning, border control, education, mental health, crime and policing, Great British Railways, the Hillsborough law, buses and much, much more. He and I both sat through the last Parliament, although others here did not: we both know that at the end it really was a zombie Parliament, clocking off early on seven out of 10 days in its last year. The last Government had run out of ideas and could not agree on what to do and when, so they did nothing. They dithered and delayed on their own flagship legislation, and we are getting on with delivering some of the things that they failed to do.
For example, this morning there is the Football Governance Bill, which they long promised. We have reintroduced it, strengthening the position of fans and financial sustainability in the game. We are delivering where the previous Government did not. What about the Renters’ Right Bill, which the previous Government had long planned but never fulfilled? We have taken it forward. Perhaps the most disingenuous example of all is Martyn’s law. The then Prime Minister promised to introduce it by the summer on the day before he called a general election, knowing full well that he was not going to be able to introduce it at all. We have brought it in. Frankly, we have brought more change to this country in our 30 sitting days than the previous Government did in 14 sorry, sorry years.
If the shadow Leader of the House really wants to look at effective use of time, he might ask what his own party has been doing for the last few months. It seems to have taken three and a half months to whittle five candidates down to just two—not that anyone has particularly noticed. However, it is fair to say that we have seen a few signs of life in recent days. The Conservatives have finally shown a bit of oomph, a bit of what it is all about to be the party of opposition—they have taken a really principled stance: to stand against the abolition of hereditary peers.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On Monday, I visited Keech hospice, which serves many residents in Luton North. As always, it was inspiring to see the care that it offers children and adults at their time of need. But it is not without its challenges. Whether through time for debate or the new Government’s NHS consultation, how can we best ensure that funding for hospice care is given the attention it so richly deserves?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that has been raised a number of times during business questions. We want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care at the end of their lives. It is a crying shame that the hospice sector relies so heavily on fundraising and voluntary support. We will continue to work closely with the sector to make sure that it can survive and thrive going forward.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I welcomed the emphasis that the Leader of the House placed on the Modernisation Committee’s call for views. I am sure that many Members have been sidling up to her and saying, as they have to me, “Wouldn’t it be good if we could change this particular aspect of the way in which Parliament does things?” I am pleased to be able, now, to direct them to the Modernisation Committee’s website, where they can submit their own views, and I encourage them to do so.
I also thank the Leader of the House for presenting the business programme. I note that several days have been provided for the Budget debate, to which I am sure we are all looking forward—although I am not totally convinced that the shadow Leader of the House and the official Opposition are looking forward to it. If reports in the media are to be believed, they had the opportunity to change the timetable for their leadership election so that the new leader might be able to respond to the Budget, but it appears that they were not too keen on that idea. Perhaps they were not entirely confident of their own ability to respond to the Budget, but we shall see what happens.
Many of the questions to Ministers from Members on both sides of the House are regularly being answered with a rather frustrating, “Wait until the Budget.” However, while many of us understand that there are good reasons for the fact that detailed responses often cannot be given ahead of the Budget, time is ticking on, and the seasons do not really seem to care about the Government’s timetable. Winter is fast approaching, but our NHS does not have the funding that it needs to fully support local health services. According to figures from the House of Commons Library following work commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, 12-hour wait times at A&E have been going up and up throughout the country. I am extremely worried about what that means for my constituents, and I am sure that other Members will be concerned about theirs.
The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has previously estimated that long A&E delays led to about 14,000 excess deaths last year, which means that 268 people have been dying, unnecessarily, every week because they are having to wait too long to be seen. It really is a matter of life and death, and that is unacceptable. Yes, it is another damning indictment of the last Conservative Government’s failure to get a grip on healthcare in this country, but it is what we do right now that really matters. Make no mistake: it is a choice, and we can choose to fix this.
While the Liberal Democrats are calling for a wider funding boost for the whole of the NHS, we cannot keep lurching from winter crisis to winter crisis. Will the Leader of the House call on the Chancellor to create a new ringfenced fund—
Marie Goldman
A ringfenced fund that takes account of the average emergency winter funding for the NHS—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to sit down, and it certainly is not going to be me. The hon. Lady has already taken three minutes. She should not start speaking faster and more loudly just to try and stop me. She must come to an end now, and do so very quickly.
Marie Goldman
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Chancellor set aside money to be spent on building up winter resilience and winter-proofing the NHS?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady, and echo her comments about the Modernisation Committee. It has captured a great deal of interest in this place, and I encourage Members to do as she suggested. She is entirely right about the Conservative party’s leadership race. It is a matter for the Conservatives as to why they are not putting forward a new leader to respond to the Budget, but over the past few weeks we seem to have seen a fair amount of soft-balling from the acting leader and deputy leader during our exchanges. Perhaps if they were not down in their own rabbit hole of oblivion, they would have presented someone better to come to the Dispatch Box next week.
The hon. Lady is also right in saying that public services are in deep crisis after 14 years of failure and under-investment. My husband is an A&E doctor, so I know all too well that a crisis faces our NHS this winter, as it has done every winter in recent years. The Health Secretary has taken rapid action to end the doctors’ strike, which was causing so much additional stress to the NHS, he has taken early steps to ensure that there are extra appointments, and he is doing a huge amount of work to bring down waiting lists and to foresee some of the winter crisis. There is no doubt that the choices that will confront us in the Budget will be difficult, given our woeful economic inheritance, but there is hope ahead. We will get the economy growing again, we will get that investment into our public services, and we will fix the economy for the long term.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in Battersea have written to me to express concern about Israel’s ongoing siege in northern Gaza. The scale of the suffering and loss of life is enormous, and they are calling on the Government to use all their levers to take action, including suspending any trade negotiations with Israel. We need an arms suspension, as well as a ban on all goods that have been produced in settlements. Can we have a Government statement on the tangible actions that will be taken to bring an end to the awful suffering?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. The people of Gaza have endured 12 months of this conflict and are suffering from a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Over 100 hostages are still being held by Hamas in truly awful conditions, which is why this Government are absolutely clear that the fighting must stop now. We need an immediate ceasefire and the release of all the hostages. We need much more aid and support to get into Gaza, and we need long-term peace and stability. The Government are working at pace with our international partners to achieve those ends, and there should be a statement on this matter in the coming days.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am looking forward to the magical words “business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee” in future weeks. I think there is one remaining member of the Backbench Business Committee to be appointed, which prevents us from meeting, so I urge the House to get on with that. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that it would be helpful if she announced the business to be held in Westminster Hall at these sessions? That would elevate the status of Westminster Hall debates.
Today we have seen the Charity Commission publish a damning report on Mermaids, which concludes that the charity’s poor governance has led to mismanagement. That has serious implications following the statutory inquiry into not only Mermaids, but other charities that look after vulnerable children. Could we have a statement from the Government about what action they will take to ensure that vulnerable children are protected, and that charities do not mismanage the resources they are provided with?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I, too, look forward to being able to announce business decided by the Backbench Business Committee in future weeks. He might want to have a word with the shadow Leader of the House about the importance of providing time for general debates and Backbench Business debates, which he seems to think are not of interest to this House. The Government have provided time for some of those debates in the absence of a fully formed Backbench Business Committee. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: there are some really good debates happening in Westminster Hall next week, including on online safety, the funding of children’s hospices and the readiness of the NHS this winter—a number of issues that get raised in these sessions regularly. I hear what he says about the report into Mermaids, and I will make sure that if there is not a forthcoming statement, he gets a response from the relevant Department.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions have received what can only be described as a derisory pay offer; indeed, individuals on the lowest grades are being discriminated against. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the value of our civil servants and how we can address their wages, terms and conditions? Will she urge the relevant Ministers to get around the table with the Public and Commercial Services Union and try to resolve the dispute?
Lucy Powell
In my short time in government, I have seen at first hand the exemplary work that our civil servants do every day. Much of the time they do it quietly and secretly and do not get the credit, so it is great that my hon. Friend has raised the matter on the Floor of the House.
It is up to individual Departments to negotiate with their trade unions on pay rises. I think the average award this year is 5%, but my hon. Friend is right that, working together with our partners in the trade union movement, we can end industrial action and support people getting higher wages and better working conditions.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have served for several years on the programme boards for restoration and renewal. The existential threat to this building is fire. I have raised on several occasions, as I know others have, the importance of installing a water mist system, installing more fire doors and making sure that they all shut. This is such an important issue. I do not demand an immediate answer, but will the Leader of the House try to persuade the authorities that rather than having endless debates on whether to decant, we need to protect this building with a water mist system? The modern systems are designed so that they will not even damage paintings, but they could save the building.
Lucy Powell
All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is lucky him for sitting on the programme board for so long. In all seriousness, the safety of this building and of the people who work here is paramount for the House authorities, for me and for the Speaker—you and I discuss it regularly, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that we must address these issues. I hope that he will continue to offer his advice and thoughts through the programme board in the coming months; I am not sure whether his party will nominate him to do so, but I hope it will.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
In my borough of Brent, the average private rent has increased by an eye-watering 33% to £2,121 a month. We have the highest eviction rate in England and Wales. I am inundated, as I am sure many Members are, with emails about mould and disrepair. The Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill is very welcome, but does the Leader of the House agree that we need to talk more about rent controls?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter for her constituency. She is right about the Renters’ Rights Bill, which has finally come forward and had its Second Reading under this Government. It is much stronger than the previous Bill. It will end no-fault evictions, will give renters and tenants more enhanced rights than they have had in a generation and will tackle issues with quality and mould. It will be an important Bill, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to get stuck into the debates as it makes progress through the House.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
North Lincolnshire council has just published proposals for a green growth zone, which will help to revitalise the local economy, provide engineering jobs and help young people to find a route into the renewable energy sector. As that appears to fit perfectly with the Government’s growth agenda, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement, or preferably a debate in Government time, on green growth zones across the country?
Lucy Powell
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the green growth zone in his constituency. He is right to point out that this Government’s mission to be a clean energy superpower by 2030 is critical not just to reaching climate targets, but to creating the jobs of the future, boosting growth and giving us the energy security that we so desperately need. I am sure that the topic he suggests would make for an important debate. Perhaps it can be arranged through the Backbench Business Committee when it is up and running, which will hopefully happen imminently. If not, I will certainly look at his request.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The UK was right to suspend direct arms export licences to Israel, the use of which risks breaching international humanitarian law, yet it continues to deliver F-35 components via the global supply chain. I have asked many times whether the Government will negotiate an end-use agreement with international partners to end the supply of F-35s to Israel. In a written answer, I was told:
“The US Government manages the…Global Supply Chain.”
Sadly, that does not address the issue. Can we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on what discussions he has had with US counterparts on ending the supply of F-35s to Israel from the global supply chain?
Lucy Powell
This Government have taken more action than many in suspending licences for arms exports, because we are upholding international law and we are following the legal advice that we have received. That is why we have suspended approximately 30 licences to the Israel Defence Forces for arms that may be used in the current conflict and would be in breach of international law. I anticipate that the Foreign Secretary will come to the House, hopefully next week, with a further update on the middle east.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In a righteous echo of St Matthew’s Gospel, the elimination of vicious, violent criminal Chris Kaba reminds us that those who live by weapons die by the same. Further to yesterday’s statement, there are real doubts about the fitness for purpose of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Can we have a debate on whether those organisations have become so infected by a kind of bourgeois, liberal, doubt-fuelled virtue-signalling that they have lost the will to defend the law-abiding majority from a criminal, wicked minority?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Secretary came to the House yesterday and announced new steps that we will take to protect our armed police officers. It is welcome that we have cross- party support for those measures, some of which will be included in forthcoming Home Department legislation. I am sure that we will have ample time to debate them further then.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Kinship care is vital. Where kids cannot be with their parents, keeping them with family and friends, where possible, is often for the best. In Portsmouth, there are estimated to be 560 kinship carers like Carol, whom I met recently in Paulsgrove. However, kinship carers receive less money per week than foster carers. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on pay parity between foster carers and kinship carers?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an issue of great significance to many Members of this House. The role that kinship carers play in our society is often underestimated and undervalued. We should all want to put that right. Our manifesto made it clear that every child should have a loving and secure home; that is why we are determined to include kinship carers and others in the work that we are doing to make sure that every child has a supportive home.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Among local farmers, reports abound that the Government intend to cut the farming budget by more than £100 million. That is compounded by the reality that the full farming recovery and internal drainage board funds have not been distributed, despite the fact that farmers have faced appallingly wet weather over the past few months. Will the Leader of the House consider committing one day of the Budget debate to food security and supporting our farmers?
Lucy Powell
We recently had a debate in Opposition time on farming, and the important issues that the hon. Lady describes get raised here regularly. This Government support our farmers, support our food security and recognise the difficult period that farmers have faced, especially with climate change. That is why we want to support our resilience and ensure we tackle issues around climate change. There will be ample time for these matters to be raised in the Budget debate, so I encourage the hon. Lady to put in to speak.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The latest ONS statistics on drug-related deaths make horrifying reading. The rate of drug poisoning deaths in 2023 was double the 2012 rate. Just under half of all drug poisoning deaths registered in 2023 were confirmed to have involved an opiate, while 1,118 deaths involved cocaine. That is over 30% more than the previous year, and it represents the 12th consecutive annual rise. How can the Leader of the House facilitate our coming together as a Parliament with the relevant Departments to produce a grown-up, evidence-based drugs policy framework that is rooted in harm reduction, which is long overdue?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to point out the very serious and harmful effects of drug addiction and the number of deaths that it causes. Many of us will have been affected by such tragedies for our constituents or for our own loved ones. The next Health questions are in November, but the topic might also be suitable for consideration by the Backbench Business Committee or as the subject of an Adjournment debate.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Right hon. and hon. Members across the House agree that it is right that the House consider the issue of assisted dying. However, many of us are deeply torn on the issue and want to look in depth at the practical, moral, ethical and legal considerations. We do not feel that a private Member’s Bill with only five hours of debate before we have to vote on Second Reading is the right vehicle. The Prime Minister committed to Government time on the issue, so I urge the Leader of the House to introduce legislation in due course, in Government time and with proper pre-legislative scrutiny and impact analysis, so that if we are to take such a grave decision, we will have all the resources for doing so at our disposal.
Lucy Powell
I recognise the difficult issues that the hon. Lady raises and which many hon. Members are struggling with and considering. Such matters as assisted dying are matters of conscience that have traditionally always been addressed through private Members’ Bills, because the Government do not have a view. There will be a free vote for Government Members.
There will be no Government time, but the Second Reading will get the same time for debate as that of other Bills, and there will be lots of other opportunities for these matters to be debated. The hon. Lady could apply for other debates to take forward other issues, but it will be a matter for the House to decide, and we will take it forward on the basis of what the House decides.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) in respect of the ONS report released yesterday, which showed that 5,448 deaths related to drug poisoning had been registered in England and Wales? Once again, the areas of greatest deprivation have been disproportionately affected. The north-east region, including my constituency, is the hardest hit. Every one of those preventable tragedies has an impact on families, friends and colleagues. As chair of the drugs, alcohol and justice all-party parliamentary group, may I draw the House’s attention to this public health crisis, on which I have tabled early-day motion 302?
[That this House notes with alarm data released by the Office for National Statistics on 23 October 2024 showing that a record 5,448 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales in 2023; further notes that the highest death rates are again in areas suffering greatest deprivation; recognises that the influx of highly potent synthetic opioids such as Nitazenes risks a rapid rise in drug deaths; and calls on the Government to tackle the crisis by committing to long-term sustainable funding for drug treatment in the autumn budget and future spring spending review, continuing to implement the recommendations of Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs, and accelerating the availability of naloxone, the lifesaving antidote to opioid overdose.]
Will the Leader of the House urge Ministers to meet officers of the APPG and treatment providers? Can we have a debate in Government time on this very important issue?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that health inequalities are inextricably linked with all other inequalities. The trends are clear to see. Yesterday’s report on drug-related deaths should serve as a wake-up call. It is absolutely devastating for any family for their loved one to die in this way. As the subject has already been raised twice at business questions today, I am sure that there would be a lot of interest if my hon. Friend applied for a debate.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the very best of luck to my Hamble constituent Jack Jarvis, an Army veteran, and his team—David Bruce and Nutty Edwards, both from the Royal Marines, and Adam Radcliffe—as they train in my constituency for a world record rowing attempt from New York to Southampton in aid of the veterans charity Head Up? Can we have a statement from the Health Secretary or the Defence Secretary on mental health services? Will the Leader of the House wish my constituents the best of luck in their attempt to raise money?
Lucy Powell
I am delighted to wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituents luck in their ambitious challenge to row across the Atlantic for such a worthy cause: Head Up, which I know well, does really important work. I am sure that Monday’s general debate on veterans will be a good opportunity to raise the matter again.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the introduction of a beefed up Football Governance Bill. I thank the Leader of the House for all her hard work in opposition on beefing up the proposals. I wish to pass on a message from the co-chairman of Rochdale Association Football Club, who says he would love to host the new football regulator as part of the redevelopment of Rochdale’s ground. Would it not be perfect for the north-west, the beating heart of our national game, to host the football regulator?
Lucy Powell
I am really pleased that the Football Governance Bill is being introduced in the House of Lords today. The Bill has been strengthened and will put fans at the heart of our football. The previous Government promised but failed to deliver it.
Lucy Powell
As the Opposition Chief Whip says from a sedentary position, he really did try to deliver the Bill. It was a cross-party effort, but the election was called a bit too early for that Bill, and perhaps for some of his colleagues as well, so it did not come to pass. We have strengthened the Bill and put fans at the heart of football.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) will be pleased to know that the Government are committed to hosting the football regulator in Greater Manchester, but he might want to fight with me and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), about whether it is in Wigan, Manchester or Rochdale.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am not sure I will endorse fighting at the Dispatch Box.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Glastonbury and Somerton is home to wonderful cider, with producers including Tricky Cider in Langport, Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton and Burrow Hill Cider near Kingsbury Episcopi. Cider produces around £2 billion- worth of value for pubs each year, but damaging business rates are threatening the future of some pubs. Can we have a debate in Government time about the benefits of reforming business rates on pubs and hospitality?
Lucy Powell
I go to Glastonbury once a year and I occasionally have some of the local cider while I am there, so I can confirm the south-west of England produces some really good quality cider. It is one of our great exports and one of our great drinks in this country. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to raise these issues during the Budget debate next week, and I look forward to her doing that then.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I often say that, in order to move forward, we need to look back. With that, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Northwest Computer Museum in Leigh on showcasing the history of computers and inspiring the next generation, with education and new tech? Will she advise how best we acknowledge such organisations so that we continue to inspire the next generation of technological innovators?
Lucy Powell
Local museums, such as the Northwest Computer Museum in my hon. Friend’s constituency, do brilliant work in showcasing the best of this country’s past, so that we can drive forward for the future. As a near neighbour of my hon. Friend, I know the important role computer technology has played in the history of Leigh and Atherton, and Greater Manchester.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Recent events at the West Midlands Fire Authority, regarding failures of governance, leadership, financial discrepancies and staff grievances, highlight deep-rooted and troubling problems, and I am afraid there are too many unanswered questions. Will the Government ensure that there will be an independent and transparent public inquiry, so that the West Midlands Fire Authority meets the obligations and standards that my residents, and people across the west midlands, rightly expect and deserve?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the poor findings about the fire service in the west midlands. It is a much needed service that local people should be able to rely on in times of need. I do not have details about those findings, but I will ensure the relevant Minister gets back to the right hon. Lady as soon as possible about what can be done.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Last week, I had the pleasure of welcoming amazing students from Hayfield and Hill House schools to Parliament on educational visits. In the same week, I was immensely proud that New College Doncaster, in Auckley, was awarded centre of excellence status by the Leadership Skills Foundation, and that Hayfield school was found to rank among the top 15 schools in South Yorkshire. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Hayfield and New College on these blooming brilliant achievements, and will she encourage schools across the country to take advantage of the excellent educational visits we offer here in Parliament?
Lucy Powell
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Hayfield and New College on their blooming good achievements. He is right to highlight the fantastic educational programme offered by Parliament—it is really important that we educate the next generation on our democracy, their role as citizens and the important role that Parliament plays.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Yesterday, Sky News reported that the Government are set to receive a £1.5 billion windfall from Octopus Energy, just weeks after the Chancellor announced a £1.4 billion cut to winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, which the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has said in the past week will cost thousands of lives. The windfall provides an opportunity for the Government to reverse their policy and do the right thing to ensure that millions of the most vulnerable in our society get the vital support that they need. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in this House on the opportunity that the windfall gives us?
Lucy Powell
Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he should not totally believe everything he hears on the news. However, he raises an important matter. People are facing challenges this winter in paying rising energy costs, as they have done over many years. The very difficult decision by this Government to means-test the winter fuel payment is not one that we wanted to take, but we inherited a huge black hole, not just for this financial year but year after year. We have had to fix the foundations of the economy to put us back to economic stability. The truth of the matter is that when the economy crashes, interest rates go sky high and costs and inflation get out of control, it is pensioners on fixed incomes who pay the heaviest price. That is why we have had to take the difficult decision that we have taken.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Data released by the National Records of Scotland this week shows that male life expectancy in my constituency is the second lowest in the country, and Scotland continues to have lower life expectancy than England and Wales. Low life expectancy is strongly linked to deprivation and 17 years of SNP failure. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on how this Government can work constructively with the Scottish Government to tackle the causes of deprivation and enhance the life chances of my constituents?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of male life expectancy in Scotland. The figures that he mentioned are worrying. This Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government to tackle the challenges that the country is facing. That is why we convened our first Council of the Regions and Nations in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago. He will be aware that Scotland questions are next week, and he might want to raise it further then.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
You will know the importance of Uckfield hospital, Madam Deputy Speaker—a hospital that you previously represented and that your constituents enjoy using locally. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on community and district hospitals? The Health Secretary spoke at the Dispatch Box about the importance of local access, but I hear that Uckfield hospital’s elective surgery has been mothballed for six months and that local staff are being sent elsewhere. That flies in the face of the decisions that this Government say integrated care boards should be taking.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Given the mention of Uckfield, I will be listening to the answer very closely.
Lucy Powell
I will try to make sure it is a good one for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is right to say that one of the key ways in which we can deal with the crisis in our NHS—and it is a very serious crisis that we face—is to get more services into communities so that people do not need to attend acute care at the wrong time, and to deliver that preventive community care model that the Health Secretary rightly pointed to. I do not want to make this party political, but the hospital building programme that we inherited was a work of fiction. Many promises made by the previous Government did not have any budget line allocated to them at all. I know that these are issues of high priority for the forthcoming Budget, and I hope that she will get the answers that she wants.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Boxing engages children and young people from deprived or marginalised backgrounds. Matchroom’s chairman Eddie Hearn rightly says that the thing about boxing is that everyone is welcome, and there is no barrier for entry. The Matchroom in the Community initiative, run by the passionate Alex Le Guével, has impacted more than 1,200 young people, collaborated with 22 sports providers and even saved a local boxing gym. It is truly transforming lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the work of Matchroom in the Community, and permit a discussion in Government time on the positive impact of amateur local boxing clubs?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Matchroom in the Community in his constituency on its amazing work. I know from a similar club in my constituency, the Moss Side Fire Station boxing club, that important work is done to engage young people who would otherwise not be engaged and might be causing problems elsewhere. That is why this Government are committed to supporting such youth services.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
So many of my residents in rural Beverley and Holderness have benefited from the simply brilliant £2 bus fare. Could we have a debate or a statement from the Transport Secretary as soon as possible after the Budget on the future of the £2 bus fare, which has seen so many more of my residents able to get to work, be a full part of the community and meet members of their families?
Lucy Powell
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are benefiting from the £2 bus fare, which this Government have said will continue to the end of the year, for now—I am sure that further announcements will be made in the coming days. We are also introducing the better buses Bill in this Session to ensure that many more places can benefit from having a say and from bus franchising in their local areas, which will keep fares lower for longer. I am sure that he will raise these issues in the Budget debate next week.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last night I met the University and College Union representative at the City of Wolverhampton college in my constituency. He raised concerns about the wages of teachers in further education being significantly less than those received by pre-16 education teachers, and about the general under-investment in further education. These further education teachers provide vocational training for electricians, bricklayers, plumbers, plasterers and IT technicians, to name but a few. Does the Leader of the House agree that the skills agenda and further education go hand in hand? Will she please meet me or grant a debate in the House to discuss fair funding for further education?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which was raised with me by the Manchester college on my recent visit there. The work done in our further education institutions transforms lives. It is critical to the mission of this Government to grow the economy and provide opportunity for everybody, everywhere. That is why we are bringing forward a number of pieces of legislation to enhance further education. Hopefully, there will be further announcements in due course.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Yesterday I was pleased to welcome the wonderful Dawn Dines and the Stamp Out Spiking charity to Parliament to showcase their awareness campaign that launches next Monday. Spiking is one of the most evil crimes. Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement to update the House on the progress being made to implement the previous Government’s anti-spiking strategy? What further steps will this new Government take to stamp out this heinous crime?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important work of the Stamp Out Spiking campaign. He is right; it is a blight in many of our town and city centres. Work has improved over recent years to reduce the number of people using spiking drugs, but further work is needed. I am sure that the Home Secretary will update the House in due course.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Next week, members of the European Pride Organisers Association will vote on the hosts of EuroPride 2027. I am proud to back the only UK bid to host that festival, Pride in Gloucestershire, which would include an opening ceremony at Gloucester docks and a festival in Gloucester Park. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging members of EPOA to vote for Pride in Gloucestershire for EuroPride 2027?
Lucy Powell
I wholeheartedly encourage all the association members to vote for Pride in Gloucestershire. I am sure that the event would really help to put Gloucester on the map, would bring a huge amount of interest and, and would support the local economy. As the MP for Manchester Pride, I know how important these events are, and I wish my hon. Friend and his town all the best with that.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
In broad daylight, in a public place, my constituent was attacked by a man who is well known to the police. When he realised that he was being videoed and the police were being called, he lashed out and threatened to find my constituent, slit his throat and burn his house down. Early police advice was that my constituent’s name need never be disclosed, but now Avon and Somerset police say that his full name will have to be disclosed in court. He does not want to expose his family to the threats that were made. The case will collapse without the protection of anonymity for victims. Can we have a debate on offering greater public protection to victims in court, thereby bolstering public confidence in policing and our courts system?
Lucy Powell
This sounds like a horrific incident in the hon. Member’s constituency. I am really sorry to hear of it, and I hope that she will pass on our best to her constituents. These issues have been raised many times, and we have had many debates on them. The Government are committed to introducing a victims and sentencing Bill in this Session, wherein the issue of anonymity for victims will be widely discussed.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
David Lowndes is a hero of ours in Peterborough. For 51 years, he has chronicled life in our city, as the snapper for the local paper. Just last weekend, in rain and shine, I met David taking photos at the Diwali festival and at the rededication of a war memorial. This year, his regular contract with the Peterborough Telegraph comes to an end. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating David on his contribution to our city and journalism, and will she ensure that we have time in this House to debate the value of good local journalists?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating David Lowndes on a very long career in local photojournalism. What an important role he and others like him play in capturing moments, and telling the stories of our constituents and communities, and the things that we care most about. I am sure that a debate on the importance of local journalism would be very well attended, were he to apply for one.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Tomorrow is Northamptonshire Day, and I am very proud to represent the constituency of South Northamptonshire. I am delighted to hear the announcement of a new bus route from Ratley to Northampton via Syresham. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to protect and enhance our bus services, alongside the £2 bus fare, and will she agree to a debate in Government time on this important issue?
Lucy Powell
Well, I did not know that it was Northamptonshire Day tomorrow. That is a good thing for me to add to the diary for future years. The hon. Lady raises the issue of reliable local bus routes, which she will know have been decimated in recent years. The £2 bus fare has been an important marker in restoring the service, but the Government are introducing a better buses Bill, which will give local areas and local transport authorities more power to franchise and create the local bus services that people rely on.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I was very pleased to hear the Leader of the House announce a debate on veterans next week. Will she join me in commending the work of the Macclesfield armed forces and veterans breakfast club, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently? The club’s efforts to support veterans by providing access to key services and helping to tackle social isolation in the community are invaluable.
Lucy Powell
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating that breakfast club in his constituency on its important work. The Government are committed to supporting veterans. That is why I was really pleased to announce the debate on veterans next week. He will be pleased to know of the Government’s commitment to the armed forces commissioner Bill, which will be introduced imminently.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In Huntingdon, we have a swathe of new energy infrastructure developments. We already have the near-2,000-acre East Park Energy solar farm proposed for near Great Staughton, and the Government recently forced through plans for the Envar incinerator on the edge of St Ives, after an appeal from the developer. Over the past week, many constituents have written to me expressing their concerns about the proposed Warboys incinerator at the Old Brickworks, just 4 miles from the Envar incinerator site. The parishes of Warboys and Pidley-cum-Fenton are placed between those sites. Will the Leader of the House make time in the parliamentary schedule for this House to discuss the impact that new energy infrastructure is having on the rural communities that it is being imposed on?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, which is obviously important to his constituents. The Government make no apology for taking quick action to ensure that we have energy security, and the energy supply of the future. Our commitment to becoming a clean energy superpower by 2030 brings with it some difficult decisions and challenges. We are mindful of community concern when it comes to such decisions, but we will not let it stand in the way of ensuring energy security, lower bills and an energy supply for the people of this country.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Across the country, retailers on our high streets are increasingly worried about rising retail crime and antisocial behaviour. I recently met business owners in Bathgate to discuss their concerns and raise awareness of the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, which was introduced after a long campaign by the Co-operative movement. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on when we can expect a Bill to make the assault of shop workers a specific offence in England and Wales?
Lucy Powell
Shoplifting continues to increase at unacceptable levels, and is causing huge issues for local shop workers and those running retail outlets. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. She will know that, under the previous Government, there was effectively immunity for those shoplifting, because there were no prosecutions for theft under £200. The Government are committed to bringing in a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. That will be in the forthcoming policing and crime Bill, which I hope will be introduced in the coming weeks or months.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Colin and Coryne Hall, residents in the Bordon part of my constituency, are being evicted by the Ministry of Defence from their property, along with a number of other residents in the area. Could we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the MOD’s treatment of its non-military tenants? This is just an example of how the Defence Infrastructure Organisation is not prioritising Bordon. Can we have a debate in Government time on how the DIO handles its responsibilities to local communities?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising what is obviously an important issue for his constituents Colin and Coryne Hall, given their circumstances. It is not an issue that I am familiar with. He will know that I recently announced that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House on Monday on supporting veterans, at which Defence Ministers will be present. He may want to raise the issue there, but I shall certainly raise it with Ministers anyway.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Around a dozen Members wish to speak, and we have only a few minutes left, so let us try to be as short and sharp as we can.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Last week, I joined Rabbi Neil Janes and Father Stuart Owen on a walk through my constituency to mark the Jewish festival of Sukkot, and to thank and raise funds for local organisations that support people in need of all faiths. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on how we can support and encourage interfaith understanding, dialogue and action, of which this walk was a really powerful example?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question, and pass on my thanks to Rabbi Janes and those who have come together in her constituency to deal with these issues. She is right to call for interfaith communities to come together. I am sure that she will continue to do that in her constituency.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
When the Cineworld in Yate opened in 2015, it was a big day for the town and came as a result of years of campaigning by former MP Steve Webb. Sadly, the cinema has recently closed its doors. It is one of the many cinemas across the country unable to keep up with rising costs. A key burden facing those businesses is the business rates system, which leaves them paying more than they can afford. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the need to reform business rates, and on how a new system could benefit local cinemas?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the closure of Cineworld in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We will have several days of debate on the Budget, starting next week, and I am very confident that business rates will be high on the agenda in those debates, as they always are.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My constituent David Gold has been in touch to say that a year ago he really struggled to get a GP appointment. He went directly to the hospital to seek advice and eventually got an appointment, and was subsequently diagnosed with stage 3 bowel cancer. We know how important it is that those with cancer get an early diagnosis. An employee from the GP practice in question told me that in their 35 years of service, they had never seen primary healthcare in such a sorry state. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate in Government time on getting GPs the resources they need to offer appointments quickly?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent. The Government are committed to introducing an extra 40,000 appointments per week by the end of this Parliament. That work, led by the Health Secretary, is already under way, and I hope it means that such a situation will not happen again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is common for us to believe that freedom of religion or belief violations do not occur in the west, but they do. Recently, the Breccia di Roma, an evangelical church in Italy, has been embroiled in a legal battle regarding its place of worship. The Italian tax agency denied the church tax exemptions granted to other religious institutions on the grounds that its place of worship did not exhibit sufficiently religious architectural features. Despite favourable rulings from lower courts, the Italian supreme court ruled against the church, claiming that it was liable for commercial taxes. The church, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom International, has now taken its case to the European Court of Human Rights. This case is discriminatory, so will the Leader of the House join me in raising concerns about that violation of freedom of religion or belief, and will she ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to raise the matter with its counterparts in Italy?
Lucy Powell
Yet again, the hon. Gentleman raises the important matter of freedom of religion or belief in business questions. I will certainly get him answers to his question. He has asked me previously about the case of Jimmy Lai, so he might like to know that the Foreign Secretary raised that on his trip to China last week.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Banbury FM provides news, music and information. Its services are in many ways much better than those provided by larger FM licence-holders. Unfortunately, Ofcom’s effective veto on stations obtaining FM licences means that Banbury FM and many other independent local radio stations are accessible only via digital platforms. That deprives parts of society—especially the elderly and the isolated—access to their services. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate on improving access to FM frequencies for independent radio stations, and on the potential for Ofcom to provide on-demand licences?
Lucy Powell
Local radio stations play a really important role in their communities. I am sure that if my hon. Friend were to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject, it would be very well attended.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The SNP Government have botched their attempt to deliver a national care service in Scotland. Key stakeholders, trade unions and care organisations have raised significant concerns, and local government has withdrawn support. Will my right hon. Friend make time in the near future for a statement outlining the preliminary discussions that the Department of Health and Social Care has had with stakeholders, so that the House can be assured that the national care service in England will move forward with the support of staff, service users and other relevant bodies, and not make the same shambolic mistakes that have been made in Scotland?
Lucy Powell
Social care is a devolved matter. As my hon. Friend rightly says, social care in Scotland is at breaking point because the SNP plans have failed and the national care service there is in name only. He may wish to raise that matter in the forthcoming Health and Social Care or Scotland questions.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Despite there being a healthy number of large supermarkets and other petrol suppliers in the city of Dunfermline, research by a group of my constituents has found that petrol there is consistently up to 5p per litre more expensive than it is when sold by the same suppliers less than 10 miles away. That harms small businesses and individuals alike. Can the Leader of the House suggest a way to examine that clustering of prices in order to ensure that businesses and individuals are treated fairly?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Competition and Markets Authority has found that competition between fuel retailers has weakened, which, as he highlights, has had a detrimental effect on constituents such as his. I think he would get strong backing for a Backbench Business or Westminster Hall debate on that important matter.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. After last week, I shall heed your request for speed.
Rossendale is the only local authority area in the north without any sort of rail station or commuter link, as I may have mentioned in the House before. That cuts my constituents off from opportunity and constrains the growth of east Lancashire, despite years of hard work by the borough council—with the support of the county council and myself—on its excellent and deliverable plans for a city valley rail link. Will the Leader of the House agree to grant a debate on the delivery of that link in the context of a northern rail strategy?
Lucy Powell
As the MP for a nearby constituency, I know all too well how poorly served Rossendale and Rawtenstall are by transport links. I support my hon. Friend’s calls to get better transport links to his constituency. The Government are currently reviewing all that, but we are absolutely committed to supporting better northern rail links.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Women affected by the changes to the state pension age continue to wait for clarity on the compensation recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in its March report. I appreciate the state that the public finances have been left in, and I acknowledge the complexity of this issue, but many of my constituents are concerned that justice is being further delayed. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Government’s plans to respond to the report, and will MPs be given the opportunity to debate its findings and the next steps?
Lucy Powell
As my hon. Friend knows, the ombudsman report was published in March. It is a serious report that requires serious consideration by the Government— I know that it is frustrating, but Ministers are actively doing that as we speak. Of course, once they are ready to do so, they will come to the House with a full response.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Critical minerals are essential to our transition away from fossil fuels. Virtually 100% of the UK’s critical minerals need to be imported from places as far flung as South America, the Congo, China and Australasia. Despite that, there are vast deposits of tin, lithium, manganese and tungsten here in the UK. That is a truly damning indictment of the “race to the bottom” economics of the Conservative party. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on domestic critical mineral production?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises such an important issue. Critical minerals are vital to our future technology and economy. They are required for phones, wind turbines, cars, fighter jets—you name it. I think that if he were to apply for an Adjournment debate, he would get one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call James Asser, whose patience has been noted.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The East London gymnastics centre in Beckton is a grassroots facility that is well used by local people and community sports groups, but it also contains national facilities used by Team GB and some of our Olympians. The facility has now been sold by its owner to a housing developer, and faces imminent closure despite a vigorous local campaign, which will have an impact on our national training facilities. Will the Leader of the House consider providing an opportunity to debate grassroots sport and what measures we can put in place to protect such facilities in future?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is last but by no means least. That development in his constituency is worrying, and I thank him for raising it. Our Team GB gymnasts and other gymnasts are the pride of our country and have always done very well, especially in recent Olympics and other games. I will certainly raise that important matter with the relevant Minister and ensure that my hon. Friend gets a reply.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With over 50 contributions, many constituencies have been well represented.
Black History Month
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Black History Month.
I start by wishing Baroness Doreen Lawrence a very happy birthday—she is bright beacon for us all. It is a great pleasure to open the debate to mark Black History Month. I have led debates on the subject many times since 2020, but this is my first time from the Government side of the House, and as the first ever woman Minister of Ghanaian descent at the Dispatch Box.
For some of us, every month is Black History Month. Many Members cannot dis-entangle our own narratives, family trees and stories from the broader celebration of black history. It is not the stuff of dry history books; it is about vibrant family stories told around kitchen tables, and lived experiences shared by our mums, dads, aunties, uncles, grandparents and great-grandparents. I know from our previous debates that we will be hearing some of those vivid stories this afternoon.
Why do we celebrate Black History Month? We do so because black history is British history; because the lives of black Britons are the building blocks of our nation, from the Roman occupation to the Windrush generation; because history is never static, but a story constantly being told and re-told over again; and because the voices of black Britons have so often been marginalised and dismissed, ignored and overlooked. The racism and bias that our forebears faced—within the factories, the foundries, the armed services, the universities and the national health service, on the streets, and even in our homes—is made worse by historians brushing it under the carpet. This country and this House cannot overlook our complex and painful history of empire and slavery.
A key theme this year is “reclaiming the narrative,” and I pay tribute to all the families, historians, scholars, teachers and storytellers who keep the narrative alive. We have a duty of care to our ancestors; a debt of honour to the countless millions who built our economy, shaped our society and forged the nation.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on leading this important debate in Government time. The Black Cultural Archives, which I am hugely proud to say is based in my constituency on Windrush Square, is the only national organisation dedicated to the preservation and interpretation of black history in the United Kingdom. It does not currently have recognition as a national organisation. Will the Minister work with me and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Black Cultural Archives has that status and recognition, as well as sustainable funding, given the vital role it plays?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion; she has done a lot of work in that area. I know the Black Cultural Archives really well, having visited it on many occasions over the years. I, too, am concerned, and I will be happy to work with Ministers, alongside my hon. Friend, to look at ensuring that its legacy continues.
It was a special honour to join Mr Speaker last week in Speaker’s House to mark Black History Month—it was truly a hot ticket. It was a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) speak on that occasion. She reminded us of the terrible hate that black Britons faced in the 1950s and 1960s, and how working-class communities came together to protect one another when the fascists came to town. Jewish, Irish and Asian communities, as well as the settled white communities, worked alongside the African-Caribbean communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister for leading the debate, and I think it is only fair also to commend the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for initiating it. Does the Minister agree that the celebration of culture and heritage, as well as their accomplishments, is something that benefits everyone in our community? The strength of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has its foundations on our ability to be British and yet to be so much more.
Ms Oppong-Asare
I completely agree. I mentioned how in the past different communities have come together alongside the African-Caribbean community, for example to fight the blackshirts, the National Front, and the British National party. These are the shoulders on which many of us stand. Alongside Bernie Grant and my fellow Ghanaian —and great friend—Lord Paul Boateng, they lit the path for so many of us to walk down.
I do not want the House to think I am only going to mention those of Ghanaian descent, even though we make the best jollof rice—do not let my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) tell you any different. But there is one more Ghanaian person I must mention, as I always do in this month: Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, the co-ordinator of special projects for the Greater London Council, who organised the first recognition of this month in 1987. In the 1970s, he had seen the Americans celebrate black history and believed that Britain should do something similar.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. She is doing a fantastic job and she looks amazing. I am not getting into the jollof rice argument, because I am Jamaican. She mentioned one of the founders of Black History Month, who was a constituent of mine. Does she agree that it is no coincidence that in 1987, when Black History Month was first launched by the GLC, this place also made history with the election of the first three black MPs: the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), Lord Boateng, and the late and very great Bernie Grant?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and I am glad she took the cautious path by not saying that Ghanaian jollof rice is not the best—she knows it is. I echo her points and I will be paying tribute to those MPs later in my speech.
The stories we will hear this afternoon are our stories. We have come a long way since the 1980s, when we first celebrated Black History Month. We celebrate the trail- blazers today. I have mentioned the first black Mother of the House, the first black Minister and Cabinet Minister, Paul Boateng, and Baroness Lawrence. I must also mention Baroness Amos in the other place, who became the first black woman to serve in Cabinet. She is from my area, the borough of Bexley, and inspires me every day. Of course, no one political party has a monopoly on trailblazers; I know that Opposition Members will want to mention the black trailblazers from their own parties and political traditions.
Since the general election in July, we can celebrate the most diverse Parliament in our history, making this House look and sound far closer to the diverse communities we represent. Such representation matters. If the nation’s children look at our Parliament and do not see women and men who look and sound like them, then they will assume that Parliament is not of them or for them; they will assume that the rulers are one thing and the ruled something else. I do not need to tell the House how damaging that is to democracy, or how populists thrive and democracies die. It is not about ticking boxes; it is about ballot boxes.
I said we have come a long way—and we have—but the path of progress does not run straight and true. Progress can be reversed and set back. Social media provides a new platform for old hatreds. The scourge of racism is given new life through social media—each one of us faces it every day online. In our communities too, racism is real, and the struggle against it is real. It is not just overt racism; it is also the damaging effect of racism in our institutions. It is the routine micro-aggressions that black MPs and black staff face every day, and the hateful language in parts of our media. It is when the successful black business executive is mistaken for the cleaner, when the qualified jobseeker is blocked because of their surname, or when the political candidate is told, “This seat is not for the likes of you.”
That is why this Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity as part of our mission-led Government, and why we strive for opportunity for all in education, work, public life, and in every community and part of the UK. I believe that the Government’s wide-ranging legislative programme will start to address many of the injustices that scar our society. The Bill on equality in race and disability will introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with over 250 employees. We will reform the Mental Health Act 1983. Currently, black people are 3.5 times more likely than white people to be detained under that Act, and over seven times more likely to be subject to a community treatment order. We must urgently address this issue.
We will also tackle the abhorrent maternal health gap. In England, the risk of maternal death is nearly three times as high for black women and twice as high for Asian women as it is for white women. It is a grave injustice that there are such stark inequalities in maternal outcomes, and this Government are committed to closing the maternal mortality gap.
In so many other areas, the Government are making changes that will improve lives. Earlier in my speech, I mentioned the Windrush generation; we have been calling for justice for those treated so terribly by previous Governments, including the full implementation of the recommendations of the Wendy Williams review. I have called for that in the House multiple times, and I am pleased that today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that the Government will fulfil their manifesto commitments in full. We will appoint a Windrush commissioner to oversee compensation and act as a trusted voice; we will establish a new Windrush unit in the Home Office to drive things forward; and we are injecting £1.5 million into a programme of grant funding for organisations to support people’s applications for compensation. This will speed up and clarify processes that have been shamefully slow and difficult. We will continue to listen to the voices of Windrush, honour their contribution to this country and seek redress for the scandal that has engulfed so many of them. At last —after too long—the Windrush generation will see some measure of justice.
I am proud to open this debate, but I am not satisfied with where we are. We have a long way to go. Yes, I am interested in black history, but I am also interested in black futures. That is why we need lasting change, real reform, solid progress, and a never-ending quest for justice.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, wish Baroness Lawrence a very happy birthday.
I congratulate the Minister on such a positive opening speech. How wonderful it is to have this discussion in the main Chamber! I have been working with the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on the all-party women in Parliament event, and I am delighted that joint working between Government Front Benchers and Back Benchers has brought this debate to the Chamber today. I am particularly pleased to see the number of people who are keen to be here on a Thursday—that is fantastic, and I look forward to the contributions from across the House.
The theme of this year’s Black History Month is reclaiming narratives, and it is vital for every member of society to recognise the achievements of black Britons and the contributions they have made to our country and to the world. All of us as MPs have amazing constituents and friends who educate and inspire us, and that will be highlighted in today’s debate. It takes me back to my best friend from school, Genevieve. She educated me about what it was like to flee her country, Uganda, with just a passport, and what it had meant to her and her future to go through such a harrowing time with her family.
We need only look across the fields of sport, entertainment, culture and politics to see how much of a contribution black Britons are making. We see that most clearly in today’s celebration. I agree with the Minister that looking forward to the future is vital, but Black History Month takes us back to the 1980s, which was when my friend Genevieve and I met. It was established in 1987, and not only has it grown as a movement; it has led to real debate and reflection. I am sure that this House will do it justice this afternoon, and that we will note just how far the UK has come and how different it is as a country from when Black History Month was established. We have heard from the Minister about the historic moment when three black MPs were elected to this House in the 1987 general election, and the difference that made. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was elected in that year, and we celebrate her being the Mother of this House.
As for my party, the oldest political party in the western world, the fact that we could be led by a black woman is a testament to the arc of change that we have seen—that is no doubt in part due to the trailblazing of the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington—and, indeed, she would be our fourth female leader, although there is another one available. [Laughter.] You know what I mean. Other members of the black or mixed-race heritage community have joined our Benches, and there are some we dearly miss. Bim Afolami, in particular, made an important contribution in this place for our party. As the Minister said, looking at the Chamber today and at Prime Minister’s questions, we can see the breadth of representation. I think it is fair to say, despite where we are as a party, that there is more to do, and we are all keen to inspire that work and to work together on it.
Turning to the contribution in the field of sport, people can just watch any football match to see black Britons making their mark. Whether it is Sterling, Saka or Rashford, these are household names in the English team, although I will show my age by admitting that my favourite is Ian Wright.
Marsha De Cordova
As the hon. Lady is talking about sport and football, it is only right that I pay tribute to my brother, who is a premier league footballer—Bobby Reid-De Cordova. He is doing an incredible job, and I am incredibly proud of him because of what he demonstrates, not just on the pitch but in the communities within which he has served.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution —I have a brother myself of whom I am extremely proud, so I get that. There is something slightly less competitive in that relationship sometimes. I pay tribute to him and his work, and, above all, his skill.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
If we are talking about footballers, can we remember people such as Alex Scott, who is a trailblazer for the women’s game, as well as those from the men’s game?
Mims Davies
I will be coming on to that in my remarks. As a former Sports Minister, I am absolutely focused on highlighting the women’s game and, above all, making sure that sport is not niche when it comes to reporting on women and their achievements—that it is literally a fair and level playing field—so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Of course, it is with a note of sadness that we need to remember one pioneer of black sport, Alford Gardner, who died earlier this month. Prior to his death, he was one of only two surviving Windrush passengers, and he was recognised at the Pride of Britain awards for his work establishing the first Caribbean cricket club in the UK. As Sports Minister, I was keen to encourage representation and further opportunity, particularly for football managers, and to work with the beautiful game on those things—if you cannot see it, can you believe that you can get there? I still think there is more to do.
We rightly herald the voyage of the Empire Windrush as the start of the story when it comes to truly understanding black history in the UK. I thank the Minister for her update to the House on what is being done to support the community.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
There is one cohort that it would be nice to hear mentioned by the Front Benchers: the black warriors who came to this country to fight in two world wars, and particularly to fight the Nazis in the second world war. I commend to people on both sides of the House with an interest in this subject the book “The Eighth Passenger” by the late Miles Tripp, which prominently features Flight Sergeant Harry McCalla. He was the rear gunner in his Lancaster and flew dozens of perilous missions; he survived, and Members can read about what happened after the war. We need to salute, in both senses of the word, those people who came to fight the Nazis.
Mims Davies
Hear, hear! A little further on in my speech, I will mention some of that, but I have certainly learned even more from my right hon. Friend.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The hon. Lady mentioned the importance of the Windrush generation and the Windrush story to the start of the story of Black History Month. My constituency is one of the most diverse in the country, and long has been. In the 1920s, we had the biggest black population in London, but our black history prior to the second world war is often forgotten. Does she agree that we need to do more to celebrate, and to remind people and teach them about, that longer history?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I think that point makes the importance of today’s debate apparent. We on the Opposition Benches and all MPs in this House are so keen to champion our constituents and what we know of them, and he has given us another a great example.
To turn to our NHS, 7.4% of people employed in the NHS are black people. Indeed, when faced with acute staff shortages, the Government called on Caribbean women to fill those gaps: 5,000 were working on hospital wards within 10 years, and by the 1970s two thirds of student nurses and midwives originated from the Caribbean. The Minister rightly talked about health disparities, and the massive focus we must have on them, whether in maternal health—that was raised at the birth trauma event just this week—the menopause, or in understanding intersectionality. Professor Laura Serrant used her very moving poem “You Called…and We came” to point out what we owe to the generations of black people who came from overseas and have given and continue to give the best of their lives—and, indeed, their food and culture —to this country, as well as having really added to our labour market.
We know that the experience of black people in this country has been long, and at times complex and difficult, but we know that the more we learn and the more we work together, the more that is changing. In fact, the first black MP is believed to have been elected back in 1767. Many will know the story of Mary Seacole and her remarkable role in the Crimean war, which we now understand and celebrate much more. Such an awareness, as has been raised already in the Chamber today, is key.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, in our darkest hours we have turned to our friends to support us, and it is estimated that 16,000 Caribbean men stepped up and fought for Britain during the second world war, while half a million Africans served in both combative and non-combative roles during the same conflict. One long overdue narrative we must talk about is that 800 million people from the Commonwealth stood together against the greatest evil of racism that has ever been known, and the Minister alluded to that in her speech. As we know, contemporary attitudes have sometimes airbrushed many black British stories out of our history and our understanding, so challenging and understanding such narratives continues, sadly, to be very important.
While we accept and celebrate the progress, it is very important that we continue to challenge any complacency, and while we reflect on the changes we have seen, we need to do more. In fact, appalling racism and abuse were displayed in the 2021 Euro finals—not that long ago—and I applaud and thank the charities and groups that continue to stand up against this abhorrent abuse. There is an opportunity with the Online Safety Act 2023 to continue to work with social media companies to crack down on racist abuse and make it clear that it has no place in this country.
To conclude, as a Minister in the Government Equalities Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I focused on young people and social mobility, arguing that their postcode, what they look like, their background and their network should never hold them back. We should all continue to work incredibly hard to tackle racist abuse and make sure that we fix the long-standing racial disparities, so the Minister has my support and my party’s support on this. I am particularly proud that, when we left office, we had delivered 62 of the 74 actions in the British action plan on racial disparities. However, as the Minister said, there is more to do.
I look forward to the contributions of Members in this important debate, as we celebrate Black History Month in this House and, importantly, look to the future.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to take part in this debate on the Floor of the House in Government time for the first time ever. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) for her excellent speech. It is a pleasure to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. Talking about footballers, Raheem Sterling is from Brent—a proud Brent boy—as is Rachel Yankey, and they do amazing things in the community.
I thank the Minister for her moving and excellent speech. I am sure the Nigerians would disagree about jollof rice, but I will try not to get too involved in that. As she said, she is the first woman of Ghanaian decent at the Dispatch Box. I remember that when I stood at that Dispatch Box in 2009, and I was the first black woman ever to stand there as a Government Minister, it was so moving and I almost felt as though I had the weight of history on my shoulders. I congratulate her on that, and also on the Windrush announcement. That is a phenomenal announcement, and a lot of people today will be very grateful for it. I would like to thank Wendy Williams, Jacqueline McKenzie, Martin Forde and Patrick Vernon for all the work they have done on Windrush.
Reclaiming narratives is important for this Black History Month, because it is not about explaining black history, but about reclaiming some of the narratives out there changing some of the assumptions. I always remember a teacher saying to me at school, “Don’t assume, because when you ‘assume’ you make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’.” When I met Pam, whose family owned a cotton farm in Mississippi for over 100 years, I was expecting all these stories about uprisings and everything, and she just told me about the entrepreneurship, the sustainability and the fair pay. I was so enthralled by her story—mytunika.com—that I purchased the shirt I am wearing today, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for helping me iron it.
The thing about business is that it is easy for someone to make huge profits if they do not have to pay people, if they do not have to provide accommodation, if they do not have to treat them fairly and if they can treat them as if they are nobody. No one with a conscience or any compassion would say that is a good business model, but six years ago, in 2018, I received a message, as did everybody else in the country, to inform me that we had finished paying the reparations owed. The message said:
“The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.”
I was absolutely shocked when I received that message. I thought, “I won’t consent to my taxpayer’s money paying slave owners compensation.” The British Government paid £20 million, which was 5% of GDP at the time, and that is now the equivalent of about £100 billion. This money was paid to compensate slave owners for lost capital associated with freeing slaves—40% of the UK’s budget. So there is a precedent for paying reparations for slavery; it has just been paid to the wrong people.
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech, and I must say her shirt is lovely. She is making a vital point about reparations, and does she agree that while it is important that we look to the future, we must also have that discussion about reparations, because both she and I are descendants of those who were enslaved?
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend. I understand that the Prime Minister has said we have to look to the future and that he is dealing with 14 years of corruption and mismanagement by the Conservative Government, but we do have to consider reparations because it is the right thing to do. This question makes me wonder whether it would ever be conceivable that this decision would be made today. Would we pay traffickers for their loss of trade? Would we pay pimps for their loss of trade? It is a ridiculous assertion.
So I thought to myself, who made this decision and how was it made? Obviously, it was made in Parliament. Back then there were no women, no black people, no people of colour; it was just white men and they made that decision. And we only finished paying nine years ago, so it is still very current.
While the British Government have not disclosed a complete list of the recipient individuals and firms of bonds related to compensation for slaves, researchers at University College London have compiled a list of over 46,000 current individuals and groups who have received Government payouts related to the abolition of slavery. Many powerful British families, including current business and political elites in the United Kingdom, are among the recipients uncovered by the UCL team. So when we hear the arguments that to make our money—to make our millions—we just have to work hard and pull ourselves up by our boot straps, that is not quite the full story. That is why the narrative needs to be reset, and structures created in order to uphold a white supremacist view need to be revisited and restructured.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her fantastic speech. As she will know, a number of people are calling for reparations, including Members of this House; there is an all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations of which she is a member. Does she agree there should be a discussion about the different ways in which people want reparations to be paid? People have heard about large sums of money and have got scared, but they have not thought about all the different ways, such as through environmental or educational reparations, that we could go about repairing the sheer imbalance of equality that we as a country created by taking part in the enslavement and trafficking and colonialisation of other countries. There are many different ways in which we could support those we so seriously disadvantaged, and does my hon. Friend agree that everybody should come along to the APPG conference this Sunday, 27 October, if they would like to hear more?
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent plug for the conference on Sunday, and I will be there. The thing about resetting the narrative is that we have to learn. We have to educate ourselves, and there is nothing wrong in that. There is also nothing wrong in changing our mind. There is nothing wrong in having one position and then learning something new and understanding—for instance that reparations is not just about money—and then changing our mind.
Slavery destroyed the African economy. It stripped Africa of its people and also stripped Africa of its riches. There is a narrative that Africa is poor because of corruption and we must help these poor African children. I would like to change that narrative and say that Africa is rich. Africa is rich in natural resources ranging from arable land, water, oil and natural gas to minerals, forests and wildlife. The continent holds a huge proportion of the world’s natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable. Africa is home to some 30% of the world’s mineral reserves, 8% of the world’s natural gas, 12% of the world’s natural oil reserves, 40% of the world’s gold and up to 90% of its chromium and platinum. It has the largest reserves of cobalt, diamonds, platinum and uranium and 10% of the planet’s internal renewable fresh water source. So I want everybody to consider the narrative that Africa is rich and it has had its wealth stolen.
Africa is also a net creditor to the rest of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, there are lots of big numbers being mentioned such as that $777 trillion needs to paid in reparations. Most recently Dr Michael Banner, dean of Trinity College Cambridge, claimed Britain owed £205 billion in reparations. Patrick Robinson, leading judge at the International Court of Justice, declared that the UK should pay $24 trillion for its involvement in slavery. There are a lot of figures and that is a lot of money, but at the end of the day some things will be easy to compensate. It is not just about money. We could give back artefacts and the bodies of freedom fighters and stolen jewels and precious metals wherever they may be. We could make good the land and seas ruined by oil spills, correct the education of history, compensate land and home owners, and cancel the debt. There are lots of things that can be done to make sure we have reparations.
I realise that it is complicated to calculate what is owed, but we must not forget that in order for slavery to continue people put a number on other people’s lives; people were sold for money. If it could be done then, it can be done now.
The first homo sapiens on earth—modern humans—are thought to have evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago, and it is fascinating reading about the different continents and about Africa and the middle stone age and how they developed different tools and painting and where they came from. It led me to write a poem about being of the first ones that seems to have upset quite a few racists, and I say to them that they should not scroll through my social media feed unless they want to get upset.
This is my poem.
So you wanted to see me broken
Head bowed and tears in my eyes
More fool you you didn’t realise my strength is powered by your lies.
You are the wrong one
The violent one
The weird one
Whereas I, I am the chosen one of the first ones
You see this skin I am in
This beautiful mahogany brown
This skin you don’t like I believe
So why try so hard to achieve
By burning yourself by the sun
For me there is no need
Because I am the chosen one
I am of the first ones
I know I am black and beautiful
An African freedom fighter
My skin is my protection
And you my friend don’t matter.
Because I am the chosen one
As I am of the first ones
So you wanted to see me broken
Head bowed and tears in my eyes
More fool you, you haven’t realised
My strength is despite your lies.
No one should shy away from the truth even if it hurts and is painful. Slavery has always been wrong, and that is why we have a modern slavery Bill which has started in the other place. We should remind ourselves that knowing the truth is not the same as hate. This is not hate speech; this is love speech. This is the way we right the wrongs of the past and look forward to the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Liberal Democrats spokesperson Josh Babarinde.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for that amazing tribute and that awesome poem, and I also thank those on the Front Benches who have spoken so far to celebrate Black History Month. I join in paying birthday wishes to Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and as far as the jollof question is concerned, as a Nigerian I will come to that later.
As the first black person ever elected as a Liberal Democrat MP—[Interruption.] About time indeed; better late than never. It is an honour to stand here to mark Black History Month. The theme of Black History Month this year is reclaiming narratives and I cannot think of a more pertinent time in recent history to be pursuing that endeavour. People may look at what happened after Saka missed that goal at the Euros, after the riots this year and after the spikes in hate crime, and feel that our country is not what it once was. They may feel that our country is unwelcoming or is closed, but I say to them that Britain is far more than the divisive minority found in some corners of this country and indeed in some corners of this House. At our core, we are an open, tolerant and multicultural country that is enriched, not compromised, by diversity.
Eastbourne’s black community are a shining example of that diversity and contribution. I will highlight some of their contributions today, not least because I was born and bred in the wonderful town that I now represent. I will not describe my family, because that is cheating, but I will talk about someone who certainly feels like family: Jenny Williams. Jenny is the first black woman ever elected to Eastbourne borough council since it was established in 1859. Jenny’s career working to diversify the arts, whether through the Arts Council, her organisation Take the Space or many vehicles in between, has helped to change the landscape in the arts at a grassroots and national level, and our town and country are much richer for it.
I am also proud to pay tribute to Solomon Berhane, a fellow Eastbournian and the inspirational headteacher at St Catherine’s college. He has been an Eastbourne lad since coming to the UK aged 4. Like me, he is a Hampden Park boy, having attended local schools, and he now leads one. He is a role model not just for black children in Eastbourne, but for all children in my town.
Marie Baker runs EurAfro World, the specialist salon to which people travel from far and wide to experience the magic of Marie’s hairdressing. She runs far more than a salon, though. It has essentially become a community —a space that is oozing with heart, laughs and the juiciest of conversation. If people want to go anywhere for gossip in Eastbourne, they need to go to EurAfro World.
We are also home to the amazing Dante Hutchinson, who is a pro scooter rider. He is a four-time UK scooter champion and a one-time world champion, and he has inspired a generation of young people into the sport. He does Eastbourne so proud.
The last Eastbournian I will pay tribute to today is Mebrak, whose tenacious work for Eastbourne through Diversity Resource International has supported black communities in my town and beyond—including, I think, in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—through research, translation and support for black carers. I thank Mebrak today, too.
From my seaside home to this riverside House, there is much to celebrate. This is the most ethnically diverse Parliament ever. I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to the journeys that those folks of colour, particularly those black folks, have made in coming to this House. I recognise those who have sought to lift those black voices and bring them to this House, too. I am thinking of the likes of Operation Black Vote, the non-profit organisation that supports ethnic minorities to engage with and seek roles in civic life. OBV’s magistrates programme has seen dozens of black people contribute their experience and expertise to our criminal justice system, enhancing our court system’s capacity to dispense justice with fairness and equality.
Particularly close to my heart is OBV’s MP shadowing scheme and the Pathway to Success programme, which have supported so many to get a taste of what MP life is like. Many alumni of that programme are now Members of this place: my friend the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) is one, and I am another. I thank the man, the myth, the legend that is Lord Simon Woolley in the other place—the godfather of black British politics—for his decades of work to help make that happen. How could I forget our very own black fairy godmother of British politics, Baroness Floella Benjamin, who sits, pride of place, on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place?
Within my own party, it has meant a lot to have been part of the Stellar programme, which has supported me in my journey, first as a candidate and then as an MP, to break through the glass ceiling that the people of Eastbourne smashed so awesomely to the tune of 52% on 4 July. I am also proud of the Lib Dem campaign for race equality, headed up by Mohsin Khan and the amazing Roderick Lynch, to whom I send my best wishes, and the Lib Dem racial diversity campaign, led by Chris French, for the work that they have all done to support black people to stand for council and for this place. We have had inspirational councillors elected—Nancy Jirira, Tumi Hawkins, Ade Adeyemo and so many more. I know that other parties have equivalent schemes. Their work is super important in helping us to go even further in the next Parliament.
Black achievement in this place does not begin or end in this Chamber or the other place. I am so proud to work in this building alongside so many black House staff, without whom we can all agree this place would grind to a halt overnight. There are too many to pay individual tribute to in just one speech, but let me name just two, who I believe are watching, because Jennifer King in the Members’ Tea Room has arranged for them to slip away from behind the counter. They are Margaret and Godfrey. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
The first time I walked into the Members’ Tea Room, I was a nervous, brand-new MP days into the job. Then came Margaret, who knew my name, knew where I was from and took me under her wing. She gave me the biggest hug—and then, swiftly, came her and Godfrey’s rightful mocking that I, as a man with Nigerian blood, cannot tolerate spicy jollof. It makes me an awful half-Nigerian. Grandma, I am so sorry!
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Member has mentioned Margaret and Godfrey. Just to reassure them, there is as much love for both of them on the Labour Benches as there is on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Josh Babarinde
I am sure they heard that loud and clear, and I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Seriously, the response of folks like Margaret, Godfrey and many others has made me feel more welcome than so many other things could have in this House. I put on the record my thanks to them for their warmth, humour and generosity.
This House has come far, but there is still some work to do. I reflect on an anecdote, which I have permission to tell, involving me and my friend the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). Some Members can see where this is going.
It was week one or two for us as new MPs. I was sat in Portcullis House, and the hon. Member came up to me and asked, “Are you Josh?” I said, “Yeah, I am.” He said, “I’m Ben, and I know that you’re Josh, because three people have mistaken me for you already. Has anyone mistaken you for me?” I said, “No, mate, sorry.” [Laughter.] I jinxed it, because later that day it happened. I bumped into the hon. Member and said it was 3-1. We exchanged numbers. The following day, I received a message: “4-1”.
I was then out and about in my constituency at Airborne, which is the world’s largest free seafront airshow, held in what is officially the sunniest town in the UK. Some folks may know that the hon. Member for Huntington has a distinguished career in the armed forces. Somebody came up to me at Airborne and said, “It is so fantastic to see you. Great stuff. I’m really inspired by you—”, and I thought, “Oh wow, that is really kind.” Then they said, “And all the work you did in the Army.” I thought, “Oh my gosh, in my own constituency!” It then became 4-2, and I think it now stands at 4-3.
This House has come far, and the country has come so far, and I am not prepared to let a group of unpatriotic folks in the minority take us way back. We have some serious work to do to take things forward. We need to address the disproportionate use of stop and search. We need to tackle the disproportionate levels of incarceration: 26% of the youth custody population is black, compared with just 6% elsewhere. The fact that black men are twice as likely as other men to get prostate cancer is something else that we need to address. We also need to tackle the fact that maternal mortality is almost four times higher among black women than among white women, and we need to secure justice for the Windrush generation.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic speech, and I thank all the other Members who have spoken for theirs. They have really struck a chord.
The Windrush flows through the town of Witney and the rest of my constituency. The Empire Windrush was named after the river, so many in my constituency have a connection, which they honour, to that boat, which brought so many people to this country. I think many people in the constituency remember that everybody was invited—we in this country asked for help at the end of world war two, and that help was given—but too many in this country forget that. Black History Month does a great service in reminding us who asked for help.
I also want to give credit to the Government, because the Windrush compensation scheme—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. [Interruption.] Order. Both of us cannot be standing, and I am not going to be seated. You need to sit when I am standing. This is an intervention, not a speech, so I have no doubt that you are coming to a conclusion.
Charlie Maynard
I am. I thank the Government for their Windrush compensation scheme improvements, and I look forward to their moving much more speedily than the previous Government in delivering them.
Josh Babarinde
My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. I welcome the news that a Windrush commissioner will be appointed to help address the injustice that my hon. Friend so eloquently discussed.
I hope that I have illustrated, by spotlighting black excellence, what wonder and opportunity await us as we lift our black community. I wish to reclaim the narrative that a rising tide of racial equality truly lifts all ships. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to play our part in making that happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker
First, because I want to continue having my breakfast in the Tea Room, I wish to pay tribute to Godfrey and Margaret. Secondly, there is no doubt that anybody watching the debate will see so many trailblazers and people making history, and it is fantastic for me to be in the Chair to witness that too. I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the first black Liberal Democrat MP, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). We have talked about historical trailblazers, but we are all privileged to serve alongside trailblazers like him.
I want to talk about another trailblazer. It is such a joy to see the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), take her place and her space at the Government Dispatch Box. I congratulate her on making such an awesome speech. We were long overdue seeing a woman of Ghanaian descent at that Dispatch Box. I think we can all agree: what a woman! [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
We are surrounded by inspirations. It was a real honour to be able to listen to and learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). Yes, black fashion should be shown at its best and in all its glory, which is why I was happy to offer my very limited skills with an iron today.
It has been a privilege to hear the powerful contributions of colleagues so far. Black History Month is always a time when I know I will learn something new, hear something from a different perspective and share a fire and a renewed commitment to right far too many wrongs. Yes, Black History Month is a celebration—of course it is—but black history has been scarred by injustice. Sadly, that injustice is not confined to the history books; it is the lived experience of many of our colleagues and the people we represent. If we do not act, it will be the experience of future generations as well.
Not only are these disparities not confined to the history books, but they are not confined to one area of life. From work to pay, from education to health, all areas of society need to improve to ensure that we stop history repeating itself and ensure that equality is consistently aimed for and one day, hopefully in our lifetime, actually delivered.
We know of many brilliant black campaigners who have devoted their lives to campaigning for equality in this country, from the Bristol bus boycott campaigners Paul Stephenson and Roy Hackett to Baroness Lawrence, but we also know that far too many have died waiting to see the change that they need and deserve. At least 53 people who were victims of the Windrush scandal have died waiting for compensation for the injustice that saw the Home Office wrongfully deny British citizens, mostly from the Caribbean, access to work, healthcare and benefits. In the worst cases, people were threatened with deportation despite not only having the right to live in the UK but, as has been mentioned, playing an integral part in rebuilding our country after the war.
As the Minister said, our history and black history are intertwined. The Windrush generation should have been cause for gratitude, not scandal and hostility. Commitments to re-establish the Home Office’s Windrush unit and appoint a Windrush commissioner are incredibly welcome, but we also need assurances that lessons have genuinely been learned and that any future changes to immigration law will ensure that we never see another iteration of the Windrush scandal. I would welcome further detail on how the Home Office is working with victims to speed up the delivery of compensation to those who are still waiting.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East excellently outlined, black people face inequalities throughout their lives, in healthcare, employment, access to services and opportunity, to name just a few examples. That has been a focus of the Women and Equalities Committee, and I hope it will continue to be. In 2023, the Committee reported on black maternal health inequalities following the release of data showing that black women were more likely than white women to die in childbirth. Worryingly, the Committee found that black women were more likely to experience treatment that fell below acceptable levels and lacked dignity and respect, and that the needs of the patient were often ignored.
I have been lucky to meet inspirational campaigners such as Tinuke and Clo from Five X More. They continue to work with black families and healthcare providers to secure improvements, but change is too slow. In his recent review, Lord Darzi found that inequalities in maternity care persist, noting that black women are still almost three times as likely as white women to die in childbirth. That is not to mention the racism that many black healthcare workers have reported facing in their jobs and institutions. It sadly comes as no surprise to anyone that in any workplace, if you are black, you have to work much harder to progress and face additional burdens and discrimination.
Fear of discrimination can prevent black women from seeking support from their employer during times such as the menopause, making it difficult for women to access appropriate support or have their symptoms taken seriously. There is a double whammy of being an older woman and a black woman, and the Committee found that, as a result of that intersectionality, the difficulties faced by women undergoing the menopause were compounded for black women.
In September, I participated in a panel event organised by the Labour African Network discussing healthcare inequalities in the UK. I was struck by many of the contributions, but particularly by those of Davina Brown, a race ambassador in the GMB union—I declare an interest as a member—and a leader in the area of empowering black women in the workplace. She noted that black women face more criticism and insecurity in work than their white colleagues. In the NHS, the largest employer of women in the public sector, depending on the NHS trust, black women can be up to four times more likely to be involved in disciplinary proceedings.
Healthcare is not the only industry where the intersectionality of gender and race means that women sadly face additional barriers to protections, support and progress. As has been mentioned, black women are woefully under-represented in popular Olympic sports such as swimming, diving and cycling, as are black men, leading to a vicious circle where children grow up finding it hard to envisage themselves competing in those areas. As we heard from the Minister, if we do not see ourselves in others in positions of power or success, how can we envisage that for ourselves? We must have stronger pathways that specifically encourage black girls and young women to realise their potential and follow their ambitions in sport.
In football, we see a much more diverse picture; many of the current England men’s team are from black or mixed heritage backgrounds. However, the way they are treated by the press and the public—a notable example being the players who missed penalties in the 2021 men’s Euros final—shows the huge risk posed to those who play at the highest and most visible level. In women’s football, the diversity in English players leaves much more to be desired. I am grateful for the Football Association’s investment in reaching girls from diverse backgrounds, including through its Discover My Talent programme. However, with black and mixed race players held to much higher standards of behaviour than their white counterparts, and at greater risk of online hate, many of us worry how their future talents will be received.
The music industry is another area where equality is desperately lacking. In its report “Misogyny in music” last year, the Women and Equalities Committee heard evidence that black women are often overlooked for promotions and have their qualifications questioned. How many times have brilliant black MPs in this Chamber had to justify why they are here, been told that they are in the wrong lift, been confused with other MPs or even been handed a handbag to carry? I would have hoped that things would be different in areas such as sports and the arts that are so much more diverse and so much younger than politics, but even there, progress is far too slow. Data from Black Lives in Music shows that black women in the music industry are on average paid the least, and that they are paid 25% less than white women—that is shocking, but wait for the next one—and 52% less than white men. Nearly half of the black women the group corresponded with said that their mental wellbeing had significantly worsened in the music industry, and a fifth sought counselling because of racial abuse.
As a result of the inquiry, the Committee called for section 14 of the Equality Act 2010, which provides protection from discrimination on the basis of a combination of two relevant protected characteristics, to be brought into force, as well as for the introduction of ethnicity pay gap reporting. It is very welcome that the new Labour Government have committed to introducing both measures. We look forward to scrutinising progress in the year ahead, but any update the Minister has on those two vital commitments—ethnicity pay gap reporting and intersectionality protections—would always be welcome.
That is where I want to end, on hope—on the hope that things will not always stay the same, and that we can move forward together. As Charisse Beaumont, chief executive of Black Lives in Music, told the Committee,
“Unless we break or tackle racial discrimination, we cannot really tackle everything else”.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for someone recognising the difference between me and my friend the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde)!
I do not like talking about race. I do not like talking about the colour of someone’s skin, with the innuendo that often accompanies it, not because it is awkward and not for any lack of pride or identity, but simply because it is so rare for the context to be positive, as well as because of the inevitable abuse from those on the left that follows any contribution from Conservative Members. Sometimes the distance between the two sides of this Chamber is far greater than just two swords’ lengths.
My father met my mother in 1969 when they were teenagers, he the son of the Stool Chief of Apirede-Akuapem, Nana Oboni Ayim Nyarko III, she a white girl from West Sussex who worked in the local bank. Neither of them was a toolmaker or worked for the NHS, but I doubt that anyone will be surprised to learn that 1969 was not the cultural epoch of inter-racial relationships. It was hard—much harder than anything that I have ever had to go through. They faced prejudice that I could never imagine. But, as one might expect, they had the strength to persevere, and I am hugely proud of them because they are still together. This Christmas eve, it will be 55 years since they met, and they are still going strong. They blazed a trail that I, and thousands like me, have been able to follow. They never asked for any recognition or, I am sure, expected to receive any, but they absolutely grizzed it out, and I would not be standing here today if they had not lasted the course. Reclaiming the narrative started with their story and others like theirs.
Too often, we talk about life as a black Briton through the filter of injustice. We obsess over slavery and reparations, over grievances and micro-aggressions, over systemic and institutional racism. We unintentionally drip feed an invective of nihilistic victimhood and exculpable underachievement, and then we wonder why some find it so easy to look down on the black population, and why some within it are so unwilling to do their share of the heavy lifting.
We risk reinforcing a “them and us” narrative that tells black Britons that they are second-class citizens. We lazily accept a media landscape that revels in promoting the very worst aspects of black culture, repeatedly valorising criminality and violent gangs and exploiting negative stereotypes for commercial gain, without ever really holding to account the companies that happily do so. It is one of the contributing factors to the milieu that feeds concerns around stop and search on the one hand, and children carrying knives on the other. It is for all of us in this House to reclaim that narrative, recognising that it is not the historic narrative that we are saddled with, but a current one to which we are voluntarily yoked.
We have a responsibility in this House, whether we like it or not, to be role models for those who follow us. We who have the confidence, the talent or the simple good fortune to find ourselves in this place have shown that race need no longer be a barrier to success. We must recognise that. Reclaiming the narrative starts with those of us who are privileged enough to be a visible representation of what is possible. Not through all-black shortlists or well-meaning but clumsily implemented pushes to increase diversity that inevitably come at someone else’s expense, but because we earned it. I would never want to think that my success was in any way manufactured because somebody took pity on me because I am not white. Nor would I want that for anybody else.
Being black does not stop anyone from being selected in a rural Conservative seat, being the London mayoral candidate or running for the leadership of historically the most successful political party in the world. I am hugely proud to be British, to have served in the British Army and to be here now on the green Benches. I hope that others can feel that this country is one that they are proud to serve, too.
Generously, I will leave the last word to the Labour party, and in particular to the first black Cabinet Minister, Lord Boateng, on his promotion to Chief Secretary to the Treasury:
“My colour is part of me but I do not choose to be defined by my colour.”
For me, as somebody who does not like to talk about their race, that is one sentiment that makes the gap between the two sides of the House a little less than two swords’ length.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to a maiden speech from Liam Conlon.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who has been a friend of mine for many years, on securing the debate. This is the first time we have had a Black History Month debate in Government time. We are incredibly proud of her and everything that she is doing. I thank those who have spoken so far—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—for their brilliant contributions.
It is an honour to make my maiden speech in Black History Month, and I know that this debate will be welcomed by many of my constituents in Beckenham and Penge. We are proud of notable locals such as former children’s TV presenter Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham, Windrush lawyer and campaigner Jacqueline McKenzie, and my friend Michelle De Leon, the CEO and founder of World Afro Day.
Beckenham and Penge is a new constituency, so I have two predecessors I would like to thank. Colonel Bob Stewart served Beckenham for 14 years. He also served our country as the commander of UN forces in Bosnia, where he was deservedly awarded the distinguished service order. I would like to extend my very best wishes to Bob and his family.
I would also like to thank my good friend the Minister without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves). She has served our communities in Penge, Clock House and Crystal Palace with an unrivalled dedication for the past seven years, and she leaves a strong legacy that I will strive to build on. It would be remiss of me to mention one of the Reeves sisters without paying tribute to our new Chancellor, who is the first female Chancellor. The Chancellor and the Minister without Portfolio both attended Cator Park School for Girls in Penge. When I visit local schools, I always talk about them—they are an inspiration to so many girls and young women in my constituency, and we are incredibly proud of them.
When Colonel Bob Stewart made his maiden speech, he described Beckenham by saying:
“Politically, it is a fabulous place. It has been a Tory hotbed for ever.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 215.]
Once upon a time that was true—we count John Major among our former residents—but 14 years on, I am delighted to update the House: today it is in fact the Labour party that has the strongest connections to my constituency. Beckenham and Penge is home to not one but two former general secretaries of the Labour party, who oversaw two of our greatest victories, in 1997 and 2024 respectively: Lord Tom Sawyer and the mighty David Evans. We also have the longest serving chair of the parliamentary Labour party, Lord Cryer, and a former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, my good friend Lord Monks. I can tell hon. Members that knowing that all those people were watching me as a candidate was one way to keep me out campaigning in all weathers.
Beckenham and Penge is a rich tapestry of distinct and diverse communities. It stretches from the SE20 postcode in Crystal Palace, where no fewer than 19 world records have been set—it is the spiritual home of UK Athletics—and where there is a historic park, grade 1 listed dinosaurs, and Crystal Palace Bowl, in which Bob Marley played his largest ever UK gig, all the way through to the beautiful BR postcodes of Shortlands, West Wickham and Beckenham, where former resident David Bowie launched his music career. I am incredibly proud of my London Irish identity, so it is special to represent the only place in London with a Gaelic place name—Penge, meaning “edge of the woods”.
Coming back to the subject of today’s debate, I should say that there has always been a lot of solidarity between the Irish and Caribbean and African communities in London, who encountered a shared experience of discrimination. As has been mentioned, they were invited to this country to staff our NHS, build our roads and help make our country the great place it is to live. They were often met with discrimination, including signs on windows that read “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish”. That shared experience of living on the edge of society caused trauma but brought about solidarity between those communities. That solidarity is important, and it represents the best of Labour values, too.
Each place and community in Beckenham and Penge has its own history and story to tell. Although our communities are diverse and distinct, we are also connected and united by shared values of solidarity and care, and the belief that everyone should be able to fulfil their potential and that we are stronger together than alone. Those are the values that shape my political outlook, too. They come from an understanding of society rooted in my experience of the NHS as a teenager, and of disability ever since.
Let me tell you what happened to me. When I was 13, the day after we broke up for the summer holidays in year 8, I had an accident in which I shattered my right hip. That led to irreversible damage to my knee and spine. From that point onwards, I was unable to walk for four years. I was taken to the Royal London hospital and later to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. At the Royal London, I was incredibly fortunate to be placed in the care of Dr Mark Paterson, one of the best orthopaedic paediatric consultants in the country. Mark performed nearly 10 major surgeries on me as a teenager. I was then transferred to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital where, as a sixth former, I became one of the youngest people in Britain to have a hip replacement.
Throughout those years, I spent nearly as much time on NHS children’s wards as I did in the school classroom —so much so that I had to drop most of my GCSEs to focus on my core subjects. I was then forced to go back a year at school. Every year, hundreds of children in Britain are admitted to long-term care in NHS hospitals, just as I was, but although it is in many ways a grim reality, my experience of NHS children’s wards, especially the Grosvenor B ward at the Royal London hospital, was that they are also places of great hope, deep compassion and world-class care.
Today I want to say thank you to the countless NHS staff and volunteers who helped me throughout those years. They quite literally got me back on my feet, and paved the way for me to become the first in my family to go to university. To the consultants, surgeons, physios, junior doctors, nurses, receptionists and hospital cleaning staff: thank you. I will pay my gratitude to you forward by using my voice in this place to fight for the NHS, just as the NHS fought for me.
But my experiences on leaving hospital also shaped my understanding of the world around me. I realised at first hand, at a young age, the million different challenges that disabled people face every day, and how invisible they are to anyone else. Today, disabled people are among the most marginalised in Britain. There is a disability employment gap in this country of 29%. Only one in four disabled children has access to sport at school, and millions of disabled people in this country face the indignity of not being able to access public spaces, or even board a train. I do not need to read a briefing to know what that feels like. It is why representation matters, and why I am determined to make my voice heard, as one of the disabled MPs in this Parliament.
I hope that when my successor comes to make their maiden speech, Beckenham and Penge will be an even better place to live; that our NHS and public services will be available to everyone, whenever they need them; and that we will be living in a society that is fairer and more inclusive of disabled people, and in a country that recognises its diversity as a strength to be celebrated and championed. I will work hard to make those things happen, for as long as I am lucky enough to represent my community in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was a memorable maiden speech. I call Siân Berry.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. Like others, I thank the Minister for her commitment to further action on redress for the Windrush scandal. I also commend the Commonwealth nations, which are making sure that there is a conversation internationally about redress and action on reparations for the transatlantic trade in trafficked and enslaved Africans. I applaud the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for her powerful arguments on that point earlier.
I will take the opportunity to talk a little about Brighton today, particularly the Brighton & Hove Black History group. It was formally launched in 2002 and is now a thriving team of local volunteers from very diverse cultural backgrounds. It owes its existence to the passion and dedication of Bert Williams MBE, who has spent so much of his retired life researching and presenting the multicultural history of our city. The Brighton & Hove Black History website is an amazing resource for finding out about the impact that black residents have had on the city throughout its whole history, and it is full of beautifully presented photographs. Everyone should visit it.
Today, there is a lot to celebrate about Brighton and how it looks at its history, including its black history. Afrori Books in North Road has been running since 2021 and was founded by Carolynn Bain as a safe space for black people and their allies. Carolynn was inspired to open the shops because
“I was tired of going to bookstores and having to search for ages to find the tiny BAME section that had been allocated to Black authors. Surely, they deserved more than that?”.
Afrori delivers anti-racism training to adults. It runs anti-racist clubs in schools across Sussex. It has hair workshops, author events, women of colour yoga sessions, writers’ workshops, music events, a book festival and so much more.
In Brighton we are also very lucky to have the brilliant Black & Minority Ethnic Community Partnership centre, a sustainable resource centre that champions the black minority ethnic community in Brighton and Hove, owns its own building—such a big thing for groups like that —and supports BME communities and their families in so many ways. I have met young refugees there, and long-retired Caribbean nurses, all playing their part in our brilliant community.
I cannot omit to mention some of our incredible local artists. We have AFLO. the poet, an amazing spoken-word artist who uses poetry as a vehicle to address racism and mental health issues. We have Fox Fisher, an incredible non-binary artist, author, film-maker and educator who is cherished in our LGBTQ community. We have Jordan Stephens and Harley Alexander-Sule, better known as Rizzle Kicks, and QM Records, a Brighton-based label and events company founded and run by Ned and Nicholson from the well-known local band Normanton Street. I could go on, because those are only a few of the amazing, creative people who are leading the way in Brighton.
Now in its third year, led by its directors Carolynn Bain of Afrori Books, Althea Wolfe and John Mayford, Brighton book festival is a grassroots festival with equity at its heart. The directors’ aim was to create another space in Brighton where writers from under-represented backgrounds would be the main focus, and where diverse audiences could see themselves reflected.
In August, for reasons that should not have been required, I became just one of thousands of people who joined in powerful collective action in response to far-right riots and threatened racist action against members of our community. As always, Brighton and Hove came together to say loud and clear that those who spread hatred, fear, fascism and racism have no place in our city. As has happened earlier in our history, thousands of Brightonians defended the values for which our city is well known. This is an important part of building a better history for our future, and confronting and defeating the racism in our communities.
Brighton faces challenges, as all places do—we have heard Members say that powerfully. We have seen the rise in hate crimes nationally, with hundreds of racist hate incidents and crimes every year. The safety of black people in Sussex is not helped by the fact that, according to the most recent statistics, they are more than eight times as likely to be stopped and searched by police as white people. According to Home Office data on rates of stop and search by race found that the equivalent of nearly 30 black people in every 1,000 living in our area were stopped in a 12-month period. That is not proportionate, and it does not help to keep people safe.
Strip-searching children is also one of the most racialised tactics used by the police, who are six times more likely to strip-search black children, and I am glad that the Children’s Commissioner for England has taken up this countrywide children’s rights issue. Every police service needs to take action to prevent this traumatic practice from causing further harm. I recently met representatives of StopWatch, which does fantastic work on strip-searching, as well as on institutionalised racism in the justice system more broadly. The Runnymede Trust has conducted excellent analysis, adopting an evidence-based approach to tackling the causes of the racist riots during the summer. We must continue to pay attention, and do much more to ensure that all the ways in which overt and systemic racism affects black people in our city and our country are brought into the open and confronted honestly.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Let me first thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. This week, when asked about reparations for slavery, the Prime Minister replied that he was facing forward. Does the hon. Member agree that in order to face forward we must know our past, and does she think that it should become compulsory in our education system to learn about race, empire, colonialism and slavery?
Siân Berry
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member about education. As for his point about reparations, the echoes of this injustice will not simply fade away; we need to talk about it and take action.
Let me end by talking about one more injustice. Jay Abatan was murdered in Brighton outside a nightclub in January 1999. No one has ever been convicted for his killing, and his brother Michael, who was there on the night Jay was attacked, has spent 25 years campaigning for justice. I have met him several times over the past year at community events, and at a vigil on the anniversary of Jay’s death. Sussex police have apologised to the family for how the case was handled, but I know that Members supported my predecessor’s early-day motion expressing concern about the fact that Jay’s murderers have still not been brought to justice. I hope I can rely on the same support from Members here for any action that I take on the Abatans’ behalf, for the echoes of this injustice, too, will never fade until we take such action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I now call a fellow Brummie, Paulette Hamilton.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I start by thanking everyone who has spoken in the debate so far. It is an honour to speak today in recognition of Black History Month, a time to reflect on the immense contributions of the black community across the United Kingdom and around the world. This year’s theme, “Reclaiming Narratives,” could truly not be more fitting. We are at a turning point in our country’s history, where the stories that we tell can shape the future for generations to come. My parents, like many others, helped to shape the city I was born in through their hard work and determination. They laid the foundations for me to become Birmingham’s first black Member of Parliament.
As a proud child of the Windrush generation, I stand here with immense pride and gratitude for the black history that has shaped my own journey and the journey of countless others. It is essential that we acknowledge the challenges that we continue to face, but more importantly, we must celebrate the progress that we have made and the potential that lies ahead. Last week I had the privilege of hosting a Black History Month event in my constituency of Birmingham Erdington, and I was proud to stand alongside a panel of black trailblazers who have broken barriers, opened doors and created lasting legacies for others. Among them were some extraordinary figures, including Birmingham City Council’s first black deputy leader, Councillor Sharon Thompson, the Deputy Mayor of the West Midlands; the first black MP to represent her constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who was absolutely brilliant; and the first black woman to chair the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). All those people demonstrate the power of reclaiming narratives through their leadership. This is not just about the victories of the present; we must lay the foundations for future progress.
For me, the theme of reclaiming narratives is deeply personal. I would not be standing here as a Member of Parliament were it not for the black leaders, mentors and role models who have inspired me. One such figure is the incredible Mary Seacole, a pioneering nurse and a woman of extraordinary resilience, who was the inspiration behind my own decision to become a nurse—a profession to which I dedicated 25 years of my life. Her courage, her commitment to caring for soldiers in the Crimean war, and her unwavering determination to serve when society sought to marginalise her because of the colour of her skin, showed me that one individual’s actions can, and do, change the course of history.
Mary Seacole was denied a place in British history for far too long, but as we reclaim our narrative we recognise her not just as a footnote, but as a giant in the history of healthcare. It is in this spirit that I stand here today: to remind us all of the need to highlight those who have been overlooked, to rewrite the history books, and to empower future generations with the knowledge that they, too, can make history.
Black history is British history, which means that it is everyone’s history. The 2024 general election was a landmark moment, because we have the most diverse Parliament in British history—90 ethnic minority MPs were elected, which is a milestone in representation. Britain’s diversity of voices is its strength, but while we celebrate this achievement, we must not stop making progress. The journey towards equality is far from finished.
Our responsibility is to promote an environment in which black history is not confined to one month of the year, but recognised and celebrated every single day. We celebrate Black History Month to remember. We celebrate Black History Month to honour. We celebrate Black History Month to educate. I urge all Members to continue to challenge the narratives that divide us, to ensure that when we tell the story of Britain, we tell it in full, acknowledging the contributions, sacrifices and legacies of black people who have shaped our country’s past and present, and who will shape its future.
As we move forward, let us remind ourselves that it is not just about breaking barriers; it is about ensuring that those barriers are never rebuilt, and creating opportunities for others to follow. Let us be inspired by the courage and determination of those who came before us, and let us commit to ensuring that we are not the last but the first of many. Let us continue to reclaim our narratives. Let us continue to build a future where every story is told and every contribution is recognised. Let us continue to inspire.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have made such brilliant speeches today. I pay particular compliments to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), for supporting me on my journey into politics. I do not come from a political background—I come from a military and self-employed business background—but when I met my hon. Friend during a couple of political engagements, she saw something in me, supported me and gave me some good counsel. She even came out and campaigned for me, so I thank her for her support.
I am honoured to be here representing Southend East and Rochford and discussing Black History Month. The theme of this year’s Black History Month is “reframing the narrative.” To do that, I want to champion the contribution of black inventors, black scientists, black scholars, black literature, black journalists and black innovators. I also want to acknowledge the history of black military personnel. Finally, I want to talk about black excellence in the arts, culture and the creative industries.
In celebrating black inventors, scientists and mathematicians —I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), as a technical person, will appreciate this—I pay tribute to Lewis Latimer and Morgan Garrett. Lewis Latimer, who was born in Massachusetts in 1848, invented the carbon filament found in light bulbs, giving us long-lasting light. Morgan Garrett, who was born in Kentucky in 1877, invented the gas mask and the traffic lights system, which, as we know, has gone on to save tens of thousands of lives.
Coming closer to these shores, I pay tribute to Walter Tull, who was born in Folkestone in 1888. He was one of England’s first black professional football players, going on to play for Tottenham—I didn’t say he was perfect. [Laughter.] Tull went on to be one of the first black officers in the British Army, serving with credit in world war one. Tragically, he was fatally shot in northern France in March 1918.
A number of Members have spoken about the history of the UK. The original wall surrounding the city of London was built by Severus, who was the first African emperor of the Roman empire. He built the city of London wall to protect the citadel of London, as it was then. A number of hon. Members have spoken about black history being British history, and the wall is a testament to how far back black history goes.
As we are approaching Remembrance Day and talking about reshaping narratives, it would be remiss of me not to mention and champion the West African Division, formerly the West African Frontier Force. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned the commitment, dedication and sacrifice of people from the Afro-Caribbean community who gave everything to the armed forces and the British empire, and the West African Division is a testament to that. The West African Frontier Force was formed in 1915, and was renamed as the West African Division in 1943. It comprised men from Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and The Gambia. Thousands were drafted in to fight in Burma, which, as many hon. Members will know, saw some of the harshest and fiercest fighting during the second world war. The West African Division stood shoulder to shoulder with soldiers from India and Britain as they fought the Japanese enemy at the time. It is crucial that the commitment and sacrifice—sometimes the ultimate sacrifice—of those men is remembered whenever we talk about the contribution of colonial and Commonwealth soldiers in the second world war.
When talking about black excellence here in the UK, we have to talk about our huge contribution to the arts, film and, of course, the music industry. Steve McQueen is a director whose most notable films are “12 Years a Slave” and “Lover’s Rock”. Courtney Pine is an internationally recognised musician who I have had the pleasure of seeing many a time. Writer, director and multiple literary prize winner Malorie Blackman is the person behind books such as “Noughts & Crosses” and “Boys Don’t Cry”. Last but by no means least is my childhood friend Randall McNeil, also known as DJ Randall. Randall was an internationally acclaimed pioneer of UK drum and bass and the dance industry. He helped transform the UK dance industry with his style, skill and personality. Sadly, we lost Randall earlier this year.
Finally, given that we are here in the House of Commons Chamber, which has an immense history, I pay tribute to the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). As we know, she became the first black woman to be elected to the House in 1987. She inspired a generation and paved the way for many of us to follow her.
I am the first black Labour MP for Southend East and Rochford. The result of my election was declared about an hour before that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), so perhaps I am being slightly creative here—
Mr Alaba
My hon. Friend’s result was declared 20 minutes after mine, and we became Southend’s first black MPs.
It is really important to talk about reframing narratives. Black history has too often been seen through the prism of the transatlantic slave trade and the American civil rights movement, so I want to talk about how black British history has affected the United Kingdom. Including black people harmonises history better and more accurately, improving community cohesion and economic prosperity. By telling a more accurate story and referencing the African diaspora’s impact on society, we can do just that—we reframe the narrative.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
No doubt the Mother of the House will be referenced throughout the debate; it is best not to refer to Members by their names, but by their constituencies or, in this case, as Mother of the House. I now call Jacob Collier to make his maiden speech.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the contributions today, in particular that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who spoke so powerfully about his personal experiences. I know he will be a great champion for his constituency.
I am honoured to be the Member of Parliament for the newly renamed Burton and Uttoxeter constituency—a community rich in history and diversity. Although there were no boundary changes, the inclusion of Uttoxeter recognises the proud people and industries that are integral to our area. I am further honoured to be delivering my maiden speech in this debate on Black History Month, which reminds us of the importance of recognising the contributions of black Britons, past and present, to our society. In my constituency, the Burton Caribbean Association has supported residents for more than 45 years. Its efforts have enriched our community and celebrated the heritage of black Britons in our towns, and I look forward to supporting its work.
As I serve in this House, I commit to representing the diverse communities across my constituency, ensuring that their voices are heard, their contributions celebrated and their challenges addressed. We all have a duty to ensure that black history is British history, woven into the fabric of our national identity not just for one month, but all year round. It is essential that we not only recognise that history, but address the challenges of inequity that remain.
To be elected to this House is the greatest honour that anyone can bestow, but have the opportunity to serve your home town, as I do, is particularly special. I grew up in Stretton and went to local schools, William Shrewsbury and de Ferrers—the primary schoolteacher who appointed me to the school council all those years ago that she has a lot to answer for. On the campaign trail, I bumped into many of my former teachers and schoolfriends, including my former headteacher, Mrs Hunter. While I was campaigning after becoming an MP, a former teacher said, “I must be getting old, my former student is now my MP.”
You can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, how strange this must feel for my parents, who are watching this debate. I believe they were the hardest-working parents of any candidate across the country and without them I could not do this job. They have been with me from the very beginning—quite literally. I come from a military family and I am proud of the service of my brother, alongside all who wear the uniform of our country and defend our freedom. As Remembrance Day approaches, it serves as a powerful moment to reflect on those who have given their lives in service to our country, and to honour the sacrifices made by veterans, current service personnel and their families. The values of duty, service and sacrifice are not just words; they are the lived experiences of everyone who serves, and I will always advocate for ensuring that they receive the respect, care, and support they have earned.
I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Kate Kniveton, who served in this House from 2019 until the last election. Like me, she is a Burtonian and a former employee at the Burton Albion football club. Kate used to manage hospitality and I used to manage the bar in the stand, so I am used to managing difficult people—such as Opposition Members. I commend Kate’s courage and bravery in speaking out about the sexual violence she faced. For any woman to go through that privately must be unimaginable, but to waive anonymity and do so in the public eye to help other women is commendable. She undoubtedly helped others through speaking out, and I wish her and her daughter well for the future.
I also recognise my Labour predecessor and friend, Janet Dean, who served as the MP for Burton from 1997 to 2010. When Janet was elected to this House, I was not quite born yet—apologies if I have made anybody feel old—but it was Janet and her colleagues in that Labour Government who gave children like me new textbooks, new play equipment, smaller class sizes and specialist support for more vulnerable children. Much of that has now been unpicked, and it falls to this Government to give kids today the opportunities that I and my generation had under that last Labour Government. Janet has continued to dedicate herself to serving the community and can still be found helping out in Uttoxeter, particularly at Redfern’s Cottage, where she makes a mean cheese scone.
I am delighted to represent a constituency that is diverse in both its people and its places. We have two major towns surrounded by many beautiful villages. Our largest town, Burton upon Trent, is best known for its brewing heritage. We are still the heart of UK brewing today, with large companies such as Molson Coors and Marston’s and independent brewers such as Burton Bridge, Uttoxeter Brewing Company and Tower Brewery. We often hear the remark that there must be something in the water, but in Burton there literally is: our water is rich in calcium sulphate, creating the ideal formula for pale ales and bitter—so much so that many other places copied us through a process called Burtonisation. Members are of course welcome to join me in sampling the original and the best.
The iconic red triangle of Bass became the world’s first ever registered trademark. Because of Bass’s global reach, it can be found all over the world, though of course, hon. Members will spot it in the many wonderful pubs across my constituency. The Devonshire Arms and the Coopers Tavern are my personal favourites. During my time in the House I will be an advocate for the brewing industry and our pubs, which are a key part of not only our history, but of our present and future.
In Burton, more than 15 different languages are spoken. We have vibrant Pakistani, Polish and Romanian cultures. That mix of cultures makes us stronger and is in keeping with the motto of our county of Staffordshire, “The Knot Unites”. If you head north-west from Burton, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will probably do so on the A50, where you will most likely end up in congestion—do not worry: that is something I am working on with the Roads Minister, who happens to be on the Front Bench—but eventually, you will end up in the town of Uttoxeter.
Uttoxeter is a beautiful and proud town with a rich history of agriculture and manufacturing, and is home to Uttoxeter racecourse. In the short time I have been Uttoxeter’s MP, I have heard several quite strange pronunciations of the town’s name from hon. Members. Local people, however, fondly refer to the town as at “Utch” or “Utcheter”—I apologise to the Hansard reporters for the difficulty I have just caused. In Rocester we find the iconic yellow diggers of JCB, which is headquartered and has several factories in my constituency. I am proud of the ingenuity and innovation that we have locally, and I will continue to stand up for British manufacturing during my time in this House.
As this Government put service back at the heart of public life, there are so many of my constituents who go out of their way to help others, volunteering in food banks and youth clubs and running community activities. I have been humbled to visit some of these groups, from the BAC O’Connor Centre to the Sexual Abuse Rape Advice Centre, Burton YMCA, Burton HOPE, Uttoxeter Heath Community Centre and The Community Church, and I look forward to visiting many more during my time in this House.
Before being elected I was a communication officer for Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue service, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all my former colleagues and to this country’s firefighters, control and support staff for the dedicated work they do to keep us safe. I look forward to continuing my association with the Fire Service in Parliament.
Upon taking up my role in this House, I sadly left my role as a Unison workplace trade union rep, but it was with great pride that on Monday I voted for the Employment Rights Bill, which is just one part of Labour’s new deal for working people. I believe that that Bill, like the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, will be one of the landmark pieces of legislation by a Labour Government. It will transform the lives of workers across the country, strengthening their rights, ensuring fair treatment and restoring balance in a system that has too often been skewed against working people. As a proud trade unionist, I will continue the fight for working people in this House, ensuring that their voices are heard and securing the rights they deserved.
I thank my constituents for the honour they have given me of serving them. Every day that I am in this House, I will work to serve them to the very best of my ability.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I wish to start by thanking the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), for securing this debate—the first that we have had in Government time—in the name of the Prime Minister. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for all the work that she has done in encouraging this debate into the House. I also wish to recognise my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) who made their maiden speeches today, and everybody else who has contributed to this debate. My stomach is telling me that it would be remiss of me not to also recognise Margaret and Godfrey. [Laughter.]
Black history is my history, but, as so many have said today, it is all of our history in this country. The fact that, this year, the theme is reclaiming the narrative, celebrating the changemakers, is not lost on me. This debate is needed so much after the riots that we saw in this country over the summer. I am so pleased that that division did not get its way in this country and that this Government acted quickly to stamp it out. Communities, including my own in Southend West and Leigh, came together and said with one voice, “Division does not belong here.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me for a moment, I wish to share a bit of my narrative. Some often say that I am the human form of the United Nations, and I shall give the House a bit of an idea as to why that is. My mum is white. Her father—my grandad, David Sampson—was half-Scottish, half-French. Then we move to my nan, Ellen Hansen, who was half-Cornish, half-Danish; her dad was half-Dutch. Then we move on to my dad. Edmund Danns, his dad, was from Berbice, a sugar plantation town in British Guiana. As we have heard from so many, Edmund took up the call during the second world war to join the British Navy. By 1941, he was one of 42 people who had joined the British Navy from British Guiana.
After the war, he continued his career on the sea and joined the Merchant Navy. It was at a stop in Liverpool that he met my grandmother in 1956. She was Irene Bedford, and her dad was a gentleman called Siar Bofferd, who became known as Edward Bedford, or Buffer to his mates. He came from Liberia. Edward arrived in Liverpool as a seaman, and it was there that he met his wife, Mary Kelly. Have a guess where she was from—yes, Ireland. Members can now start to see how I embody the United Nations. Edward remained in Liverpool, and, during the war, he served in the Royal Navy, as many did, including those in the black community. These people were giving their service to this country, and that was happening well before the second world war.
In the 1960s, my nan and grandad married. My nan, Irene, was subject to terrible racism in Liverpool, which happened in so many black communities throughout these lands. Edmund had to give up sailing, because he was concerned about his wife’s safety, so he took a job in a factory. Members can only imagine the racism that Mary Kelly experienced in 1925. She was an Irish immigrant married to a Liberian gentleman—they had black children.
Unfortunately, we all know that discrimination and racism have continued through the years. Yes, things have got better, but they still very much exist. I, along with many Members, have experienced this racism just simply because of the colour of my skin. The assumptions that have been made about me because of the colour of my skin are simply unacceptable. It is even worse today, as we see the effect of online racism. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East has been very clear about the impact that that has had on her and so many others.
Interestingly, because I was brought up in a one-parent family, with my white mum, in a very white community in Liverpool, I saw myself as part of the white community. I did not really explore my black culture. The kids at school showed a little bit of racism towards me, but in the main, they did not see my colour, which meant that I did not see my colour. It was only once I left school and entered the world of work that that racism really became prominent.
I was very fortunate to work at the Maritime Museum in Liverpool in 1997. I was an actor at the time, believe it or not, and I took on a small part in an exhibition about emigrating to the New World. It was an absolutely brilliant exhibition in its basement site, and just next to it was a very small exhibition: just a couple of stands with some information. That was the slavery museum—it was so small that you would miss it. But by 2007, the Maritime Museum had created the International Slavery Museum, which took up the whole third floor of the building. I am delighted to hear that by 2028, that museum will have been significantly expanded. It is a permanent memorial to the struggles that can never be forgotten, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) is so lucky to have it in her constituency. I hope we can all go up there and see the new museum in 2028 once it is built.
Many of us in this Chamber and in this country have never been subject to slavery or apartheid, but that does not mean that we have not suffered. We have heard today about the suffering that so many people have experienced. We must not forget the contribution that black people have made to our society to make it the great British society that it is today. I am talking in particular about the Windrush generation, who we have heard so much about already. They helped to rebuild this country. They took up positions in transport, in domestic services, in hospitality and most notably in the health service. I am delighted to hear about the creation of the Windrush commissioner: those victims’ voices have to be heard, and they have to get the compensation that they rightfully deserve.
Representation is so important. As a young black kid, I often did not see representation above me in positions like this. We have already recognised the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), alongside two other Members elected to this place in 1987: they were the first black Members to be elected to this place since the last one left here in 1893, almost 100 years earlier. That was Peter McLagan, a Scottish MP, and he was one of only four black Members who had sat in this place before 1987. But look at today: 14% of people in this place are from ethnic minorities, 41% are women and almost 10% are LGBTQ+ Members. We are now a Parliament that is much more representative of this country. Just as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) thanked his party for its work to ensure greater diversity, I thank my party for its work in getting us here today.
Regrettably, that representation is not the same everywhere. In business, as of March this year, there were zero FTSE 100 companies that had a black chair, a black chief executive officer, a black chief financial officer or a black chief product officer. Black employees hold just 1.5% of leadership roles in UK private companies, despite making up about 4.2% of the population. We have to remove the barriers to opportunity. Does the glass ceiling exist? I do not know, but there is something stopping people getting through. We need to help people break through it, if it does exist. This Government’s new office for equality and opportunity and their equality, race and disability Bill are a good start.
I thank those who like to create cohesive communities, including many in my constituency of Southend West and Leigh. I have a little message for those who ask, “When are we going to have white history month?”. Let me tell you: you have white history month every day: it is in your school curriculum, it is in the museums and it is everywhere around you. We need the same for Black History Month, because we belong here just as much as everybody else.
We need to learn from the past to drive a better future. In this place, we need to ensure that the laws and the changes we make create opportunities for all, no matter what their background is. I urge the Minister to ensure that equality and opportunity are at the heart of our Government’s five missions. Everyone should be given the opportunity to live their best life—their most authentic life—to the max.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jenny Riddell-Carpenter to make her maiden speech.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
It is an honour to deliver my maiden speech in this debate. May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), or Burton and Utch, for providing such great insight and a touching story of the constituency.
It is an honour and an incredible privilege to stand here today as the Member of Parliament for Suffolk Coastal, a seat that for the first time in its history now has a Labour MP. My journey to this place is, in no small part, down to the dedication and hard work of the incredible local Labour party, an army of dedicated volunteer campaigners who believed it possible when few else did. They worked tirelessly, with a dedication that has inspired and moved me beyond words. I put on the record my gratitude and thanks to each of them for their work, not just in Suffolk Coastal but beyond Suffolk.
I took over the seat from the right honourable Dame Thérèse Coffey, who had represented it since 2010. I would like to thank her for her service to Suffolk Coastal. I know that the election came at a particularly challenging time for Dame Thérèse and her family, and I know that it cannot have been an easy campaign to fight. I send her and her family the warmest of well wishes.
I pay tribute to Dame Thérèse’s predecessor, the right honourable Lord Deben, who is well known to this House as John Gummer. Despite our political differences, Lord Deben is someone I look up to as a role model for what a dedicated and committed constituency MP looks like. In fact, as Suffolk Coastal was the seat I grew up in, I have many memories of Lord Deben from when I was a child. At schools, at fêtes and at many events, it always seemed impossible to meet someone who did not know or had not met the right honourable John Gummer. He remains to this day a dedicated champion for my constituency, and he has been a forthright and vocal advocate for the environment for many decades, since long before it became fashionable. I look forward to taking that work forward myself in Suffolk Coastal. I give a similar commitment to protecting the environment and making sure that we improve nature, increase bio- diversity and do more to clean up our rivers and seas.
When I say that it is a privilege to represent that incredible place, Suffolk Coastal, it is a statement that I do not make lightly. For me, it is a deeply personal responsibility, because I am not just a new MP. I am also a local MP: Suffolk Coastal is where I was brought up. I was raised in Martlesham Heath, just outside Woodbridge. It is the place that shaped me, and I could not be more honoured to represent the community that my family call home.
You may know of Suffolk Coastal, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is home to some of the most beautiful seaside market towns and villages in our country. Beautiful Southwold, Saxmundham, Aldeburgh, Walberswick and Orford—these are just some of the places in my constituency that bring thousands of people to Suffolk each year and were backdrops of my own childhood. In fact, it is such a special corner of the country that many Members of both Houses, and on both sides, seem to have retired there. My current tally is that eight retired peers are constituents of mine. If the trend continues, we may find that at the next boundary review Suffolk Coastal is renamed Westminster-by-Sea.
I know why each of them is drawn to this special place. It is for the same reason that I freely and frequently boast about the beauty and rich history of Suffolk Coastal. For a small corner of the UK, we have played a huge part in British history across arts, music and culture, as well as defence, agriculture, trade and technology. Southwold, which is now a magnet for tourists, was home to George Orwell in his youth. He took his name from the River Orwell, which marks the southernmost point in my constituency. We are also home to the most important Anglo-Saxon site in the UK, Sutton Hoo. The story of its discovery has been retold on Netflix’s “The Dig”. I recently visited the Sutton Hoo Ship’s Company in Woodbridge and was amazed to see the work of hundreds of volunteers to build a full-size reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo burial ship—a pioneering task to recreate an important piece of our local history.
While my neighbour the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) can boast of his constituency being home to Ed Sheeran, Suffolk Coastal flies the flag for Benjamin Britten and his partner, the opera singer Peter Pears. If Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears were alive today, they would be celebrating Black History Month and using the arts and music to tell the stories that matter locally and globally. Archives held in the Red House—their former home in Aldeburgh, which is open to the public—show that Benjamin Britten stood in solidarity with the African National Congress during the pivotal trials of 1963.
Suffolk Coastal’s contributions to the UK are evident today. We are proud to be the engine of growth for the region. We are home to the port of Felixstowe, the United Kingdom’s largest container port, and we boast of being home to BT’s Adastral Park, a national centre of digital innovation with more than 150 businesses in the tech cluster. Although we are proud to host big businesses, we also have a unique entrepreneurialism that is deep-rooted in each of our communities. Across Felixstowe, Leiston, Saxmundham, Woodbridge and beyond, we have a strong community of business owners and entrepreneurs. In fact, across the Suffolk coast last year, we saw 54% growth in microbusinesses, more than 10 times the national average.
For all its charm and beauty, however, there is much that lies beneath, hiding in plain sight in our beautiful seaside towns and charming villages. We have a special educational needs and disabilities crisis that is no less severe in Suffolk Coastal than it is across the rest of Suffolk and the east of England. We have real deprivation in some of our rural towns. This rural poverty cuts across all age groups: we have young families struggling with the cost of living, we have people struggling to access and stay in work, and we have an older population who are often isolated in rural communities, with few or no bus services to connect them to the amenities and health services that they need most.
Next week will be my mum’s 80th birthday, but she does not know that we will be celebrating her. She does not know that I am giving this speech today or indeed that her daughter is the MP for the place that she called home for so long. She has no idea that I am advocating for greater support for the disease that has taken her from us. In Suffolk Coastal, we have one of the highest rates of dementia in our country. I have no choice but to advocate for the fight against that disease, because I have seen at first hand, up close and personal, how terrible it is.
Two years ago, I had to make the heartbreaking decision to move my mum into care—to pack her bags and drive her to her first care home. I thought and perhaps hoped that that day would be a low point—that it would be my own rock bottom in my journey to supporting mum—but it was just the beginning of a year-long struggle to get mum into the right care. She was kicked out of three care homes and ended up in hospital for six weeks, taking up a bed in a ward while the system tried to find her a suitable home. She lasted three months at the next care home before I started a one-woman campaign to try to get her sectioned. I would not wish that experience on anyone. Trying to get someone sectioned is—heartbreakingly—an act of love, because you know it is the last-ditch, desperate attempt to get the help and medical support that your loved one needs.
Luckily, today that is all behind us, and mum is now safe and well, cared for in a care home, but the crisis for other families is still very much alive. Since I have been elected to this place, I have lost count of the number of times that desperate families have reached out to me with an all too familiar tale. It is these things that fuel my determination to make every day in this place count and ensure that I speak up for those who have been forgotten and left behind or do not have a voice to speak up for themselves. I look forward to playing my part in Parliament.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), who gave a powerful and moving maiden speech. I reassure her that I will be in the trenches alongside her in the fight to support those with dementia and their families. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who gave a very good maiden speech, and my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). Team Staffordshire hunt as a pack, and I was delighted to be here to listen to him.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I thank the Leader of the House for ensuring that it has been held in Government time, because each and every person who lives, learns and works in our United Kingdom, and each and every person who moved here to work in our national health service, on our railways, in our schools or on our building sites, deserves to be heard, listened to and celebrated. I am proud to be British. I am a proud son of a Zimbabwean-born dad and the proud grandson of a Jamaican who came to our country in the 1940s to help us to win world war two, as many other black and Asian men did in the great war and in years subsequent. I am proud to be black—a black British Member of Parliament, words that even 40 years still seemed so impossible and so far off. I acknowledge those who have gone before me.
I am the first black Member of Parliament in Staffordshire’s history. Following in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who, following the death of Jack Dromey, became the first woman and the first black person to represent a Birmingham constituency, I am the first black man to represent anywhere in the west midlands in Parliament. If we think about the contribution that black people such as my grandfather made to Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford, it shows how far we have come, but also how long it has taken.
As we have heard, black history is British history, certainly in the context of our United Kingdom. As we approach Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday, when our United Kingdom comes together to reflect and acknowledge the sacrifices of all the men and boys, and women and girls, who went to war and contributed at home, I want to remember all those who left the colonies, as they were then, and gave their lives for freedom. Nobody here or outside this House should ever forget that we would not have beaten the Germans on the beaches of Normandy, at Gallipoli, or at Burma, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) noted, without the bravery and valour of young men—black, white and Asian. They left their green island homes and the African continent for the ravages of war. They were on the frontline in the fight against tyranny, fascism and hatred, and their bravery won the day.
For many of those who returned from the frontline, our United Kingdom became their home. These black men and women rolled up their sleeves, put their shoulders to the wheel, and helped to rebuild a nation ravaged by war. Homes were built. Our buses were back on the roads. Railways worked once again. Our national health service was established. Restaurants opened and sold food with spice, seasoning and everything nice. Fabric shops and tailors ensured that our country had some of the best dressed people on the world stage, and our United Kingdom bounced back.
So much more happened, and we as a country would not, and could not, have done it without the sacrifices and contribution of the black British community. That contribution lives on. Two weeks ago, I was delighted to welcome the Staffordshire Black Business Network awards 2024 to Keele University in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the incredible contribution that black businesses make across our county, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who is next to me now, for joining me at that event.
From brand-new start-ups to long-standing pillars of our high streets, town centres and communities, black and ethnic-minority-led businesses contribute more than £25 billion to the UK economy every year. Last week, I was delighted to cut the ribbon and open officially a new black-owned business in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I pay tribute to Gloria, the owner, and her family for their determination and grit, and wish them all the best. Their new store focuses on African clothing, so I will be going to buy some ties at the weekend—with my own money —and I look forward to showing them off in this place.
As we celebrate Black History Month, we must also reflect on the promise of our country. To think that my grandfather arrived on a boat, and here I am today—that would not happen in many other parts of the world, but it happened in our United Kingdom, and we should never forget that. I am proud of my race, but it does not define me. It inspires me, yes, and it has opened doors—and, regrettably, it has probably closed a few, too—but it also allows me to show those who come after me that anything is possible. Showing that example, and not pulling up the ladder, as some have done, is how I will approach my responsibilities.
Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II said that she had to be seen to be believed, and she was right. She set an example in rebuilding and repairing Britain’s relationships with the former colonies. I would not vote for the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), on any day of the week, but it is important for our country, as the shadow Minister noted earlier, that we could have a black woman as Leader of the Opposition in a matter of days. It is not my place to interrupt private grief, but if she does win, I hope that she enjoys her role in opposition for a very, very long time indeed.
I now serve with the highest ever number of Labour black men in Parliament—that is wonderful. There are my hon. Friends the Members for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick)
and for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), and, of course, the Foreign Secretary, our right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).
It is amusing that, for all my frequent appearances and contributions in the Chamber since the election, I have been confused for my hon. Friend for Buckingham and Bletchley, who is taller and better looking than me; for my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who rocks a grey suit in a way I never could; and for my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who, considering he is 15 years older than me, has definitely won that one—I had it down as 20 years originally, and had to check with him so as not to age him. I take all that as a compliment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), I want to acknowledge all the black staff in this House, led by the Serjeant-at-Arms, who has just left the Chamber.
Over the past decade, I have been a local councillor and served as mayor. Now, as a Member of Parliament, I have had the honour of attending Black History Month events in local schools, churches and community hubs. I have listened to people—children in particular—speak of their lived experiences good and bad, and to pensioners recalling the stories of their ancestors. The overwhelming feeling that I come away with every year at the end of this month is of how proud we are, and rightly so, of the black British contribution to our communities.
There has been much talk of reparations in recent days. I want that conversation to start with a British Government who take the Commonwealth seriously. That conversation starts by ensuring that we reflect on the legacy of the British empire and our collective and complicated history. We do that by creating a level playing field in work, health and education; by properly and effectively trading with the Caribbean and Africa—as much as I love Australia and New Zealand, we must do more and go further—through a curriculum that tells all of our histories; and by establishing genuine and real links between our leaders. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and his team will lead by example. I want to see more ministerial visits to southern Africa, the Caribbean and other parts of the world, because on those visits we can show the respect that equal partners deserve. That would go so far in acknowledging the contribution that our forefathers made and that the black community is making today, and would show that this new Government get it.
This is a joyful and hopeful debate, and I have enjoyed every single speech, including that of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—although I will pick up on a couple of things with him outside the Chamber. It has shown the best of us. My being here was not inevitable, but it was possible. The fact that I am here shows how far the black community has come, and reminds us of what we need to do to lift everybody up and of how we must all hold on to the age-old value of anything being possible in our United Kingdom.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow such inspiring and educational speeches. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) has just left the Chamber, but she has been educating me for a long time; I did my year 10 work experience with her a long time ago.
When October comes around each year, it gives us a chance to reflect on the incredible achievements and contribution of the black community. Of course, celebrating the black community should not be limited to only one month per year. As the chief executive officer of the West Bromwich African-Caribbean resource centre said to me earlier this week, they celebrate all year—from Jamaican independence and Windrush Day to music nights and fiercely competitive domino events.
I want to recognise the contribution of the black community in my area of West Bromwich, Oldbury, Great Barr, Tividale and Rowley. After the war, Britain needed workers from across the empire to fill our factories, our foundries and our fledgling NHS. People from all over the world answered that call, including many from the Caribbean. They made their homes here; the roots that they put down are now deep, and their contribution over many decades is broad.
The theme of this year’s Black History Month is reclaiming narratives, so I will share just a couple of stories from my area that speak to that theme. The first is about sport, and the story of West Bromwich Albion’s “Three Degrees”. The 1960s and 1970s were a hard time for many in the black British community; racism was rife and the National Front was on the rise. Football was no exception, with games marred by racism and prejudice against black players and fans. Around that time, three players at West Bromwich Albion were doing something exciting. The Baggies, under manager “Big Ron”, were the first English club to field three black players consistently in their lineup.
In the 1978-79 season, the talented trio of Cyrille Regis, Laurie Cunningham and Brendon Batson were an essential fixture of every Baggies side. The sons of Caribbean immigrants who came to Britain in the 1960s, they were among the first black players to play top-flight football in this country, writing their own story of struggle, success and stardom. Although that might not seem like a huge achievement today, three black players on one team was unheard of at the time. They were brilliant players in the face of the racism they endured—even sometimes from their own stands. At a time when racism in Britain was all too common, they broke down barriers for not only black players but black fans.
This week I watched a great video by Richie Anderson, a Smethwick boy, an Albion season ticket holder and one of my favourite voices on Radio 2. Richie interviewed black fans about how much watching those players meant to them, and their testimonies were as poignant as they were powerful.
I will also tell the story of a lesser known, but no less important, local hero. I am lucky to know her; she is one of West Bromwich’s strong, trailblazing women: Hyacinth Jarrett. Hyacinth had trained as a nurse in Jamaica but did not much enjoy it, so when she came to England she applied for a college course in hairdressing. She was the only black applicant to the course, and she had to persuade them to let her take the entrance test. She passed the test, completed the course and opened her business, Jarrett’s Hairdressers in Bull Street in West Bromwich, in 1970.
Hyacinth ran that business for 40 years, during which time she was a pioneer in training people in the art of caring for black hair. Over the years, her talents and expertise were widely recognised. She was invited to work with Birmingham College and the University of London, eventually developing a module on black hair that was added to the national foundation syllabus for hairdressing.
Hyacinth was one of the earliest members of the West Bromwich African Caribbean Resource Centre, which is where I first met her a few years ago. The resource centre and other local organisations such as the Kuumba Centre have contributed so much to the local community, and continue to campaign against the discrimination and disadvantage that black Britons sadly still face today. I am proud to have them, and so many other black-led organisations in my constituency. I look forward not only to working with them in the years ahead, but to sharing their stories, championing their achievements and helping to reclaim narratives. They have earned—and deserve—their place in British history.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for making today happen, because it is an important debate. I congratulate all Members who have given their maiden speeches, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who was formerly part of the south London massive—I enjoy being here with him. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) that I may give him a run for his money in terms of being the human form of the United Nations, as I think I am the first Jamaican-Jewish Member of this House.
This year’s theme of reclaiming narratives is an important one, because the stories we tell about ourselves are what our reality becomes. If we do not tell those stories, others will tell them for us. For me, it is about recognising our contribution, our legacies, and our roles in the story of this great nation—stories like that of my grandparents, Ruby and Egbert Napolean Irons. Like many others, when this country called for help, they answered, swapping the sun-soaked parish of St Thomas in Jamaica for the Henry Prince estate in Earlsfield. Like many in their generation, theirs is a story of hard work, public service and sacrifice. My grandmother was a district nurse and my grandfather was a painter-decorator, so they literally came here to rebuild this country and play their part in its future. Sadly, they are no longer with us, but I hope that they are proud to know that their legacy has meant that Croydon now has its first black MP, and that they have an MP in the family.
As has been said in the debate, black history is British history. My place in Parliament would not have been made possible without the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East; and all the amazing black women in this House who have made it easy for me to be here. I have felt welcome in this place. I have not felt out of place, or as if I do not belong here. That is only because of the outstanding people who have come before me.
I end my brief speech by saying that we must remember Black History Month every single year, because every year, there will be a different thing to talk about and a different theme to pull out. I would like us in this House to take time every single year to remember the contributions that black people have made to this country—people like my grandparents, and all the other grandparents whose grandchildren are now Members of Parliament sitting on these Benches.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate all my friends from across the Chamber who have made their maiden speech today. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), who gave such a glowing recommendation for retirement options, although hopefully I will not need to think about that for a while yet. I also thank my friends for the contributions that have been made so far—for sharing their experiences and stories, and the meaning that they attach to Black History Month. We are in this Chamber to celebrate black change-makers past and present who have shone a light on racial injustice and helped to shape a more equitable and just future. From every corner of the UK and the world, there are untold stories that can offer us reflection and inspiration.
I have been pre-empted slightly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), but there is a little-known story from my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow that I am grateful to my constituent David for raising with me and my predecessor. While I am the first woman MP for most of the area covered by the new constituency, we can also claim the first black Scottish MP. I want to bring the story of Mr Peter McLagan MP to Parliament today. In the 1865 general election, Peter McLagan was elected and became Scotland’s first black MP, representing the constituency of Linlithgowshire, which is now mostly covered by Bathgate and Linlithgow. To date, his portrait remains missing from the pioneers’ gallery in this place, and that is an issue that I hope to take up.
Mr McLagan served continuously for almost 30 years, and cut across social divides, supporting women’s suffrage and women’s right to education—causes that, as we know, were very unpopular with his fellow Members at the time. None the less, he was a product of his time. His attitudes towards imperialism and the circumstances surrounding his wealth, which he inherited from his plantation-owning father, are reminders of the honest conversations that we must have about our history. We must be willing to learn—to understand the past in order to challenge the racism and intolerance of today. We are all historians in that respect. Nearly 160 years later, there is still much to do to ensure that all our Chambers reflect the communities that we are elected to serve.
On to the present. In Bathgate and Linlithgow, our black history is still being made. I will tell the story of an incredible black woman I have been fortunate to know for several years, Eunice Simpson. Originally from Ghana, she has made her home in Blackburn, West Lothian. Eunice always wanted to expand her horizons and do what she could to help women, in particular. She wanted to build a network of support for those in need, but her life was turned upside down when, in her final year of university, a fire that ripped through her student accommodation destroyed her possessions and savings, leaving her future up in the air —or so she thought.
Eunice is not a woman to be defeated. When she arrived in the UK, she immediately got to work putting herself through the professional accountancy exams while working for charities across the Lothians. In the Bathgate and Linlithgow constituency, we are fortunate to have the West Lothian African Women’s Network, founded by Eunice. It is a pioneering community project that supports black women in finding their feet, growing their businesses, connecting through culture and providing support to families. It has been hugely inspiring to watch Eunice build this group with the support of many women from across West Lothian. I can genuinely say that every time I meet her for coffee and conversation, I come away motivated and wanting to do more. There are many great initiatives, from business seminars through to black history education sessions in local schools. Everybody involved creates a real buzz around supporting one another and being each other’s champions.
Eunice has reached beyond the African community in West Lothian by organising events that bring people together to celebrate our rich Scottish and African cultures. Her work to foster greater community cohesion and strengthen the bonds of sisterhood is a real testament to her passion and her drive. A month ago, the West Lothian African Women’s Network held its annual African-Scottish expo in Bathgate town centre. It proudly displayed African culture in the heart of Eunice’s home town. It was an opportunity to come together and enjoy music, food and dance. We welcome hon. Friends to join the celebration next year at the expo in Whitburn; I can confirm that the jollof rice is delicious and spicy.
Also a month ago, Eunice, whose future once seemed so uncertain, became West Lothian’s first black deputy lieutenant. Lieutenancies, a feature of Scottish life for 300 years, are pivotal roles in grand ceremonies and in bestowing honours. Those holding the position are even permitted to fly the Scottish royal standard above their home. It is a groundbreaking role for Eunice and truly well deserved. It is recognition of her hard work, spirit and courage. It gives her the privilege of supporting the lord lieutenant in carrying out her role representing His Majesty the King in West Lothian, which covers much of the constituency. Eunice’s story reminds me that black history is still being made—not just by Eunice, but by the hundreds of black women supported by the West Lothian African Women’s Network, and many thousands of people across the UK.
It is a great privilege to share in this place the stories of people like Peter McLagan and the history makers of today, such as Eunice, and to recognise the importance of Black History Month. Through the Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers, boosting opportunity and ensuring that equality is at the heart of every mission, we can tackle structural inequalities in pay, housing, health outcomes and so much more. We all have a part to play in ensuring that the injustices of the past are not part of our future.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) on her speech. She shared an important story about Peter McLagan, and I will enjoy supporting her campaign. I want to refer back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee); he will enjoy reading his admission in Hansard that I look 15 years younger.
Black History Month has its roots in this country, in a powerful vision of education and empowerment. In 1987, Akyaaba Addai-Sebo and Ansel Wong, staff at the Greater London Council—a Ghanaian and a Trinidadian respectively—recognised a pressing need: black British children were facing an identity crisis, were reluctant to identify with their African heritage, and shrank back when called African. This realisation sparked a movement to create time and space to challenge racism and, importantly, to recognise, educate, and reflect on the invaluable contributions of black Britons to our nation’s history and culture. The history of Britain is incomplete without acknowledging the profound contributions of ethnic minority communities.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the importance of that changing narrative, and the importance of the organisations in our communities that change it? In mine we have People Dem Collective, Everyday Racism and Margate Black Pride, which are putting the stories of black people in our constituencies on the map. They tell me that in the modern curriculum review, we need to make sure that black history is not just about black people; it is everyone’s history, and it should be part of the curriculum.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I remind the hon. Lady that interventions need to be short. She will have an opportunity to make a speech in due course.
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention about the important and necessary allyship of those organisations. It is of fundamental importance that we empower them and help them to lift others up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made clear earlier.
The stories of ethnic minority communities are not footnotes; they are integral chapters in our national history. From Claudia Jones, pioneer of the West Indian Gazette and the Notting Hill carnival, to Paul Stephenson and Roy Hackett, who led the Bristol bus boycott in 1963, to Laurie Cunningham, the first black capped England football player from our very own Leyton Orient, British history is enriched by the lives and contributions of people of colour. To overlook these contributions is to erase a vital part of our collective history. As the author Zadie Smith has said, when you erase people’s history, you erase their humanity. Recognising black British history is essential for building a truly inclusive society. It is in this spirit of inclusivity that I will carry on.
Black History Month is an opportunity to recognise the diversity and interconnectedness of the people and cultures that shaped modern Britain. One of the most important aspects of that is remembering the long and proud tradition of black and Asian servicemen and women who have defended this nation with valour and distinction. As we know, soldiers from Africa, the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent made significant contributions to Britain’s efforts in both world wars. I want to remember in particular the contributions of our aviators, such as squadron leader Mohinder Singh Pujji, an Indian RAF pilot who flew Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of Britain. I would also like to share the stories of the Jamaican squadrons—the pilots of the Caribbean, as we like to remember them. There were so many brave men and women like Mohinder and the pilots of the Caribbean who played a vital role in securing our freedom. Their contributions were crucial, but are often overlooked. We will remember them next month on Remembrance Sunday.
In recent years, many of our reflections on Black History Month have centred on the story of the Windrush generation, but their intrinsic link with the history of the Royal Air Force is not always recognised. Many of those who arrived on the Empire Windrush and subsequent ships were not strangers to Britain in any sense. In fact, they were former RAF service personnel returning to our country—the country they had defended just a few years before. I wish to share with the House some of the stories of these remarkable individuals, so that they are captured in our history.
John Henry Smythe MBE, known as Johnny, was originally from Sierra Leone. He volunteered for the Royal Air Force in 1939 and served as a navigator in 623 or Jamaica Squadron. Shot down over Germany in 1943, he spent 18 months in a Nazi prisoner of war camp before being liberated in 1945. After the war, Smythe worked at the Colonial Office, caring for demobilised Caribbean and African airmen. In a twist of fate, he was the senior officer on the Empire Windrush in 1948 when it was being used to take former personnel back to the Caribbean. Recognising the lack of job opportunities there, Smythe recommended that the men be allowed to return to the UK. That decision marked the beginning of the Windrush generation. He later became a barrister, a Queen’s counsel and Sierra Leone’s Attorney General. He died in 1992 at the age of 82.
Sam King MBE was originally from Jamaica. He had served in the RAF during world war two. Joining in 1944, after responding to an advertisement in Jamaica’s Daily Gleaner newspaper, King arrived in Greenock, Scotland in November 1944, experiencing a shocking temperature drop from 23ºC in Jamaica to 4ºC on his arrival. After three months of training at RAF Hunmanby Moor in Filey, Yorkshire, he was posted to RAF Hawkinge, near Folkestone in Kent, where he served as an aircraft engineer. King was later promoted and received further training at RAF Locking in Somerset. He had several more postings, finishing his wartime service at Dishforth, in Ripon, Yorkshire. After returning to the UK in 1948, Sam re-enlisted in the RAF, serving until 1953. Later in life, Sam became a driving force in the British Caribbean community. He co-founded the Windrush Foundation and became the first black mayor of Southwark in 1983. Sam died in 2016 at the wonderful age of 90. Having checked through Hansard, I can see that his contributions have rightly been recognised before by several parliamentarians, both in this place and the other, who had the honour of being his best friends.
Prince Albert Jacob, known as Jake, was born in Trinidad in 1925 and volunteered for the Royal Air Force at 17 years of age in 1943. During world war two, Jake repaired planes in America and in England, serving at bases in Kirkham, Burtonwood and Carlisle. In 1948 he married his wife Mary, an English woman, despite facing racial prejudice from her family. Jake settled in the Black Country and later in Knowle, building a life in post-war Britain. Although promised medals for his wartime service, Jake only received his war medal, defence medal and veterans badge in February 2023, at the age of 97. That is a stark reminder of the often overlooked contributions of servicemen of colour. I had the pleasure of meeting Jake at the RAF’s 75th anniversary celebrations for Windrush at Edgbaston in June 2003. There is rightly a growing recognition of the Windrush generation’s significance in British history, but there is more we can do to permanently fuse that into our common understanding of who we are and where we come from.
I thank Micah, the RAF’s ethnic minority network and the air historical branch for sharing and preserving these stories. I also thank the RAF for lifting the black bar, allowing these people to serve our country. These men and women made a conscious choice to return to Britain. They saw opportunities to use their skills to forge a better life for themselves and their families. Their decision was an act of agency—a deliberate choice to improve their circumstances while contributing to Britain’s post-war recovery.
That story of service, migration and contribution resonates deeply with many of us. That was the conscious decision that my mother made: to come to this country and build a life for her family. I stand here 47 years later as a proud Zambian and Londoner with a decorated RAF career, representing my constituency as its first black MP. I aim to stand as a shining example of agency and opportunity for all the young people in Leyton and Wanstead, contributing to our shared history alongside those from the Windrush generation who had RAF ties.
I want to finish by reflecting on what it means to have people who reflect so many strands of our national story here in this place. From the pioneering Indian parliamentarian Dadabhai Naoroji, who was elected as the Liberal MP for Finsbury Central in 1892, to the groundbreaking election of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) as our first black woman MP in 1987, we have seen significant progress. In 2010 there were 27 ethnic minority MPs; by 2019 that number had risen to 66, 10% of all MPs. As of July 2024, we stand at 90 MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds and, critically, 50 of that number are women. Representation is about ensuring that the diverse voices and experiences of our nation are heard in the Chambers where decisions affecting all our lives are made. As we all celebrate Black History Month, let us recommit to ensuring that the diversity we see in our streets, our workplaces and all our constituencies is reflected in these halls of power.
Recognising this shared history makes it all the more crucial to address the Windrush scandal, which continues to demand redress, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s recognition of that and movement towards doing so. As we know, people with stories like Jake’s, Sam’s and John’s were devastated just a few short years ago due to policies and failure originating from this place. They lost their jobs, their homes, their access to healthcare and, in some cases, their right to remain in the country they had called home. The Windrush compensation scheme was alarmingly slow and complex, and the compensation meagre. The Home Office’s failure under the previous Government to fully implement all the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review further compounds this injustice. As we stand here in 2024, it is clear that the Windrush scandal is not a closed chapter in our history but an ongoing struggle for justice and recognition, and I welcome our renewed commitment to right these wrongs.
As we reflect on the Windrush generation’s contributions and struggles, we have an opportunity to recognise the ongoing value of migration to our country. In communities such as Leyton and Wanstead, and Plumstead and Woolwich, where I grew up, we see the positive impact of immigration every day in our local buses, schools and GP services. From our family-run shops to dedicated new NHS staff and the entrepreneurial people-to-people links we have to fast-growing countries, our openness and interconnection with the world continues to enrich and strengthen our local areas and the nation as a whole.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for letting me intervene on him during this brilliant speech. Does he agree that our diversity is often our strength and that, as in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, the diversity of our communities has provided people with a great sense of culture, community and togetherness, and brought a great amount of economic growth?
Mr Bailey
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful and significant intervention. In particular, diversity is the strength of we 412 Members on the Labour Benches.
Managed migration brings skills, innovation and resilience to our workforce and society. The courage to leave one’s home, the determination to overcome obstacles and the willingness to contribute and become part of a new society are qualities that have always strengthened Britain and will continue to do so. In my view, this is about recognising the contribution of people from all our communities. Our history is a rich mosaic reflecting countless cultures, experiences and contributions, from the Windrush generation to more recent immigration, and from long-standing minority groups to newcomers who now call Britain home.
Black History Month must provide us with a vital opportunity for education and progress. These reflections are not always pleasant, and we must recognise our failings and injustices, as my good friend Stuart Lawrence and his mother will tell us. Black History Month challenges us to confront the whole truth about our past; celebrate our achievements, which are often overlooked; and renew our commitment to building a more just and inclusive society for the benefit of us all.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate all Members who have made their maiden speeches today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who expressed his wish to advocate for people with disabilities. I am sure that he and all Members here today will want to add that we must consider the additional challenges faced by people in the black community who are living with disabilities.
I commend all hon. Members for their contributions during this debate on Black History Month. I say that not just because I have enjoyed hearing their views and local history, but because the very fact that this House is considering black British history today shows how far we have come as a nation. That is not to say that we shy away from the complex past and significant injustices, including that of the misdirected reparation mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler)—to my shame, I only learned about that today as she spoke. Nor should we shy away from the challenges still faced today, including the shocking maternal mortality rates in the black community, which were mentioned by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
I want to use my contribution to highlight not just individuals, but the communities that have given so much to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South, to Staffordshire and to our country. Please indulge me as I speak about people and places that extend beyond the boundaries of my own constituency, because the impact of the black British community spreads far beyond the lines drawn by the Boundary Commission. To begin with, I want to pay tribute to the many people of the Windrush generation who travelled across an ocean to make their home in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, who not only helped to rebuild our nation after the second world war, but continue to contribute in every field to the diverse tapestry that is Britain.
No account of the black British history of Stoke-on-Trent would be complete without mention of the great Doug Brown. Initially training as a physiotherapist to support wounded world war two soldiers, as well as being the physio for the great Potters—that is Stoke City football club to my hon. Friends—Doug went on to give his skills to our NHS before a 20-year career in Stoke city council. He served twice as Lord Mayor, meeting everyday people and monarch alike, and treating all with candour and humility. Doug Brown was a proper Stokie. I feel a statue coming on.
Adam Jogee
Doug Brown’s son, Martin, lives in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. My hon. Friend will have my full support in her campaign for a statue of this genuine trailblazer and history maker in north Staffordshire.
Dr Gardner
I want to take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for inviting me to the Staffordshire Black Business Network’s great event the other week at Keele University. That event—it was more than just a great evening—highlighted not only the contributions of the Afro-Caribbean community to our local economy, but the importance and value of spaces that offer solidarity and recognition. I met Paul and Jonathan Smith, from PPE4 Community CIC in Meir, who empower young people from low-income backgrounds and upskill them, sourcing opportunities for those ambitious young people to be the next wave of great entrepreneurs in Stoke. That is the crux of what this month is about: education, recognition and celebration.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a crucial part of reclaiming the narrative, which is the theme of Black History Month, is celebrating historic citizens of our own constituencies? Will she join me in celebrating Olaudah Equiano, who set out his powerful contribution in his autobiography of 1789? He spent many of his days in the City of London and in Westminster, finally passing in Paddington Street. Will she join me in celebrating his life and looking forward to the ongoing celebrations of the powerful contribution he made to our democracy right here?
Dr Gardner
I most certainly will, and I thank my hon. Friend for her fantastic intervention.
That work takes more than just one month. From Monienne Stone’s work with the Staffordshire Film Archive to produce a documentary preserving the memories and voices of the elder generations of Windrush and their experiences in Stoke and Staffordshire, to institutions such as the Ahmed Iqbal Ullah RACE Centre and the Black Cultural Archives which was mentioned earlier, the maintenance and education of black British history is a year-round job performed by people from every background. That act, the act of celebrating and acknowledging black British history, should be a shared endeavour, just as the part the black community has played in this nation has been just that—a shared endeavour. That is why I chose to speak today. To celebrate another community’s history, culture and contribution should never be the exclusive responsibility of that community. It lies with us all. Just as this country’s past was written by a multitude of peoples, so too will its future. I say let us celebrate each other, understand our differences and embrace them. That is Britain at its best.
I would like to end this speech by looking back to an individual who has become a running theme in my addresses to this House, Josiah Wedgwood. Josiah understood that the fight for liberty and the work of racial equity is the responsibility of all in this country. His famous anti-slavery medallion graced the clothes of thousands across these isles, not sold for profit, but given for free. The understanding Josiah had, with the onus on looking after your neighbour, fighting for them when necessary and celebrating them where possible, is the spirit of our great and diverse nation that I want to share with the House today.
Mims Davies
With the leave of the House, I am very grateful to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I have been truly grateful to listen to so many heartfelt points, views and important history lessons, with Members across the House championing issues, giving insights and showing the great work of their tireless community champions. There are so many reasons to be optimistic for the future of this country, and the lives of black people within our own constituencies are absolutely reasons to celebrate.
I welcome once again the Minister’s confirmation of the update on the Windrush Unit, the new Windrush voice, and the focus on honouring contributions and addressing redress. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler)—it sounds like she is as good at ironing as I am; a great excuse to get your friend to help!—who spoke as beautifully and powerfully as ever, and I enjoyed hearing her beautiful poem.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) on being the first black Liberal Democrat MP. He spoke about the importance of enriching the diversity of this place, and Councillor Jenny Williams from his constituency, a trailblazer like many we have heard about this afternoon. He highlighted that this is the most ethnically diverse Parliament ever, which we have all celebrated this afternoon. He also mentioned Lord Woolley, whose focus on social mobility meant that I had the pleasure of working with him during my time at the Department for Work and Pensions. It was an honour to get to know him.
Margaret and Godfrey from the Tea Room rightly featured in speeches from across the Chamber. He is not in his place right now—there is another gentleman in his place at the moment—but our excellent Serjeant at Arms is another true trailblazer in this House. Nigerian-born with Sussex links, he is our first black Serjeant-at-Arms. He was appointed in 2019, and we are delighted to have him.
The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), spoke movingly about the importance of intersectionality. This gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to Helen Tomlinson, the first cross-Government Department for Work and Pensions menopause employment champion. There is a new champion in town, but she has some very fine shoes to fill. That work, reflecting black women’s experience of not only the menopause but, as we heard, pregnancy and childbirth, is very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke about a personal love story that overcame prejudice. He also pointed out that football had been mentioned a good deal this afternoon, but we have heard about heroines throughout the world of singing, artistry and culture as well, which gives me a chance to mention one of my heroines, the amazing Beverley Knight. What a talent she has! I had the pleasure of meeting her many moons ago, in a different guise. Anyway, my hon. Friend made a thought-provoking speech. He referred to the importance of role models, and said that, in modern Britain, race need not be any barrier to success. We all celebrate that this afternoon.
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who also represents a new constituency. In his maiden speech he mentioned Baroness Benjamin, who was an icon of the screen when I was growing up. He spoke about being stronger together, and highlighted the disability employment gap and the lack of sporting opportunities. My dad was disabled for more than 25 years, and I recognised much of what the hon. Gentleman shared with the House. He also mentioned David Bowie, whom it is always good to hear about. I wish him well in his new position.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who is not currently in the Chamber, spoke about her Brighton and Hove black history group, and the importance of black voices and authors. She also talked about an unsolved murder and its heartfelt family impact, and I wish her well in finding answers.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) spoke about the power of hard work and determination, and about being a child of the Windrush generation. She rightly celebrated black trailblazers and the progress that has been made, and mentioned one of her local trailblazers. She has truly made her mark in this place. She spoke about the importance of Mary Seacole, and said that “dismantling the barriers” should be the guiding message. I think we all agree with that.
The hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), the first black Member for his constituency, spoke about the importance of mentors, of black pioneers, of black excellence in music, and of economic prosperity for all. I think we can truly agree with that as well.
In another excellent maiden speech, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) talked about the weaving of the fabric of black history into daily lives, and about the importance of school councils. Congratulations are due to Mrs Hunter on what she has done for the Labour party and the hon. Gentleman will continue to do. I welcome him to this place. There is a potential second speech for him on Monday, in the debate on veterans and the services, and he can crack on making his mark in the House with that.
The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) spoke about the celebration of changemakers and being the human form of the United Nations—I loved that. He also spoke about being an actor, and about the importance of tackling online racism. He mentioned the slavery museum that will open in 2028, giving us an opportunity to celebrate universal suffrage and the struggle that unites us. I congratulate him on an excellent speech.
I welcome the new hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter). The right honourable Dame Thérèse Coffey was previously my boss, and I enjoyed working with her. In her maiden speech, the hon. Lady spoke movingly about the impact of dementia. Neither my mum nor my dad knew that I came to this place. I cannot imagine the pain of having your mum here but not by your side on this journey, and I wish the hon. Lady very well in this place. Hers was a heart-wrenching and poignant speech and a very brave first contribution, and I congratulate her on her success.
My mum was from Newcastle-under-Lyme—
Adam Jogee
That is excellent news, and I look forward to taking the hon. Lady for a cup of tea so that I can get the low-down. Can she tell us where in Newcastle-under-Lyme her mother had the benefit of being from?
Mims Davies
Originally, she was found on the steps of the local vicarage; she was a foundling. I do not think that I have ever admitted that, but the hon. Gentleman has prised it out of me. Importantly, he spoke about the ladder of opportunity.
There has been talk this afternoon about people being confused for other Members. I assure colleagues that I am often confused for others. I always like to think that it will be for Kim Wilde or Debbie Harry— I have modelled myself on them, as the House may have noticed—but it is actually for my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley). I felt that I had better share that this afternoon. I could not be more pleased about it, especially given that she is right honourable.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) talked about Big Ron, the Baggies’ trio of skilful black players and barrier breaking. She also mentioned Hyacinth Jarrett, another local hero, who changed the world of black hair care locally. We all need a good hairdresser, so thank goodness for Hyacinth.
The hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) tried to claim the “human United Nations” tag, but there is definitely competition. She talked about her grandparents’ response to the call for help, which was similarly reflected in many other contributions.
The hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) spoke about Peter McLagan, who became the first black Scottish MP in 1865. That was truly fascinating. He had a 30-year career, focusing on equal suffrage and women’s suffrage. As we approach 2028, that is so poignant.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said that it is vital to highlight the role of black history in shaping modern Britain. He spoke about people of colour and black soldiers, who have contributed so much. He also shared the story of Jake, who was recognised so late in his life. The hon. Member gave a powerful account of those who serve in this House and elsewhere.
We then heard from another Stokie, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I was pleased to hear about the Staffordshire Black Business Network, and she emphasised the importance of having access to cash and mentors to work with.
When we were in government, a gentleman called Myles Stacey did a huge amount of work at No. 10 on social mobility, inclusion, access to cash and smashing glass ceilings. I hope that the new Government will continue to build on his work and that of the former right honourable Member for Maidenhead, who focused on racial disparity.
The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities concluded that Britain is truly a model multi-ethnic society. There is more to do and build on, and I do not want to paint an overly optimistic picture or disregard any long-standing issues, because it is really important to recognise that every country can make further progress. The Opposition will always work incredibly hard to make sure that we see the progress that we want for all our communities. As the hon. Member for Brent East said so well last week, black history is British history, and I am so pleased to have taken part in this general debate, which has been held in Government time. Once again, it was inspired by her.
Today has been a reflection of the finest times in this House, which often delivers inspirational, collegiate and determined conversation and debate. We have discussed our communities and our strengths, and celebrated difference, alongside the bonds that truly bind and unite us.
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure and an honour to close today’s debate and to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). Our paths have crossed on several occasions in recent years. I thank her for her contributions and her powerful summary of the debate; I will not repeat it, but I support everything she said.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for their opening speeches and for the inspiration for this debate. I am incredibly proud that this is the first Black History Month debate to be held in Government time in the Chamber—long may that continue. The shadow Minister said that it was an example of the House at its best. I agree: it has been one of the finest debates that I have heard in a long time. We can probably all agree that we have learned something new today.
I pay tribute to colleagues who have made maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) outlined a very star-studded Labour history in his speech, but he also told a powerful story of his own experience that I know moved the whole House. I am sure that all those great Labour figures and all his predecessors will feel great pride in watching him take his place in this House and being a powerful voice for people with disabilities, and particularly children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) made a humorous but powerful speech that told a story of family and of service in many different ways. It is clear that he is a living tribute to the last Labour Government and to what we sought to achieve through opportunity for all. It was also very clever of him to talk about his campaign to improve his constituency’s roads while the Roads Minister was present to hear his advocacy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) made an incredibly powerful speech. She walked us around Suffolk Coastal, taking in nature and biodiversity and giving us a strong sense of her drive in her politics. She told the extremely powerful story of her experience as a carer for her mother; as someone who has had that responsibility for my mother, I can understand how much of a challenge that continues to be. I am sure that she will make an incredibly powerful contribution to this House, promoting support for people with dementia and their families.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and congratulate him on his achievement for the Liberal Democrats. He recognised the staff of this House, mentioning Margaret and Godfrey; we have also had references to Ugbana Oyet, our Serjeant at Arms. I think that is an indication of how we think about this whole House—not only the pride we feel in now having the most diverse Parliament, but how we look to share the opportunities for careers in this place, in every part of its work.
I believe that holding this debate in Government time is a mark of how the new Labour Government are putting equality at the heart of all we do. I am proud to have been appointed the Minister for race equality in our equalities team, alongside my responsibilities as the Minister for migration and citizenship.
We have celebrated Black History Month since the 1980s, and it has moved from the fringes to the mainstream across our schools, colleges and workplaces. Our understanding of history is constantly evolving as new scholarship reveals new stories, new narratives and new truths and enhances our understanding of the experience of the black community in the UK.
We have heard from colleagues across the House, including the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). Their stories, and those of their constituencies and constituents, have enhanced the House’s understanding. They are important because they teach us about ourselves and our national story.
The purpose of Black History Month is to amplify black history, not confine it to four weeks. This is the story of all of us. The UK has a unique history and a unique set of global relationships and identities built on our shared language, our trade, our cultural heritage and our shared history—and we must be honest about our history. We must confront the difficult truths about the transatlantic slave trade, colonialisation, and racism at home and abroad.
My parents were immigrants who came to the UK in the 1960s. Both had been refugees as young children. We grew up above our family shop in Hounslow: we were a family of eight, with three generations living together. This was the time of the National Front, and racist comments were regularly experienced as we went about our daily life. My family’s community values, compassion, commitment to neighbours and pride in Britain contributed to my becoming the first woman ever elected to the constituency of Feltham and Heston, where I grew up, and the first female MP of Punjabi origin in the House of Commons.
We have made progress. The Race Relations Act 1968, introduced by a Labour Government, made racial discrimination illegal in employment, housing and public services. Recent scholarship about the British empire has helped our appreciation and understanding. We must understand the past to navigate the future.
Black History Month allows us to hear the voices of millions of black Britons down the centuries. We celebrate some of the greatest: the trailblazers, the campaigners, the innovators and the pioneers, some of whom have been mentioned today. From Ignatius Sancho to Olaudah Equiano, from the Chartist William Cuffay to Mary Seacole, from Walter Tull to Claudia Jones, and from Bill Morris to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, they were all icons, leaders and change makers of their time. Black and minority ethnic communities have made contributions to our politics, our public services, our NHS, our business industry, our armed forces and our sports—in fact, every aspect of our public life. I am incredibly proud that we have the most diverse Parliament on record and that we have more women elected to this House than ever before.
I have covered some of the issues that Members across the House have raised, but let me mention a couple more. The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, made a powerful point about intersectionality. Labour’s manifesto committed to strengthening protections against dual discrimination; we will do so by bringing into force the dual discrimination provision in section 14 of the Equality Act 2010. People hold multiple protected characteristics, and we acknowledge that some people experience discrimination because of a combination of those protected characteristics. I know that you have done very important work on the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to recognise the important work of Wendy Williams, whose Windrush lessons learned review exposed systemic injustices as a result of previous Governments’ actions. The Windrush scandal saw Windrush and Commonwealth communities who had and have the right to live in this country being victimised because, through no fault of their own, they were unable to prove that right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead outlined, today the Home Secretary has updated the House in a written ministerial statement on the Government’s progress in fulfilling our manifesto commitments to the Windrush generation, to ensure that they quickly and efficiently receive the support that they deserve. The Home Secretary is at a Windrush stake- holders’ roundtable this afternoon at the Black Cultural Archives. Additionally, we are reigniting the vital transformation work from the Windrush lessons learned review to embed lasting changes in how the Department serves all communities.
While we were in opposition, we made it clear that the Windrush scandal must never be repeated. The last Government’s response was far too slow and far too weak, and it did not deliver justice to those who were betrayed and failed. That is why I am also proud that we will appoint a Windrush commissioner, an independent advocate for all those affected, who can represent the views of the Windrush communities and victims at the highest Government levels. The commissioner’s role will be to oversee the delivery of the compensation scheme and the implementation of the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review, and to act as a trusted voice for families and communities.
For many people, filing a claim can be intimidating and can require them to revisit past traumas. That is why we are injecting £1.5 million into a programme of grant funding for organisations to provide essential advocacy and support for applicants who need additional help with the application process. We also brought in a new single caseworker process, which was implemented in July, in direct response to stakeholder and victim feedback. It has streamlined the process, improving consistency, increasing transparency and removing duplication that led to avoidable delays. It will give clarity and consistency to applicants, so they know who is dealing with their case throughout the process.
As promised, we have re-established a Windrush unit in the Home Office, dedicated to driving forward the action needed. The new unit stands ready to support the Windrush commissioner, when appointed. We are determined to ensure the renewed work drives enduring change that matters to the Windrush community and has a wider impact across the whole Department and across Government.
Last month, I had the privilege of visiting the National Windrush Museum with its director, Denize Ledeatte. It is a new institution dedicated to collecting and preserving the stories of the Windrush generation. The passion of those I met, including Windrush pioneers, is matched only by the lasting impact that I know the museum, its deep research and these stories will have on future generations. I look forward to attending the Windrush National Organisation conference tomorrow.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, and we do so to build a better and more inclusive future for all. I am proud that our Bill on equality in race and disability will mandate ethnic pay gap reporting for large employers, helping to tackle inequalities and discrimination in the workplace. Our Employment Rights Bill, which we introduced within our first 100 days, will end exploitative practices and enhance employment rights.
As this debate has demonstrated, there is much more to do. We must take urgent steps to close the maternal mortality gap. We must address the fact that black people are up to five times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than their white peers and are three and a half times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act. We must also take urgent action to address inequalities in housing, employment and education, which all too often disproportionately affect black and minority ethnic communities. By introducing our Renters’ Rights Bill, our Employment Rights Bill and our Bill on equality in race and disability, we are working to address these issues. We will work closely with businesses and workers on developing and implementing our commitments.
We are working at pace across Government to develop and deliver wider proposals to address persistent racial inequalities wherever they arise. We have put this work at the core of our ambitious mission-based programme to change this country, so that whoever you are, wherever you grew up and wherever you come from, if Britain is your home, Britain is a country that will value your contribution. It is where you belong, and we will ensure opportunity for all to achieve their ambitions. To quote David Olusoga:
“Black British history is everyone’s history and is all the stronger for it.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Black History Month.
Fakenham Swimming Pool
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Fakenham needs a swimming pool. I rise to present this petition on the Fakenham swimming pool, with reference to a similar online petition that has gained more than 1,250 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Broadland and Fakenham,
Declares that local people in the Broadland and Fakenham constituency require access to adequate facilities to conduct regular exercise; further declares that since the closure of the swimming pool in Fakenham there has been limited facilities in the area; and notes that the Treasury has been instructed to review the £9.9 million previously committed to fund a new swimming pool.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the resource needs of the new swimming pool and 3G sports pitch in Fakenham, Norfolk, whilst undertaking its funding review, and to retain the funding previously committed.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003014]
Temporary Accommodation
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am so grateful to have the opportunity to bring the subject of the crisis of temporary accommodation to the House of Commons today. I thank the Minister for her time and attention this afternoon. Having first met at the ballot box in Bethnal Green and Bow in 2019, it is great to meet here again, at the Dispatch Box.
It means a lot to me to raise this issue today on behalf of my constituent Kelly and her family. Kelly is a proud mum of three, wife to Devon, and a fighter. After being served with a section 21 notice by her landlord, Kelly and her family were forced to leave their home. She was determined to find a new home in the private rented sector but faced so many barriers. One was that many landlords required her to find a guarantor whose salary bracket was not one shared by folks in her network. Another was that many landlords demanded six months’ rent in advance. For someone like Kelly who receives universal credit, having six months’ worth of Eastbourne private sector rent in the bank—to pay so much up-front rent—would disqualify her from universal credit in a heartbeat.
Despite pulling out all the stops to find a new home, having been displaced from their previous one, Kelly, her three children and their stepdad Devon have been backed into the corner of homelessness—into temporary accommodation until a longer-term home can be found via the council or the private rented sector. This accommodation is too small to cater to their aspirations and their needs, especially those of Kelly’s awesome teenage son, Joseph. This is a combination that, by its very nature, is temporary and not secure; accommodation that forces families to exist, not live, and that could not feel further from a home. That is not fair. I have taken up Kelly’s case, and my team and I are working hard to support her, but what I find so extraordinary about Kelly is that in the midst of unspeakable hardship she is so often zooming out and reflecting on just how broken the whole system is, and she has been a tireless advocate for reforming it. A week or so ago, she said:
“Josh, take me to Parliament, and we’ll speak about it up there!”
Days later, I secured this Adjournment debate, which enables us to do exactly that.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. It is an important issue, and I agree that it is admirable for someone in such circumstances to pull out and see the bigger picture. To add to that bigger picture, in the borough of Hackney, half of which I represent, the forecast cost of temporary accommodation is £54 million this year, and there are eight primary schools’ worth of children, equivalent to 1% of our population, living in temporary accommodation. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that the position is unsustainable, and I congratulate him again on bringing it to the attention of the House.
Josh Babarinde
I could not agree more, and I will come to the costs of temporary accommodation later. The hon. Lady knows as well as I do that the National Audit Office described the situation as unsustainable. It needs a resolution, which is why today’s debate is so important.
On securing the debate, I called Kelly, shared the news, and she said in reply:
“What needs to be said is going to be said in the place it needs to be said to the person it needs to be said to. You are the right person to say it, Josh.”
It is therefore so humbling to welcome Kelly and her son Joseph to the Public Gallery. I hope that I am the right person, that I say what needs to be said, and that I do not let Kelly and families like hers down. With her blessing, I have shared some of Kelly’s story today. She is just one of the 117,450 families who are in temporary accommodation in this country right now. That is a 12% rise compared with last year. Heartbreakingly, more than 150,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, which is enough to fill 5,000 classrooms.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I want to mention the plight of children missing from school. There is a massive problem with children going into temporary accommodation and simultaneously losing their school place because they have moved out of the area, or alternatively trying to retain their school place in the hope of being able to move back to the area, and then missing school for a sustained period. I wanted to draw attention to that particular difficulty. As far as I am aware, at the moment we do not measure educational outcomes for children who have been in temporary accommodation. Would the hon. Member encourage us to start doing that?
Josh Babarinde
I absolutely would encourage that. There needs to be more co-ordination between local authorities, educational settings and health and care settings. Many have advocated for a notification system in order to aid the knowledge of those situations, so that they can be addressed.
The circumstances are devastating, and we hear from hon. Members who have made interventions that that is the case in their patches too. Shelter estimates that more than two thirds of people in temporary accommodation have inadequate access to basic facilities—to cook, for example. Many food banks, including mine in Eastbourne, supply kettle packs, because many families in temporary accommodation are unable to cook or heat the food that they get from a food bank in any other way. Isolation is also a consequence, especially for those who are placed in temporary accommodation miles away from their support networks, or where the rules of their accommodation ban visitors. Most shockingly, according to the Shared Health Foundation analysis of the national childhood mortality database, temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor in the deaths of 42 infants since 2019. We cannot go on like this.
Not only is that unacceptable on a human level, but as I said earlier, the National Audit Office has been clear that the situation is unsustainable for local authorities—especially mine in Eastbourne. In my hometown, the number of families in temporary accommodation has doubled since 2019. That, combined with our food bank becoming the busiest Trussell Trust food bank in the country—it distributed more food parcels per head than any other in the UK—led to my campaign to declare a cost of living emergency in Eastbourne. It was the first place in the UK to do so, and that unlocked emergency support for those struggling most.
The surge in temporary accommodation led to the financial cost to the council jumping from £2.2 million in 2019 to the £5 million projected for this year.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his indulgence in giving way again. He is right to cite the National Audit Office’s excellent work to shine a light on the issue. Does he agree that if we turned those many millions spent on temporary accommodation into money spent on good-quality affordable social housing, we would go a long way towards solving this problem?
Josh Babarinde
The hon. Lady has a crystal ball, because she has again pre-empted something I will say later. I absolutely agree, and I commend her work in her former role as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which I know took a deep interest in this matter.
Costs in Eastbourne have skyrocketed. In fact, the council has said that 49p of every £1 that the council collects in its share of council tax is currently spent on temporary accommodation. As a result, Eastbourne borough council has been forced to consult on incredibly tough saving decisions to avoid issuing a section 114 notice, and the picture is similar in other councils.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the decision by the last Conservative Government to freeze local housing allowance for temporary accommodation claimants at 2011 rates is causing increasing pressure on local authorities, such as mine in Ashford?
Josh Babarinde
There is a lot of clairvoyance and telepathy going on here, because I will also refer to that matter later. We absolutely need to consider what is going on with LHA rates, which have been frozen at the same level since 2011—a different era.
The Local Government Association said that local authorities in England have spent £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation—a 29% increase on the previous year, and 300% since 2015—and one in four councils say that they are likely to need emergency Government support to avoid a section 114 notice. So what are the solutions?
First and foremost, we must urgently improve conditions for families in temporary accommodation, such as Kelly’s. They should be entitled to essential facilities, and every effort must be made to prevent them from being displaced from their communities, support networks and the advice they need and deserve. Councils need emergency support to help them to avert imminent financial crisis. Eastbourne borough council leader Stephen Holt, who is also in the Public Gallery, led an emergency summit last year after which 118 other cross-party council leaders wrote to the previous Chancellor with proposals for emergency support. Those proposals fell on deaf ears, so I draw the Minister’s attention to that letter now. It includes proposals to uprate LHA rates with a view to updating them from their outdated 2011 levels.
We also need to address the appalling practice of people opportunistically renting private rented sector homes for the sole purpose of immediately sub-letting them to councils, at an inflated rate, so they can be used as temporary accommodation. That is contributing to the inflation. Beyond that, the Government must urgently publish a strategy to end homelessness in all its forms as soon as possible. That must involve building more homes, especially social housing.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentioned that 150,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. Does he agree that the health and educational outcomes of those children are adversely affected by their being in temporary accommodation, but the risk of moving reduces their chance to have a settled community and build up lifelong friendships? By developing more social homes with social rents, we would be able to give people secure tenures, and by removing hope value in development land parcels, we could develop more and cheaper social housing, reducing the economic pressures on the Government.
Josh Babarinde
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for Britain to build 150,000 social homes a year; that was in our manifesto. Having grown up in social housing, I am especially proud of that commitment.
To conclude, I say to Kelly that I hope I have said what needs to be said, in the place that it needs to be said in, and to the person it needs to be said to. On behalf of all families in temporary accommodation, and all those who would otherwise find themselves there in the future, I make a plea to the Government: honour their experiences with reform, and dignify their humanity with action. Please do not let us and our councils down. This Government are our last hope.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for giving me the opportunity to contribute to his debate. I congratulate him on securing a debate on this extremely important topic. I agree with much of what he has said, and how he has highlighted the problem that we face.
My local authority of Newham faces an absolute crisis in temporary accommodation; the situation is one of the worst in the country. To give the House some indication of where we are, there are 6,700 households in temporary accommodation in Newham, which is more than in any other local authority. That number is growing by around 30 households a month. One in 20 homes in Newham is now temporary accommodation. The cost of temporary accommodation for next year will be £72 million, adding £31 million to the council’s budget overspend. Homeless applications this year are up by 26%, which adds to the borough’s waiting list—there are now 38,000 people waiting for housing.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
While Chelmsford city council’s figures cannot match those given by the hon. Member, they are still stark. It is terrible to see how much they have changed over recent years. Does he agree that many councils around the country face this issue? In my constituency, the percentage of the council’s core spending that goes on temporary accommodation went up from 5.62% in 2020 to 24.44% in September 2024. The number of cases in 2020 was 256, but we are now looking at 500 cases. It is a massive increase that is very difficult for councils to cope with.
James Asser
The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. The figures are hard to believe; sometimes I have to check that I have not misread them or added a zero. As she highlights, the issue affects councils across the country and seriously adds to their financial problems. This is clearly unaffordable and unsustainable, even in the short term. We desperately need support, so that we can deal with the impact on councils’ budgets; they face huge pressures already.
As the hon. Member for Eastbourne pointed out through the example of Kelly, his constituent who is in the Public Gallery, the issue is the impact on families. Since the cost of living crisis began, when the supply of temporary accommodation slumped and demand soared in my borough, my advice surgery has seen a massive increase in casework. People have come to see us who have been living for months in a hotel room—a perfectly decent hotel room for someone staying three or four days, but not for a family of four or five people for months on end. They are living in a single room without cooking facilities. The impact on the parents’ mental health and the children’s physical health and educational opportunities was really quite serious. It is difficult to deal with the sheer numbers.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. I am old enough to remember when bed and breakfasts were commonly used for households who could not get permanent accommodation. That was rightly dealt with because it was a scourge on modern society. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are now slipping massively backwards because of the numbers he outlined, and that we need to find a quick solution, in order to support our constituents?
James Asser
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We have gone back from people in temporary accommodation living in flats to hotels being the only option. My council is desperately seeking alternative solutions, but the sheer scale of the problem makes that very difficult. As a fellow east London MP, the Minister will understand the problem and the issues that we face. I ask the Government to look urgently at financial support in the short term, so that we can try to deal with the immediate crisis, but we also need a long-term solution—a financial solution to help councils through these difficulties, and a long-term solution, a way to build social housing. My council is one of those pioneering the building of new social housing, but in the grand scheme of things, we are effectively talking penny packets, given the scale of the issue that we need to deal with.
I appreciate that we inherited this crisis. It has been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, and seriously exacerbated by the difficulties that councils have faced as a result of the funding settlements that they have had over the past 10 years. They are juggling 10 years of austerity and the cost of these problems. However, it is a crisis that we have to deal with. I am confident that we can, but it is clearly something that we have to tackle as a matter of urgency, not just for the sake of our councils’ budgets, but to help the people who most need help.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I welcome the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) to the House, and congratulate him on securing this important debate on funding for temporary accommodation. As we have heard from him and other hon. Members, this is such a serious issue. I know from my experience as an MP for an east London constituency that the impact that it has on children, families and the wider community is absolutely devastating; sadly, it can be a matter of life and death, because, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne says, the issue is the quality of housing as well as its supply.
This Government are absolutely committed to addressing the current high levels of homelessness and rough sleeping and, of course, the barriers faced by those who are in temporary accommodation and need a safe, secure home to live in. I recognise the financial pressures that hon. Members have highlighted; the soaring costs of temporary accommodation are placing huge strain on councils. I looked very closely at the correspondence between the previous Government and the leader of Eastbourne council that was shared with me, and I am grateful for the work that councils up and down the country have done.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
In one of my local authorities, St Albans, we are at crisis point, and often it is families with children who lose out. The average waiting time is 31 weeks, but the average time for families with children is 43 weeks, because of problems with supply and financial pressures. We are also in an area where the cost of housing, including private housing, is very high. Does the Minister agree that where housing costs are higher, the impact on local authorities is very difficult to deal with, as they often subsidise the higher costs of private rent to try to support those families on the waiting list? We have to take that into account.
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Member has highlighted some really important issues affecting the private housing sector—costs and supply—and the impacts that they have in different areas. I will come on to the action we have already started taking to make headway on those issues.
As we have heard, homelessness and rough sleeping have dramatically increased. In England, homelessness is now at record levels. In March this year, more than 117,000 households, including over 150,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation. In the hon. Member for Eastbourne’s constituency, on 31 March, 373 households and 419 children were living in temporary accommodation. It is shocking that children and families in this country in the 21st century are without a permanent place to call home, and have to live in horrific conditions where temporary accommodation is not of a decent standard. We all know of cases where that is deeply problematic.
Dame Meg Hillier
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is in this post, because she understands the real issues. We have this ridiculous situation where families in my constituency in east London are being sent to other parts of the country, putting pressure on the housing markets and causing issues there. This vicious circle is costing the taxpayer—and households, our schools and our communities—dear. I am sure that she is moving on to what solutions may be available, and she has our support in finding those.
Rushanara Ali
I am incredibly grateful, and my correspondence box is piling up with the mix of issues that my hon. Friend points to. We need to work collectively to tackle these issues, because unless we deal with them in the round, one area’s issues will be transferred to another, which I know is not the answer. We need to address those issues, but it will take some time for us to gather the evidence and work with Members to tackle barriers.
Josh Babarinde
The Minister has spoken about the importance of working collectively. Council leaders such as Stephen, who is in the Gallery, are very keen to do that. The Minister said that she has seen the correspondence from him and other council leaders. Would she be willing to meet a delegation of council leaders, including Stephen, to talk about the ideas and proposals in that correspondence, if she is not going to address them? But maybe she will, later in her speech. It will be really important to hear from Stephen directly about Eastbourne’s situation, and to go from there.
Rushanara Ali
I will come on to what we hope we can do in the coming weeks and months. All temporary accommodation must be safe and suitable for the households affected. Interventions in place at the moment include our homelessness advice and support teams, who are drawn from local authorities and the homelessness sector to help local authorities address the placement of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks. However, I am clear that to turn this around, we have to tackle the root causes of homelessness and rough sleeping. We need to put in place lasting solutions, rather than quick fixes. For too long, we have seen the lack of a strategic approach.
The hon. Member has used his debate to highlight the devastating effects on his constituents. The story he shared is a powerful one that we can all relate to—one all our constituents have faced. Hon. Members have rightly raised the subject of the pressure on council finances. This Government are absolutely committed to resetting the relationship between local and central Government, and working in partnership in the interests of those living in temporary accommodation and who face homelessness. We want to work closely with the different nations, learning from each other about what works, as well as with regional and local government.
The Government will get councils back on their feet by providing multi-year funding settlements, ending the competitive bidding for pots of money and reforming the local audit system. We have heard from numerous councils that annual allocations are deeply problematic. The competitive nature of funding is really not helpful, and we need much more collaboration. We recognise that councils know their communities best, and with greater stability, they will be in a better position to enhance local services and facilities. I have seen many great examples of innovation and really effective work at local level, and we need to support those efforts and ensure that they are scalable. Local and national Government can learn from each other about the best models and best practice. How local government is funded is crucial in enabling councils to deliver the local services residents need, and it is also of course crucial in delivering on our missions. That is why we are committed to improving the local government finance landscape in this Parliament.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne and others have raised concerns regarding the different kinds of financing mechanisms and benefit subsidy payments for temporary accommodation. We appreciate that these are difficult times and understand the funding pressures local authorities are experiencing. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to keep rates for temporary accommodation subsidy under review and any future decisions on the levels of subsidy will be taken in the context of the Government’s missions, the goals on housing and the fiscal context.
Spending plans for the 2025-26 period will be set at the Budget on 30 October, as hon. Members know. Following the Budget, future funding allocations for homelessness and rough sleeping services will be confirmed later this year. We understand this is very challenging for the sector, and we are working closely with local authorities and want to continue to extend that work to ensure that we do all we can to relieve pressures and continue to support them.
Mr Dillon
With the benefits cliff edge, does the Minister agree that those in temporary accommodation should be given longer to be able to progress on to paying or having their benefits stopped, so that they can build up a bit of a nest egg? That way, when they move out of temporary accommodation, they are being set up for a chance to succeed in the tenancy by being able to furnish their homes right from the very outset, rather than having to start from scratch each time and not having any funds to call upon.
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Member raises the important barriers to employment that I know are exercising my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, not least as they look at tackling the child poverty challenge—another dimension to the housing crisis. He makes an important point, and I hope we can continue to get those inputs from colleagues as we make progress on the work, which I will come on to, that we will do in relation to the inter-ministerial taskforce on homelessness.
On the housing funding point, we recognise the challenges with the cost of temporary accommodation, and earlier this year the Government confirmed allocations for round 3 of the £1.2 billion local authority housing fund, which is expected to provide around 7,000 homes by 2026. Eastbourne is due to receive around £4.4 million, and this fund aims to ease local homelessness pressures, reduce spending on unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation and provide safe and sustainable housing for those fleeing persecution.
I recognise that, as others have pointed out, there is more to do, but this is an important part of the funding settlement that is currently available and is necessary in dealing with the supply issue, although of course we have a wider agenda on housing supply. We will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation; we will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years. We are also committed to abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, preventing private renters from being exploited and discriminated against—the hon. Member for Eastbourne raised that and gave a powerful example from his constituency in his opening remarks. The Renters’ Rights Bill will give renters much greater security and stability so they can stay in their homes for longer. The issues around safety and the decent homes standard will be addressed through extending Awaab’s law so that it covers private landlords. This will significantly reduce the number of poor-quality privately rented homes and empower tenants to raise concerns. Issues around quality of housing are not addressed, and we need to make sure that that is tackled. We very much hope that the combination of provisions we have already started will allow us to begin to make progress quickly.
It is just over three and a half months—just more than 100 days—that we have been in power, but we are determined to tackle these issues. I know that some of the other issues that have been raised, such as the out-of-area placement of our constituents, are deeply damaging. Families are moved away from their networks, from schools, from health providers and from other support systems. We are clear that if a local authority places a household into accommodation in another local area, they are required by law to notify the local authority of that placement. We have to build homes in the areas where they are needed so that we can reduce the need for out-of-area placements. That is why we will keep our focus on the house building agenda. Unless we tackle the supply of housing—affordable and social housing, along with other kinds of housing—we will be stuck in this cycle, and nobody wants that.
Josh Babarinde
It was important and powerful to hear the Minister reaffirm the legal obligation on local authorities to notify another local authority if they are placing folks in accommodation there. Brighton and Hove city council has for some years been going ahead with placements in Eastbourne, but notification has not always taken place. That has meant that Eastbourne borough council has not been in a position to understand the general support needs landscape and how best to support those people. Will the Minister share some words that might reassure Eastbourne council and remind Brighton council of its obligations?
Rushanara Ali
I hope the hon. Member is reassured by the points I have made already, but going forward we need to look at how we can enable much more collaboration between councils and among regional government. The interconnectedness of these challenges means they have to be addressed collectively. That is why from the national Government perspective, we will soon initiate the inter-ministerial group, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. It will be working with Ministers across Government to take action on homelessness, looking at temporary accommodation, rough sleeping and the wider agenda. We will be working with the other relevant Departments to look at such issues as health and the benefits system. Those Departments have an important role to play if we are to bring an end to homelessness once and for all.
In that context, we are committed to ensuring that local government and regional government play their part, working with us, along with the charitable sector and the community sector. I have heard powerful stories of the work that faith organisations do to support those who face challenges around housing and homelessness. Their insights and their contributions need to be included as we develop solutions to tackle this problem.
Mrs Russell
The Minister listed a wide variety of Departments, but the Department for Education was not among them. Will she assure me that that is one of the Departments that she intends to co-ordinate with? I am sure that it is.
Rushanara Ali
Absolutely. I was giving examples, not an exhaustive list. I have already met with colleagues, as has the Deputy Prime Minister; we work very closely with the Department for Education. There is a great deal of interest and enthusiasm at ministerial level, at official level and, we know, at local authority level and among colleagues across the House in working with us to develop a cross-departmental, cross-societal strategy that focuses on getting results. Of course, we need to deal with the immediate challenges, but we need a long- term strategy too.
I want to reiterate that we are absolutely committed to tackling the root causes. I hope that we can all take hope and heart from the extraordinary work that many organisations do in communities and constituencies up and down the country. We have seen the work done in local areas by local authorities and other agencies, with multi-agency approaches in healthcare and education, for example, and of course the work that many colleagues have done here in Parliament to campaign and raise awareness of the plight of those who face homelessness.
We have a real opportunity to get this agenda right, and in that spirit I welcome this debate. I really appreciate the turnout and the interest—Adjournment debates are normally attended by only a couple of people. It is crucial that we build alliances and use the insights of Members of Parliament, who—as I have found throughout my political career—are at the sharp end, trying to support their constituents. I hope that colleagues can see that there is a real openness in this Government to work together to tackle this challenge once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Horseracing
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the horseracing industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank hon. Members for attending the debate—I know it is a Thursday, but people have shuffled their diaries to attend because of the industry’s importance to all our constituencies and to the country.
Racing is, after football, the second most watched sport in the country. About 6 million people attend the races every year, among them people of all ages, 40% of whom are women. Contrary to myth, racing is a cross-class sport—not that we want to use this debate to define working people. British racing is without doubt an international success story. Four of the top 10 races in the world are held here, which is more than in any other country. We have the best bloodstock; our races attract the best horses; and Britain has some of the finest trainers and horses, including modern legends such as Frankel and Enable.
Racing, like all sports, is a business and it brings huge economic benefits. The industry is estimated to generate £4.1 billion in direct, indirect and associated expenditure every year. About 85,000 people are employed at race- courses, training yards and breeding operations, and in the betting industry. In Newmarket, racing brings in more than 7,000 jobs and generates hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the local economy.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. I am delighted to have Ludlow racecourse in my constituency and, if he ever gets the chance, I would welcome him to Eyton races—a great day out. He made an important point about the local economy, so does he agree that the lack of a clear way forward and support from the Government at this stage is creating uncertainty in horseracing?
Nick Timothy
I am sure all hon. Members would look forward to a trip to Ludlow to experience the racing. If I am honest—I say this as a Conservative—this issue has dragged on for a while. I will turn to some questions for the Minister shortly, but time is of the essence.
As so often with Britain, part of the draw, especially for international investors, traders and spectators, is our history and tradition. Racing in this country dates back more than three centuries, and thoroughbred racing was first created here. The association with royalty, which continues with His Majesty the King, only adds to the prestige—I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), the most ardent monarchist in the House of Commons.
That success story, however, is strangely neglected. To those who do not know the industry, it can sometimes appear to be something of a caricature, with horses selling for millions of pounds, breeders paying hundreds of thousands for a particular stallion to cover a mare, and aristocrats and royals being prominent in their patronage. But the reality of racing, unfortunately, is that its future is far more precarious.
Many breeders and trainers operate on tight margins and, as many hon. Members present will affirm, any conversation with them turns quickly to prize money. A horse that wins a top-tier British race increases its future breeding value, but the immediate return is limited compared with in Australia, Ireland and France, where racing benefits from Government support, or in Japan and the United States, where there is simply more money around.
The prize fund for the Dubai Turf, for example, is £4.5 million, and for the All-Star Mile in Australia it is £2.7 million. The Queen Anne Stakes in Ascot, which is a fair equivalent, offers £600,000, and the same is true for the less famous races. At an average of £16,000 to be divided by all placed horses, prize money across the board is much lower here than in competitor markets. Lower down the pyramid, most races pay less than £5,000 to the winner. Owner expenditure far outstrips the total prize money up for grabs in British racing. That is down to how the industry is funded.
In Japan and Hong Kong, where betting is generally banned, there are exceptions for horseracing and some other sports, because they are seen as being run efficiently and by Government Departments. That means proportionately more bets are placed on horseracing than elsewhere, and in both places the industry controls the gambling. In France, prize money is underwritten by the Pari Mutuel Urbain, which enjoys a monopoly on betting. In Australia, where prize money has almost doubled in a decade, it is funded mostly through a betting tax. In Ireland, more than two thirds of prize money comes directly from the Irish Government.
Our system is different. Here the funds come from media rights, executive contributions from racecourses, owners’ entry fees, and the betting levy—a 10% tax on bookmakers’ profits from bets placed on races staged in Britain. Around a third of prize money comes from the levy, but income is falling. Over the past two years, the industry estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen by over £1.5 billion and could be as low as £7 billion this year. The Horserace Betting Levy Board says
“falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health”,
and I agree.
Nobody expects us to adopt a Japanese or French model, but I ask the Minister how things might be changed so that we can put racing on a sustainable footing and make sure that we retain our position as the best place in the world to breed, train and race horses. First, does the Minister agree with all hon. Members present—this is probably the easiest of my questions— that the British horseracing industry is an undoubted international success story, a source of British soft power around the world, and home to many vital community assets in regional towns here, and that we must therefore do everything in our power to make sure it continues to prosper?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm today that the Government will not go back to square one and will instead pick up where their predecessors left off? In May, the British Horseracing Authority agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the levy should be increased to 11.5% to create a growth fund to market and promote British racing at home and abroad, and to hold an independent review of the racing funding model.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate—he and I are co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock. It is important to get more money into the racing industry because there are so many people employed throughout the sport for whom racing is their livelihood, but their commitment and the lifestyle that they have to lead to do their work means that we must make sure they are in decent well-paid jobs as well. We cannot have racing squeezed, as it could be in years ahead.
Nick Timothy
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The racing industry is connected to many associated industries and many different kinds of jobs. As I said, when people see the large sums that are invested in bloodstock and so on, they do not always see that the industry rests on thousands of people, many of whom are on low incomes.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is well attended for a Thursday. He knows my family’s interest— I am about the only one who is not involved in racing; my father was a national hunt jockey. Does he agree that from the 2,000 Guineas and the Derby down to the small trainers, small tracks, point-to-points—Fakenham is just outside my constituency—the rural economy and pony clubs, there is an equine economy right across this country, but it relies on money trickling down from the top? Does he further agree that racing’s finances are not just unhealthy, but in crisis? The problem goes across a lot of Labour constituencies as well, so I support him in asking the Government—we will hear from the Minister—for a strong steer to prevent the further decline of racing’s finances.
Nick Timothy
I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend. I do not think this is a party political matter at all. We are all in this room regardless of our party badges because we know the importance of horseracing to our constituents and to our local economies and the country. A lot of the beneficiaries of the British horseracing industry reside in rural and semi-rural areas and regional towns. We spend a lot of time talking in this House about how we are going to improve the regional economy and racing is a really important part of that economy. To return to my point, we do not have time to go backwards.
As part of the work that I referred to, my third question is: will the Minister commit in this debate to the principle of a higher levy? In 2022-23, the levy raised £105 million, but the British Horseracing Authority estimates that an indexed yield of at least £133.5 million is needed for a sustainable future for racing.
Fourthly, will the Government reform the way in which the levy works? It is anomalous and nonsensical that the levy should apply to bets placed here on the races in this country, but not on bets placed here on races held overseas. That does not happen in Ireland or France, which derive significant income from the best British meetings, and we are penalising our own industry. I note that the Gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, has committed to
“making sure that the levy is administered efficiently to best support racing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 801.]
Indeed, I think the way in which the levy works is a vital part of that commitment.
Fifthly, following the Secretary of State’s encouragement that
“we cannot believe everything we read in the papers”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 969.]
as somebody who sometimes writes in The Daily Telegraph, I demur—can the Minister rule out today the reported Treasury plan to increase taxes on bookmakers? If the idea is to crack down on problem gambling, such a blanket policy would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and would obviously damage the racing industry.
Sixthly, and finally—you might be grateful to hear that, Sir Edward—the Secretary of State rightly wants to “strike the right balance” to prevent problem gambling while also protecting the racing industry and responsible gambling, which she says
“brings joy to many people.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 968.]
Will the Government commit today to ensuring proportionality in their efforts to stop problem gambling?
Even though Parliament has not legislated for affordability checks, as the gambling review has dragged on, bookmakers are operating pilot checks at the behest of the Gambling Commission. The idea was that those checks would be frictionless, and we were told that eight in 10 people placing bets would never undergo checks, but we know that punters are being asked to provide bank statements and payslips to prove they can afford their bets. Nobody wants to see problem gambling go untackled, but the rate of problem gambling on horseracing is comparable with that of many national lottery products, and affordability checks are already driving people away from legal betting on horseracing and on to the ever-growing offshore black market through online accounts, where of course there are no safeguards at all.
While the numbers for viewing and attendance at races is at least the same as it was before affordability checks, we know that betting turnover, and therefore racing income, is down by 20% in two years. Independent analysis for the Racecourse Association has forecast a £250-million hit to racing over the next five years, and the BHA says that one in seven jobs in the sport could be lost because of that issue alone. We need to appreciate the difference between gambling on racing or other sports, and the fixed-margin gambling online and in casinos that drives so much addiction and suffering. If we do not, it will be to the detriment of the racing industry and the enjoyment, employment and prosperity that it brings to so many. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. To get everybody in, we will start with an informal time limit, so please do not speak for more than five minutes. Keep an eye on the clock, please.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Sir Edward—it is very kind of you to call me so early in the debate. I declare an interest as the vice-chairman of the APPG on racing and bloodstock. It is a pleasure to serve with you, the Father of the House, as custodian of the time limits and procedures. I appreciate your advice, and I will stick to the required five-minute maximum. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important and timely debate.
I have always been a firm supporter of the horseracing industry. It may be the sport of kings, but it is loved by many thousands, if not millions, of working-class people. It is a vital part of not only our rich cultural heritage but our economic engine, especially for more rural communities and towns in areas such as mine. We have 59 racecourses across England, Scotland and Wales, and as was mentioned a little earlier, the industry draws almost 5 million spectators each year—I was actually surprised by the numbers. World-renowned events such as Royal Ascot, the Cheltenham festival, the grand national at Aintree—represented by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden)—and the Ebor meeting at York attract people from all walks of life, who appreciate the opportunity to visit in person.
However, smaller, less famous racecourses are of equal, or perhaps more, importance to local communities. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) mentioned his racecourse in Ludlow—I am not familiar with it, but perhaps I will visit at some point in the future. We are blessed with many such racecourses in my region, with Hexham in the north and Sedgefield—the racecourse nearest my constituency—in County Durham, and they all play a crucial role in supporting the regional economy. Of course, I must mention Newcastle racecourse, the home of the Pitmen’s Derby—the Northumberland Plate—and, soon, the Fighting Fifth.
As we have heard, horseracing contributes a not insubstantial £4.1 billion annually to the UK and supports more than 85,000 jobs—it is actually the second largest spectator sport after football. It plays a significant role in rural areas, offering employment, boosting tourism and sustaining industries, including not just those directly involved in horse breeding and horseracing, but catering, transport and hospitality. However, as we are all aware, the industry faces economic challenges, many of which stem from previous policy decisions, as recognised in the 2023 gambling White Paper. As a result, it is accepted that reforms are necessary to ensure the sustainable future of this crucial sector.
One of the most pressing issues—I am sure the Minister is fully aware of this—is the need to reform the horserace betting levy, which is absolutely crucial for funding not just prize money to attract the best entrants, but equine welfare and veterinary science. Although the levy was due for review this year, the process was delayed because of the general election. In May the British Horseracing Authority and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reached an agreement to reform the levy, including by increasing the rate to 11.5%—I am sure the Minister will say a bit more about that. That would create a growth fund to promote racing domestically and internationally, and I gently encourage her to continue engaging constructively with the British Horseracing Authority and to build on those important earlier discussions. I understand that the British Horseracing Authority is eager to return to negotiations as soon as possible to secure a sustainable future and a sustainable funding model.
I completely agree with the argument we heard earlier that the levy should apply to all racing globally that is bet on by British punters. There is an international precedent for that, so I am not quite sure why it has not yet happened—it might be the technology, but advances in technology make it possible now. That would bring us in line with other leading nations, particularly Ireland, and would help to ensure the sport’s long-term viability.
Horseracing is a vital part of Britain’s economy and culture. It provides jobs, supports rural employment and attracts global attention and publicity. As I and other colleagues have said, it faces serious challenges, but those can be resolved through horserace betting levy reforms. I am confident that our new Labour Government and our new Minister and ministerial team will work with the industry to make the necessary changes and ensure that this sport continues to thrive for years to come.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important debate.
Last week, I was lucky enough to attend the season opener at Wincanton races in my constituency. I found it hugely valuable to be there and discuss the issues of trainers, jockeys, owners and those watching the races alike. As the hon. Member said, the British horseracing industry is worth £4.1 billion a year to the UK economy, but most of that comes from mega-wealthy bettors who can afford to make substantial bets.
It is right that the Liberal Democrats have committed to implementing affordability checks, but it is vital that those checks protect vulnerable problem gamblers and their families, rather than deterring wealthy players, who help underpin the sport. One analysis shows that enhanced financial risk checks in horseracing, if implemented badly, could result in the sport losing £50 million a year. Similarly, a British Horseracing Authority survey suggests that 40% of bettors would turn to the black market if affordability checks were too stringent. Given that remote betting turnover, which accounts for at least 70% of all betting, continues to decline, the industry cannot afford to see that level of financial support just walk away. The Government must work with the industry to implement robust and frictionless affordability checks.
Racecourses, training yards and breeding operations are largely based in rural areas such as Wincanton and play an important economic role in those areas. Some 20,000 people are directly employed by the horseracing industry, and it supports another 65,000 jobs in supply chains. There is a real opportunity for the Government to ensure that local people in rural areas can access these jobs, by boosting the availability and take-up of apprenticeships and expanding higher vocational training. The lower apprentice rate should be scrapped to guarantee that everyone working in the horseracing industry receives at least the national minimum wage. That is particularly important in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton, where people still typically need to spend an additional 10% to 20% more on everyday requirements than those in urban areas due to the rural premium.
We should not forget that horseracing also plays an important cultural and social role at the heart of rural communities such as mine. In Glastonbury and Somerton, charities such as Racing to School are doing valuable work to provide curriculum-based visits to Wincanton racecourse for local schools. A day at the races is also an important way for many in rural communities, including the elderly, to socialise. I urge the Government to strike a balance between protecting these vulnerable groups, tackling the harms of problem gambling and ensuring that people are not unduly deterred from the sport.
Coming from a farming family and having ridden horses for much of my life, I care deeply about the welfare of the horses at the heart of this industry. The UK has some of the highest welfare standards in the world, including in horseracing, but I fear that that may slip unless the Government take steps to address the domestic vet shortage. Half of vets leaving the industry have been in the profession for less than four years. Recruitment and retention are significantly more challenging in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton.
To conclude, I urge the Government to work with the horseracing industry to introduce real safeguards and guardrails that support the progress that the industry has already made, such as the Betting and Gaming Council’s new voluntary code on consumer checks. The priority must always be to protect problem gamblers from being exploited by predatory gambling companies, rather than saddling the horseracing industry with tax rises to fix the financial mess left behind by the previous Conservative Government.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Edward, for your chairmanship of today’s debate, and it is a pleasure to be able to contribute. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate. His extraordinary constituency has Newmarket in it, and I have not been there since I was about 10 or 11, when my godfather took me to see the sales taking place—I hope I can go and relive that experience at some point soon.
I have loved horseracing since I was a child. My dad, who was a dock worker, would take me to local racecourses. I did not grow up in the countryside, but in the city of Liverpool, and he would take me to Haydock racecourse and Aintree racecourse. The first grand national I attended was won by Red Marauder, and only four horses out of 40 finished the race—Red Marauder, Smarty, Blowing Wind and Papillon.
Dan Carden
The racecourse was an absolute bog filled with water, and two of those horses had to be remounted to get to the finish. The event hooked me on horseracing because it was so extraordinary.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk and I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock, and our first meeting of this Parliament was attended by well over 20 colleagues. That—along with the strong attendance at this debate on a Thursday—just shows how highly the sport is considered.
I am incredibly proud to represent the Walton constituency, which now has Aintree racecourse within it. Aintree is home to one of the greatest races in the world, which is watched by more than 600 million people globally: the grand national. The economic contribution of the grand national—the three-day race meeting—is well over £60 million for. Aintree racecourse is also a world-class sporting facility, as well as being part of the local community, maintaining strong relationships, as some hon. Members will know, with Alder Hey children’s hospital, Park Palace Ponies and some of our schools and educational establishments. There is so much more potential for racecourses in our communities to have a positive and meaningful social impact, especially in urban areas. There is the potential for young people to benefit from alternatives to the classroom when it comes to skills and apprenticeships, and there are alternative fulfilling careers. Racing can play a role in helping the Government to deliver their national mission for growth.
Whatever the challenges British horseracing faces, it will always benefit from its prestige, including its centuries-old thoroughbred history, from Eclipse to Frankel, and Ascot racecourse, which was founded in 1711. Horseracing bridges the class divide. All of us want British horseracing to thrive into the future. For those who work in the industry, it is a labour of love and dedication, and a total life commitment.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk did an excellent job of putting on record the low prize money offered in Britain, compared to countries with different funding models, so I do not need to repeat that. However, given the reported decline in betting turnover, the current system —the reliance on media rights, racecourse contributions, owners and the levy—leaves the industry looking precarious. That is a real concern for all those who rely on it, and like all those in leadership roles in the industry, we in this place also have concerns. My message to the Minister and her colleagues is that they, and we as a Labour Government, have a responsibility to be good custodians of the industry for the future.
British racing is British soft power; it creates bonds between states—not just our neighbours in France and Ireland, but Japan, Australia, the US and the Gulf states. It is one of the finest cultural and economic assets this country possesses, and it rightly has a reputation as a global leader. Will the Minister commit to being proactive in backing the industry and all those who work in it? Will she carry forward the current levy negotiations with at least the suggested increase and with some urgency? While negotiations between the Betting and Gaming Council and the BHA are resuming, we must remember that the Government set the red lines and make the decisions. Finally, could we have that independent review into the future of racing—into the funding model for racing—to ensure that, in the years ahead, we can arrive at a sustainable settlement to save and promote racing?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: just 12 miles or so from here, and just round the corner from where I live in Sunbury in my Spelthorne constituency, is Kempton Park racecourse, where I enjoyed Jump Sunday as a guest of the Jockey Club last Sunday. It was a glorious and memorable day, and all my family will be back on Boxing day to enjoy the King George VI and Kauto Star Novices chases.
To the people of Spelthorne, the all-weather flat and turfed jumps courses are much more than that. The racecourse plays host to the weekly market and to the fortnightly international antiques market, now in its 40th year, where the buyers from the nearby Shepperton studios create the sets for the around 31 soundstages there. The annual total attendance for the racing is 20,000, multiplied many times by the global television audience, and for the antiques market it is 80,000. The course regularly hosts school visits and police training, and has a sell-out fireworks display in early November.
At its heart, Kempton Park is about the racing and the 70 or so meetings held there every year, and it is every bit as important to our national fabric as Formula 1, our world-leading track cyclists and the premier league. But, as my hon. Friend described, British horseracing, having led the world from its inception, is in danger of falling behind the leading group internationally. Where horseracing fails, it fails fast, and the Government want no piece of that.
Enough of the stick—what about a bit of carrot? The Minister has a huge opportunity to be the jockey who rides in a winner, generating growth and prosperity for our nation. With a swift and judicious settlement of the levy and protection from egregious taxation and regulation, the Minister will lead a late run on the stand rail. Glory awaits; I hope she achieves it.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Horseracing is a national treasure and the UK is a world leader in the sport, which is worth more than £4.1 billion annually to the UK economy, as has been said. In Doncaster, our racecourse is a source of great pride. It is one of the oldest racecourses in the country, in operation since 1614, and has been home to the best race festival, the St Leger, since 1776. As well as being the largest racecourse in the country, it acts as a concert venue, hosting iconic pop artists such as the Saturdays, Madness and Jess Glynne. It was also host to this year’s election count, where I was duly elected to this place—without doubt, the best count in the country.
The importance of horseracing to Doncaster’s culture and the economy cannot be overstated. On leaving Doncaster railway station, visitors to our city can see our racehorses across the road on the city’s mural, and for four days each September Leger Way becomes impassable as locals and visitors alike flock to the country’s most iconic fixture at the racecourse. But we also have fixtures throughout the year—there were 36 in 2023—which are always popular events for both my constituents and visitors from further afield.
The racecourse is one of the jewels in Doncaster Central’s crown. As a proud Doncaster native and regular attendee at my course, I hope that racing continues to flourish to uphold this important cultural and economic asset in my city. To do that, it is important that the Government set the necessary conditions to sustain it and for it to flourish. As has been discussed, the British Horseracing Authority and the previous Government reached a settlement on the betting levy. The changes were due to take place in September, but following the election and the welcome change in Government, we have yet to see them implemented. I ask the Government to pick up the discussions on that settlement so that the horseracing industry can have clarity on its future and on the settlement, and to ensure that racecourses such as Doncaster are able to prepare and adapt to any changes.
I also ask, as other Members have, that the Government pick up on the need for an independent review of the wider funding model for the sport after this year’s settlement has taken effect, to ensure that the industry is able to succeed. I repeat the ask that consideration be given to applying the horserace betting levy to all horseracing globally that is bet on by British customers.
It is imperative that we do not underestimate the value of British horseracing to many constituencies like mine and recognise that we must protect its interests, so that racecourses such as ours in Doncaster can continue to thrive and provide high-quality events and jobs for visitors and constituents for the years to come.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important debate.
It is an honour to represent a constituency that includes both Newbury racecourse and the Lambourn valley, which is home to some of the finest trainers in the country. Lambourn valley supports 34 trainers and employs more than 750 full-time workers, accounting for 30% of all jobs in that area. In addition to providing employment opportunities, the facilities make a major contribution to the local economy, with the gross value added from Lambourn estimated to be more than £22 million.
Nearly 15 miles south of the Lambourn valley, in the southern part of my constituency, lies Newbury racecourse. Unfortunately, our general election count could not be held there because an evening meet was going on. The venue hosts 31 meets annually, including the winter festival, and more than 23,000 people can be hosted both indoors and outdoors, generating an additional £5 million in gross added value.
It is clear that the industry is at the heart of my constituency, and it plays a vital role in ensuring the continued prosperity of the local economy. It does and can do more to support Labour’s focus on economic growth, but it needs support from the Government.
The hon. Member clearly laid out six asks of the Government. Although I do not want to repeat the excellent arguments he made, I put on the record my support for those measures. In particular, I will briefly address his sixth point regarding responsible gambling. I agree that none of us wants to see problem gambling go unchecked, but with the use of online platforms it is surely not beyond reason for sites to allow different access for different betting needs. A horse owner recently remarked to me that he could buy a horse for £40,000 without any checks, but he now has to provide bank statements in order to stake a couple of thousand pounds on a race. We need to find a better balance between protecting those most at risk and allowing people to spend their money freely without the involvement of the state and greater regulations.
I recently had the privilege of meeting trainers in Lambourn to discuss the importance of the industry to the local community and learn more about their outstanding efforts in caring both for horses and for the surrounding environment. During our conversation, they shared their concerns about the financial difficulties they face, including being forced to sell land just to stay afloat. The situation is unacceptable. Many people, both in my constituency and throughout the country, depend on the industry economically and socially.
It is vital that the Government take action to ensure the survival and continued success of the horseracing industry. The six asks from the industry, as raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, will clearly help but, outside of direct interventions and tax changes, more needs to be done to support the industry indirectly. For example, balancing support for local economies such as Lambourn while balancing the environmental impacts of building in a national landscape is key.
Without a sensible approach, the horseracing industry of my home will struggle to continue. Stables are struggling with recruitment because workers are unable to find places to live. The median house price in Newbury is £99,000 higher than the median house price in the country as a whole, starting at £385,000. Prices are out of reach for most. If stables are unable to recruit staff due to high housing costs, they may be forced to close for longer periods, leaving them without enough staff to care for and train the horses properly. Increasing the availability of social housing would be a significant step forward in addressing that issue.
We have also seen nutrient neutrality rules bring developments to a halt across the country, including in Lambourn, and we urgently need the Government to provide better advice and guidance to developers and local authorities so that development can continue while we protect our precious waterways.
The community of Lambourn is currently developing its own neighbourhood development plan, and it includes a focus on the impact of planning policy on the horseracing industry. This forward-thinking approach to better inform planners and decision makers of the unique aspects and challenges of the horseracing industry is welcome and will add real context in the consideration of planning decisions. More financial support from the Government is needed, along with a stronger commitment to build social housing. We must not overlook the incredible work the horseracing industry does.
Newbury racecourse has recently been named a finalist in two categories at the Racecourse Association showcase awards, being recognised for its consistently high operating standards. The awards take place on 7 November, and I wish Newbury racecourse the best of luck. I am due to visit the racecourse tomorrow for a behind-the-scenes tour followed by an exciting afternoon watching the races. It is always exciting to experience this wonderful sport at first hand and witness the hard work of the jockeys, trainers and yard staff in action. Historic sports like horseracing are essential for not only preserving traditions but sustaining the local economy. It is vital that we ensure its future for many years to come.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate.
I am not a follower of horseracing—I am a football fan and a season ticket holder at Wolverhampton Wanderers, who unfortunately are not doing too well at the moment—but we do not have to be supporters or followers of horseracing to understand how important it is to this country. Wolverhampton racecourse in my Wolverhampton West constituency is an important part of the city. Statistics have already been mentioned, but one point that has not been made is that British horseracing generates £300 million annually in taxation, contributing to the economy. I had the pleasure of going around the racecourse and saw what it does for the city and contributes to the local community. One thing that was really apparent was the high standards of animal health and welfare and how well the horses are looked after.
Horseracing is part of British culture and heritage. The first recorded race was at Newmarket in 1622, and we have had a racecourse in Wolverhampton since 1825. Wolverhampton racecourse was the first track to have floodlights. There are also evening meetings, which contribute to community engagement with the racecourse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) mentioned the bands that play at Doncaster racecourse, so I would like to boast that Wolverhampton racecourse has had such great bands as Madness, the Kaiser Chiefs, UB40 and the Human League. Another important aspect of Wolverhampton racecourse is that it is a venue for meetings, conferences and wedding receptions. I have attended many wedding receptions and meetings there. Wolverhampton racecourse also has a hotel, which has 54 bedrooms, but the City of Wolverhampton council has now given planning permission to increase the capacity to 170 bedrooms.
Horseracing is a part of the economic, cultural and historical heritage of this country. As far as I am concerned as the constituency’s MP, it is very much a part of the culture and heritage of Wolverhampton West. I want to ensure that nothing happens that diminishes the viability of Wolverhampton racecourse. I would like to see it continue to flourish, so that many people can attend horseracing and other events there. I very much hope that British horseracing continues and that Wolverhampton racecourse continues to flourish.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It is an honour to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this important debate.
I am very fortunate that in my patch I have two world-renowned racecourses—the Royal Windsor racecourse and Ascot racecourse. There is very rarely a better place to be on a Monday night than Royal Windsor—hon. Members are all very welcome. Ascot is obviously famous the world over, particularly for its annual five-day Royal Ascot event—an event that bucked the national trend this year by seeing an increase rather than a decline in attendance, which is a credit to all involved.
For those who heard my maiden speech this week— I cannot remember the name of his constituency, but the Member for Aintree clearly did—[Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). Ascot racecourse was founded in 1711, and that course now has 330 years of history and has hosted some of the world’s greatest races. Royal Ascot has welcomed some of the greatest racehorses from countries all over the world, including the United States, Hong Kong and, probably most significantly, the Australian super-mare Black Caviar, which is often considered one of the greatest racehorses of all time. She only left Australia once, and that was to compete in Britain at Royal Ascot’s diamond jubilee stakes in 2012.
It is not only equine royalty that Royal Ascot attracts. A few speakers have made the point about Ascot’s soft power. We get prominent royal figures from Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and ambassadors from the Commonwealth and indeed the world over, which makes horseracing an important tool for soft power for this country. The event showcases the best of Britain and the best of my Windsor constituency on the world stage, and is broadcast in more than 180 territories internationally.
As well as the prestige that comes with competing in Ascot’s group 1 races, it is obviously a significant financial contributor in terms of increasing a stud horse’s value, which remains unrivalled in international racing. As some hon. Members have already pointed out, as a result the racing industry generates more than £4 billion per year and employs more than 85,000 people. Royal Ascot alone welcomes 270,000 spectators across five days and at peak time employs more than 4,500 staff. The visits to the racecourse make up 10% of national racing attendance and their economic importance to my constituency and the surrounding areas cannot be understated. In fact, in 2014 Deloitte assessed the economic impact of Ascot racecourse, just for that event, at £68 million in off-course expenditure through food, accommodation and fashion, all of which drives money into our local economy and into London, our capital, which hosts many punters during those events.
For years, the horserace betting levy has helped to fund the grassroots of horseracing. It is not just about Ascot at the top of the tree—this all filters down into grassroots sports. It increases animal welfare and raises the profile of the sport. At its best, that reciprocal, symbiotic relationship improves the sport and, in turn, the takings of betting companies.
However, a big risk we highlight to the Minister today is that an increase in financial checks on customers risks pushing a lot of gambling underground. Less money would be reinvested in the sport, and ultimately there would be less money for the Treasury. We should of course be doing what we can to ensure that a flutter on the races remains an innocent recreational sport, and we need to give support to the people who need it, but I would urge the Government to tread carefully and acknowledge the unintended consequences of further regulation, particularly as problem gambling statistics for racing are at low levels compared even with some national lottery products.
Any further introduction should be frictionless and should involve working closely with relevant stakeholders, whether that be the BGC or the BHA. Understandably, countries that have seen heavy regulation tend to see an increase in black market betting. PwC found that increased state regulation of gambling in Norway led to 66% of all gambling there taking place on the black market, and similar conditions have created huge black markets in Portugal, Bulgaria and Sweden.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important point. Does he agree that if we do not support the UK racing industry, including supporting prize money, we will not only drive the betting revenues away but see more and more money going into other racing? Last year’s Hennessy, a big race in the autumn which I watch, had four runners, and on television all the racing that was being shown was from Ireland, where their horses had 20 entries. If we are not careful, we will end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Does he agree?
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that. I am a big cricket fan and effectively we have seen what big money overseas can do to the heart of a sport that originated in this country and gives us a lot of power, and we must be really careful about what we do. Obviously, we should also acknowledge that if people are pushed to the black market, there will be even fewer barriers to entry there, which might have a bad effect on problem gambling overall.
So, we are at an important crossroads for British horseracing. As bookies’ takings, which fund the levy, continue to decline, it is important that the Government’s approach to gambling respects individual liberty, and drives growth rather than limiting it. Just to expand on that—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Member now draw his remarks to a close?
Jack Rankin
Certainly, Sir Edward.
I hope the Chancellor will carefully consider introducing further punitive taxes on the gambling sector in next week’s Budget, because that would further squeeze the horseracing industry. And given that the Labour party made growth its priority, I hope that this Government will be forthright in their support of British horseracing—an industry that plays a vital role in my local economy and in generating this country’s unrivalled soft power.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair today, Sir Edward, and I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this debate.
I am proud to speak today about the remarkable contribution that the horseracing industry makes to our local economy and community in Epsom, and to say why it is vital that we support this industry. For 245 years, Epsom has proudly hosted the Derby, one of the world’s most prestigious and historic horseraces. However, the Derby is much more than just a race; it is a symbol of Epsom’s rich heritage and tradition.
The annual Epsom Derby festival draws more than 40,000 people over two days in early June and is a spectacle like no other. That is not just because of the high-end hospitality experiences on offer, but because the middle of the racecourse is free to enter and open to the public, allowing everyone to participate. And Epsom is unique as a racecourse, in that people can stand on the side of the track without paying a single penny.
That accessibility is absolutely crucial in maintaining a sense of inclusion and community. Indeed, the downs, a public access area surrounding the racecourse, serves the community all year round. Epsom racecourse maintains that land for public use and local residents use the downs for everything from exercising dogs to flying model planes to running—there are running races on the downs—archery, hosted by local clubs, and even metal detecting, organised by groups. So, Epsom is indeed a model of how a racecourse can contribute more broadly and become a resource for the community.
Beyond the 11 race days that Epsom racecourse hosts each year, the Epsom training gallops form the backbone of the local racing ecosystem. That training centre, which is owned and maintained by the racecourse, draws trainers to the area, with 170 horses across 10 different yards. Those independent yards are local businesses that provide year-round employment and they buy in from local suppliers. Each trainer has between five and 50 horses, and it is estimated that over 100 people are directly employed in those yards, with even more jobs being supported indirectly. That training centre is a critical asset for Epsom and the surrounding area, and those trainers are there because of the facilities on the downs. Without consistent racing, prize money or a vibrant industry, those yards would simply struggle. The local economy benefits year-round from the employment, the use of local services and businesses, and the sense of vibrancy that those yards create.
Furthermore, the racecourse is home to over 250 non-racing events throughout the year, as many other Members have mentioned, supporting local businesses and community groups. It hosts business meetings, exhibitions, dancing competitions and pigeon shows. Recently, there were celebrations to mark the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings. The count at which I was elected was also held there. The racecourse facilities bring investment into Epsom from outside, while also offering a really versatile space for the community to use as needed. The excitement of the Derby is important, but the industry’s real strength lies in the ecosystem that it supports throughout the year. The Epsom training gallops attract trainers to local yards and sustain local jobs.
Unfortunately, on occasion festivities have got out of hand. Sadly, this year we saw residents in Langley Vale frustrated by antisocial behaviour, vandalism and even ball bearings being shot into their windows. Thankfully, follow-up conversations with the police, residents and the Jockey Club will mean that security arrangements will be tightened for next year.
I want to mention the unique structure of the Jockey Club, which owns Epsom and 13 other racecourses across the UK. It reinvests every penny it makes back into racing, so there are no external stakeholders taking a cut. The more Epsom Downs is supported, the more it contributes to societal investment, benefiting the local community and the sport as a whole. Prize money increases attract better horses, bigger crowds and more interest in the area, and that success ripples out, supporting jobs, local businesses and community initiatives. While Epsom Downs is best known for the Derby, the racecourse brings so much more than that to the community: it is a year-round focus of activity, a training centre for excellence and a cornerstone of our local economy and community. The horseracing industry there supports employment, attracts tourism and fosters a real sense of community pride. Whether it is through the world-class racing, the training gallops or the many events and opportunities available to locals, the industry remains an integral part of what makes Epsom special.
I agree with the six points that the hon. Member for West Suffolk made in his speech, particularly on the need to strike a balance to prevent problem gambling. I hope the Minister agrees that racecourses like Epsom should be supported to continue contributing to the local economy and community, by a review of the general funding model.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate. I also thank Sporting John, the most recent horse that I successfully bet on at Cheltenham. The fact that it was in November 2021 tells us something about my record of success.
This debate is on a subject of crucial importance to our country and of central importance to my constituency. The breadth of the contribution of the horseracing industry to our nation’s economy and sporting and cultural life is undeniable. Indeed, as was mentioned, the world’s oldest classic race took place around a century before the first FA cup final. The first Cheltenham gold cup took place in 1819, although I am told that it was very different in those days. The hon. Member set out the economic contribution of horseracing to the country, and I will not go over that. However, it would be a disservice to local areas like my constituency if we failed to do everything possible to secure the future of the sport in a way that is good for racecourses, spectators and the economy of those local areas.
Racecourses are understandably frustrated that agreements reached prior to the general election have effectively timed out; that is why it was important to hold this debate today. Racecourses rightly seek clarity on the new Government’s position. On that note, I wholeheartedly back the hon. Member’s call for reform to the levy, which is a crucial part of the solution. Our racecourses must be placed on a level playing field with their international competitors; reform of the levy can help us support that goal. Extending the levy to cover bets placed in this country on races taking place abroad would help our racecourses and those who rely on them to achieve long-term financial sustainability. Can the Minister confirm that that is being considered alongside other reforms and the potential for uprating the levy to help racecourses?
Reforms to protect problem gamblers from the harm they encounter are long overdue, and it is good that there is cross-party consensus on the matter. Doing so in a way that protects racecourses is a key challenge for the Government, and I know Ministers will take that seriously. Can the Minister confirm that when the Government take much-needed action to address problem gambling, that will be done in a way that tackles the root cause by asking betting companies with the deepest pockets to bear the brunt of any changes, and not racecourses?
On local matters in Cheltenham, a study by the University of Gloucestershire found that the contribution of the 2022 Cheltenham festival to our local economy was a staggering £274 million over just four days. There are many other days of racing, which means the contribution to our town is significant. The festival helps our brilliant local hospitality industry. Many of its members tell me that they exist entirely on those four days; if they were not there, we would have far fewer excellent pubs, restaurants, nightclubs and bars. That industry has of course suffered so much in recent years. It also provides good jobs for local people.
I am a strong supporter of the racecourse and that will continue, but its positive impacts in Cheltenham do come with antisocial behaviour, which too often spills over into unacceptable behaviour, misogyny and practices that many local people find distasteful. It is to the racecourse’s credit that it has campaigned proactively to try to bring an end to the things that local people find difficult.
The Love our Turf campaign is helping. As part of that, over the last two years I have declared a war on wee during race week. That is against the legions of men—it is always men—who feel it is appropriate to urinate publicly in our town centre, in broad daylight, on their way to the racecourse. The use of hydrophobic paint on town centre walls and extra public loos have helped to reduce reports of public urination. The racecourse’s deployment of staff on routes to and from the town centre has also helped. But we must go further: the war on wee will be fought again this coming March.
On the subject of undesirable impacts, there is no demand for sexual entertainment venues in Cheltenham town centre for 51 weeks of the year, but during race week, the on-the-ground impact of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 appears to be that sexual entertainment venues can pop up in a local pub or bar with little reference to the local authority. That puts local councils in an invidious position. If they award a licence to an establishment, it is unpopular, divisive and unwanted by the local people, but if they do not, SEVs pop up in a seemingly haphazard way that places women at much greater risk of harm. The Minister probably cannot comment on that issue today, but I would be grateful if she raised it with appropriate colleagues.
I do not want to take away from the importance of the debate, but as the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I cannot stand up and support national hunt racing without raising these points of difficulty. It is not the racecourse’s fault—local people in Cheltenham know that—but the fault of many different authorities that need to get a grip. I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk for giving me the opportunity to make that point, which does not take away from my support for the racecourse.
Another important matter, already raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), is animal welfare. The industry takes it seriously, but that is often badly misrepresented by those who seek to undermine the good work being done. It is important to get on the record that the Jockey Club has made significant improvements that are worthy of praise, such as lowering the height of hurdles at Cheltenham in recent years. The industry will do more in the coming years; it is listening.
An industry worth £4.1 billion, which supports 85,000 jobs and brings so much joy to so many people from all walks of life, must be cherished. There is cross-party consensus in the Chamber today, and Minister will have heard that. I am pleased to lend support through my comments, just as I will lend support to my picks at the Countryside day at the November meeting in three weeks’ time.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this debate. I congratulate him on being elected as one of the new co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock, alongside the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) who represents the fantastic Aintree racecourse, home of the grand national. For his information, my last winner was Silver Birch a long time ago; I cannot tell him who came second or third.
I look forward to working together to help to protect the future of British horseracing as a cultural and economic asset for the whole country. I know that is certainly the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency, home to the famous Newmarket racecourse and many world-class yards, having visited not too long ago. He is quickly becoming the Member of Parliament not only for West Suffolk but for horseracing—a title that many will be jealous of, including myself.
Putting aside the cultural and sporting importance of horseracing for a moment, the industry is of considerable economic benefit to the United Kingdom, as we have heard with respect to Ascot, Kempton Park, Ludlow, Aintree, Epsom, Wolverhampton, Newmarket, Fakenham, Newcastle, Doncaster, Newbury, Windsor and Cheltenham. I apologise if I missed any that were mentioned, but it shows the breadth of contributions from across our great country.
According to the British Horseracing Authority, the racing industry has direct revenues in excess of £1.47 billion and makes a total contribution to the UK economy of £4.1 billion. In fact, it was the second largest sport behind football for attendance, employment and revenues generated annually. More than 5.5 million people attended the more than 1,500 individual race meetings across England, Scotland and Wales in 2019. While attendance has not quite recovered from the pandemic, in 2022, almost 5 million people attended racing events across our great country.
In pure economic terms, the value of the industry is clear, but it contributes much more to life in Britain than just tax revenues. It is a core part of British culture that we have successfully exported around the world. On my travels in years gone by, I had the pleasure of witnessing at first hand some of the amazing horseracing courses in other parts of the world—I would add that I paid for that myself before I was a Member in this place.
Horseracing is synonymous with having a flutter, and the gambling industry is a key supporter of horseracing, providing a lifeline through racing’s income stream. Together, they are key to the non-financial benefits that I just mentioned. Research shows that 82% of betting shop customers visit their local shop at least once a week, and that 89% of those go on to visit other shops while on the high street. We have a clearer picture of loneliness in our society now than ever before, so we cannot take for granted the social contribution of horseracing, via high street betting shops and visits to the course.
Under the previous Conservative Government, we made the first major governmental contribution to the national conversation around loneliness and the importance of social connections. From my time working for a bookmaker when I was a student, I know that many people living in our communities rely on interactions with betting shop staff to keep them going. While the stakes gambled may not be high, I know many pensioners whose 10p lucky 15s are the highlight of their day—win or lose.
People who visit a betting shop or racecourse are helping to support the horseracing industry, with the horserace betting levy, sponsorship and media rights raising around £350 million for the sport overall. From the conversations that I have already had as the shadow Minister for Gambling, however, I know that there is an increasing tension in how the levy operates, which we have heard about already today.
I am sure that hon. Members present will already know that the horserace betting levy results in betting firms giving up 10% of their gross profits from horseracing back to the sport. That is on top of the 15% betting duty that the Betting and Gaming Council’s members pay to the Exchequer. Those members are expected to contribute a record £150 million in levy payments for 2023-24—the third consecutive year that the levy contributions have increased.
Despite the increased payments from betting to racing, betting turnover is down 17% in the first three quarters of this financial year. To further demonstrate the decline in racing, it is estimated that, in 2007, 17% of people enjoyed betting on horseracing, but that fell to 10% in 2018. As we have heard, that is causing great concern among not only racecourses but Betting and Gaming Council members. I have even heard reports of some operators already withdrawing offers such as paying extra places on races or offering best odds guaranteed, and some members have gone as far as not offering prices on horseracing meetings altogether. That is not sustainable or good for racing.
The previous Conservative Government were committed to the long-term success of horseracing in Britain. In line with the statutory requirement that we set out in 2017, we began the required review in April this year into the rate at which the levy is charged. Unfortunately, work on that has stopped dead in its tracks given the change in Government. Since the election, there has been a new appointment to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, with Anne Lambert appointed as interim chair, but otherwise the industry has been left in limbo by this new Government. On 29 July, Baroness Twycross, the new part-time Minister for Gambling, said in the other place:
“It is too soon for me to commit to the shape of future policy.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 801.]
Well, as we enter the national hunt season, the industry needs clarity and it needs it soon, as we have heard from other hon. Members today.
What support will the Minister and her Department be offering to the horseracing industry, financial or otherwise, and will she help to negotiate the new level at which the horserace betting levy is to be set? Will she bring forward some of the reforms set out in the gambling White Paper, which will help to level the playing field and promote growth in the sector? What conversations has she had with Government colleagues to make sure that the sport is not damaged by sky-high tax rises in the upcoming Budget? What measures is she taking with industry to stop the growth of the black market, and to make sure that punters can continue to have a flutter freely and safely? What support is she offering horseracing to help grassroots development, equine research and participation in the sport?
Horseracing is vital for many reasons: its economic contribution to the Exchequer, its social and sporting contribution, and the community it provides in mostly rural areas. From raising a foal to the final furlong, horseracing is an essential part of life for people and places up and down our country, as we have heard today. The industry is about not just sport, but, vitally, maintaining and promoting horse welfare across the country.
The BHA’s expenditure supports horse welfare; one of its goals is to drive high-quality care and support for the horse in racing. In total, the Horserace Betting Levy Board spends around £3.5 million annually on horse-related areas, such as educational research and a number of horse welfare projects. As we have heard already, the Jockey Club has also made changes over the years to ensure that the safety of horses is improved at our tracks. Moreover, the BHA is responsible for the safety of horses at races in Britain and works with animal welfare organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and World Horse Welfare, to keep racecourses as safe as possible for the horses. The cross-industry Horse Welfare Board also makes recommendations, including a multi-year strategy to improve welfare.
Earlier this year, alongside Great British Racing, the BHA launched a new campaign, HorsePWR, to promote the facts around welfare in horseracing and to challenge and correct inaccurate information in the public sphere. As the Horse Welfare Board’s first five-year strategy comes to a close in the new year, I hope to work with the BHA as it begins to prepare the next one. For anyone listening who has not had the opportunity to visit their local yard, I highly recommend going to their nearest stables to see the fantastic passion and work that goes on. I also recommend a trip to the National Stud, which is like visiting a five-star hotel—but visitors should make sure to take some Polo mints to keep the horses happy if they are allowed close to them.
From end to end, the equestrian economy is valued at nearly £8 billion, almost half of which is not the racing industry. Horseracing, as we have heard, is much more than just a sport; it is a true British pastime that has a permanent place in the hearts of many people across the country—me included—and it must continue to be supported by this Government as it was by the previous one. In closing, I urge the Government, after a slow start, to leave the stalls, gallop into action as if they were Kauto Star cruising up the Cheltenham hill, and give British horseracing the certainty and future it deserves to remain internationally competitive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I begin by referring to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having taken part in a charity bet earlier this year and attended Donny races this time last year. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important debate on the future of and support for horseracing. I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) on being elected co-chairs of the all-party group; the Department looks forward to working with them.
We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the shadow Minister did an excellent job of listing all the places, so I will not repeat them. Instead, I will speak about the issue in broad terms before addressing some of the specific points made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk and others.
His Majesty’s Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy. As has been rightly mentioned, it plays a central role in the livelihood of many different communities. I am well aware from my time as the shadow Minister for Gambling of the strength of support on both sides of the House for horseracing, and of the concern around its finances. In February, I took part in a Westminster Hall debate on that subject, prompted by a petition signed by more than 100,000 people. Horseracing is a powerhouse industry that supports employment across racecourses, training yards, breeding operations and related sectors, and is respected at home and abroad.
Horseracing is the second-biggest sport in the UK in terms of attendance. According to the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth more than £4 billion annually to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure. British racing and breeding enjoy a reputation as a global leader and is promoted worldwide as part of the “GREAT Britain & Northern Ireland” campaign, recognising the cultural and economic importance of horseracing to the UK and the role it plays as a soft power asset.
I will outline the measures that the Government are taking to protect horseracing and its valuable economic and cultural contribution. I will also take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the horserace betting levy, which has been mentioned a number of times. Given the long-standing acknowledgment of the symbiotic relationship between racing and betting, racing is the only sport with a direct levy that is overseen by the Government. The levy is therefore our most direct lever for supporting the sport, but it needs to reflect the common interests of both sides of the relationship.
The Horserace Betting Levy Board collects the levy, as Members know, and applies the money raised for one or more of the following purposes: supporting breeds of horses; the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science and education; and the improvement of horseracing. The largest proportion of the levy is used to support prize money; in fact, prize money is a means of injecting funds into the wider racing ecosystem through the employment of trainers, jockeys, work riders and a whole host of people in over 500 training yards who are involved in caring for horses and putting on race days.
The ability of prize money to cover the costs of training is a key consideration for owners deciding to enter and remain in the industry. This is seen in the board’s recent announcements that it has budgeted to contribute £72.7 million to prize money for racing fixtures in 2025—an increase of £2.2 million on 2024 and around £13 million more than each of the pre-covid years of 2018 and 2019.
The horserace betting levy has evolved in step with the betting industry since it was introduced in the 1960s. In 2017, the previous Government extended the levy to online bookmakers and fixed the rate at 10% so that it no longer had to be negotiated each year. The 2017 reforms almost doubled the amount of levy collected, from £49.8 million to £95 million, and it has continued to perform well, collecting £105 million in 2023-24.
I place on the record my thanks to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which continues to do an excellent job, especially in difficult circumstances following the sad death of the chair Paul Darling in August this year. I understand it was his memorial this week, and I send my thoughts to his family. The Government will continue to work with the levy board and the wider industry to maximise the benefits of the levy and ensure that it continues to deliver for the sector.
The previous Government undertook a review that concluded in April, and I recognise the significant work undertaken by both the racing and betting industries to secure a sustainable future for the sport. I am aware that, as part of that review, the British Horseracing Authority presented its case that there is a significant gap in its funding, stating that it is unable to compete with jurisdictions such as Ireland and France. The Minister for Gambling has met representatives from both the horseracing and betting industries, has encouraged a voluntary deal that fairly reflects the relationship between racing and betting, and will write to both parties soon. I understand that both parties agreed the value of a growth fund for the sport, and we look forward to hearing about progress on that.
It is fair to say that racing and betting should maximise income from other sources, as the levy represents just 6% of income, with far greater proportions earned from owners, breeders, racegoers, media rights deals and sponsorship. The Government welcome recent changes to the fixture list that are designed to grow the sport, engage new and existing customers and bring an additional £90 million to racing by 2028. I was also encouraged to see horseracing showcased in the recent TV documentaries “Horsepower” and “Champions: Full Gallop”.
Let me address the specific points raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk. Several other Members made similar points. First, as I have hopefully made clear in my speech so far, I absolutely agree that British horseracing is an international success story. I am delighted to put my support for it on the record. As I said, I was at Donny races last year. Indeed, the year before that I was at York races with my good friend, the late great Jim Andrews, who was my agent. That was one of the last days we spent together before he sadly passed away— I pay tribute to him—and I have very fond memories of York races for that reason. I know of the huge contribution that horseracing makes not just to our economy but to communities up and down the country.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second and third questions, in the absence of any current legislative opportunity to impose changes to the levy, the Government are inviting the betting and racing industries to resume negotiations on a voluntary deal. We think that is the best and fastest option to get additional money flowing to the sport. I share the hon. Gentleman’s hope that we will not go back to square one, and that the parties will reflect on areas where there was agreement.
I do not think the previous negotiations were publicised at the time, but they have been discussed in detail today. I believe they resulted in an offer of an additional 1.5% from the betting industry, which racing agreed was reasonable. There was further agreement that the majority of those additional funds should be targeted towards a growth fund to generate interest in the sport. The Minister for Gambling is happy to continue dialogue with both parties, and if racing would like to hold its own independent review, the Government would welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman’s fourth question was about reforming the scope of the levy to include international races, which a number of Members discussed. There are strong arguments on both sides, but we should focus on what is achievable in the short-to-medium term. Although it is true that racing in other jurisdictions benefits from British racing in a way that is not reciprocated, the funding mechanisms in Ireland and France operate more centralised, state-led systems, and there are fewer opportunities for the commercial deals that we have in the United Kingdom.
On the hon. Gentleman’s fifth question, he might be new to this place but he is an experienced and seasoned actor or character—I am trying to be diplomatic—in the Westminster and Whitehall world. He tempts me, but he knows that I cannot comment on plans for the upcoming Budget.
The hon. Gentleman’s sixth question was about addressing problem gambling proportionally. He will have heard the answer that the Secretary of State gave him in the Chamber last week. I think that, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, it is incredibly important to strike a balance when dealing with problem gambling. Nearly half the population gambled in the past four weeks, so although it is of course important that we provide support to tackle problem gambling, we must do so in a balanced way.
A number of hon. Members raised frictionless checks. As they will know, the Gambling Commission is leading the pilot work on financial risk checks. We will be watching those pilots with interest, but I have heard Members’ concerns and will reflect them to the Minister for Gambling.
I will make representations to my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on animal welfare and the number of vets. I will ask the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on the question he asked.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), made an important point about loneliness. I have visited most of the betting shops in my constituency of Barnsley South, and I have seen at first hand the difference they make in helping to combat loneliness. As the Minister responsible for loneliness, I take that seriously. I say gently to him that we do not have a part-time Gambling Minister; we have a Gambling Minister who sits in the other place. I have answered a number of questions about the Government’s broad support, but I am happy to facilitate a meeting or a letter from the Gambling Minister to him.
The Government remain committed to supporting British horseracing. We believe it is vital to our economy, and it brings joy to many people. I know the Gambling Minister will look forward to continuing to engage with stakeholders in this area. This debate has highlighted the huge benefit that racing has for communities up and down the country.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Does Nick Timothy wish to say a few words to sum up?
Nick Timothy
Unfortunately for you, Sir Edward, I would like that very much.
I thank everybody who participated in this really constructive debate. We have learned a lot—and not just about the dubious music tastes of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). I took the hint from the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), and I will extend an invitation to all hon. Members who participated in the debate to come and see the delights that Newmarket has to offer.
There was strong agreement from Members from all parties on the six issues I raised. I will not repeat them, but I want to say something in response to the Minister’s answer, for which I am grateful. I note and appreciate the warmth of her words and those of the Secretary of State in the main Chamber last Thursday. I appreciate that it is early days for the Government, and that Ministers often need time to familiarise themselves with the challenges, but I gently say that Labour Members are in government now; they are not shadow Ministers. Being in government means that they have power, and it may not be enough to convene conversations between interested parties and hope that we might reach voluntary agreements. In the end, Ministers often need to decide.
On each of the points made by the Minister, I encourage her and the Secretary of State to go a little further. It is easy for us all to agree on the ends, but when we agree on the ends, we have to determine the means. Sometimes that will involve making decisions that some of the interested parties might not like to hear. Sometimes people assume that the racing and gambling industries’ interests are coterminous, but they are not. Therefore, I invite Ministers to intervene on such issues.
Specifically on including overseas races in the levy, as on other issues, there was a high degree of consensus among all those who contributed to the debate. Obviously, an opportunity is coming up—I do not know whether the Budget has been put to bed, but a Finance Bill will follow, and that is the easiest change in the world to make. From a Government perspective, it is cost-free, and it would make sense for British racing. The Minister noted the difference in structures and financing of racing in countries such as Ireland and France, but the debate has exposed the extent to which the industries in those countries stand in an advantageous position compared with ours. I press the Minister once more on that.
I thank everyone for participating in the debate and you, Sir Edward, for your excellent skills in the Chair.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
It has been a pleasure to chair this debate. I am only sorry that no one mentioned the best racecourse in the country—Market Rasen.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the horseracing industry.
Secondary Ticketing Market
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the secondary ticketing market.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I am delighted to see so many other Members who have long campaigned on this issue, including my north-east colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and I look forward to her contribution. I also thank organisations such as the FanFair Alliance for their hard work on this matter, and the Co-operative party for its End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign.
Live sport, music and entertainment brings joy to millions of people every single week. Whether it is watching their favourite team or going to a gig, concert or play, people save up for events, wait in online or telephone queues and eagerly anticipate games and shows. I am sure that that is something just about everyone in this country has experienced, and we can all think back to our favourite game, gig, concert or play. They are memorable events that we remember for decades—moments shared with friends, family or partners that last a lifetime. Members need not worry—I will not go around the room and ask everyone about their first gig or their favourite one, or about that live sporting fixture that lives with them forever.
Growing up, my friends and I would save our pocket money or our paper round money, and we would queue up at local music shops such as Pet Sounds to get tickets to gigs, generally at the local universities. As true millennials, we got to see loads of our favourite punk bands—NOFX, Bowling for Soup, and Spunge being just a few. For those who think that punk is just a phase, I am looking forward to the Tour of the Setting Sum farewell tour by Sum 41 next week.
These are formative moments and cherished memories, but for everyone who gets to enjoy them, there are those who have missed out—those who were not able to secure tickets and make those memories. Far too often, those consumers are then left at the mercy of what is the topic of today’s debate—the secondary ticketing market. The issue profoundly affects music and sport fans, event-goers and the integrity of our live entertainment industry, but it appears to be inadequately addressed by current regulatory frameworks. People understand that they will not always get a ticket to the show, gig or game, but they feel a real sense of injustice at the scale of secondary ticketing platforms, with tickets often appearing just moments after people have attempted to purchase them. While allowing a space for those tickets to be resold is important, it is also important that that is not to the detriment of consumers.
The industry is vast, with one in five tickets ending up on secondary platforms, so the need for education and measures to protect consumers is becoming increasingly clear. Recent findings from O2 show that consumers lose an estimated £145 million each year due to inflated resale prices, which are pricing many out of the events and experiences they love. A study by ITV News and the FanFair Alliance found that over two thirds of resale tickets for 174 festivals and outdoor events were being offered by just three traders, who collectively sought to profit by almost £1 million.
Earlier this year, it was reported that two prolific touts were jailed after buying tickets for high-profile gigs and reselling them on secondary sites for up to 500% of their original cost, with the scheme being worth more than £6.5 million. Worryingly, with technology, the issue is becoming more and more prevalent. In just six weeks, O2 prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform, with those tickets almost guaranteed to end up on resale sites and other people losing out. I will touch a little later on the practice of ticket harvesting, and while some progress has been made to prevent it, new technologies and techniques continue to circumvent the measures in place.
With that as a backdrop, is it any wonder that research from the FanFair Alliance found that 80% of respondents believe that secondary ticketing services are unfairly exploiting fans? Practices such as drip-feeding, surge pricing and strategic holdbacks create a precarious environment for consumers, and concerns have been raised about practices that manipulate supply and demand, driving up prices and creating artificial scarcity. Shockingly, between 30% and 50% of tickets may be withheld from public sale, leading to heightened frustration among genuine fans who simply want to attend events. As the cost of attending events increases, it is ultimately fans who are missing out. We cannot allow a situation where genuine fans are priced out of culture, art and entertainment because of these practices. We are already at a stage where too many fans opt out of trying to attend events, dispirited by the existing landscape, with little chance of seeing their team, group or artist at what would be the normal asking price. Again, at the heart of this is people—consumers—who are missing out. Due to enhanced costs, they cannot attend the gig or event they have dreamed of.
What do consumers have to navigate at the moment? As I have said, ticket harvesting, surge pricing and a concerning transparency deficit. Ticket harvesting—where individuals or groups use automated software and bots to acquire large quantities of tickets during primary sale—is preventing fans from accessing culture at an industrial scale. As mentioned earlier, O2 indicated that it prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform in just six weeks. Similarly, FanFair found platforms where people bragged about the extent of their exploits. Members of a Discord group were able to purchase up to 1,700 tickets to an upcoming tour next year, with the tickets then being sold at enhanced prices, and fans paying the price. Those alarming statistics highlight the scale of the problem.
We have all heard what this can lead to. Whether it is tickets to major concerts, Eurovision or other events, I am sure everyone has seen and heard the stories. The latest hot tickets go live, and within minutes they are listed on secondary platforms at significantly inflated prices. To give one example, after the swift sell-out of Eurovision tickets in 2023, tickets resold for upwards of £9,000—more than 20 times their initial price. That kind of price gouging creates an environment where only the wealthiest fans can afford to attend popular events, alienating loyal supporters and pricing them out of culture.
Turning now to transparency in the market, consumers deserve clear and accurate information regarding who is selling tickets, how many are available and the pricing structures involved. One of the most pressing issues is the information gap that exists on secondary ticketing platforms. When consumers purchase tickets, they often receive insufficient details regarding their authenticity, the identity of the seller and the potential risks involved. Enhanced transparency is crucial to enable fans to make informed decisions. At the moment, it is unclear what exactly the secondary ticket market is, with research showing that 62% of music fans purchasing from resale platforms do not realise they are buying from individual sellers, creating confusion for many. In the best-case scenarios, we hear of fans having to meet people in car parks for handovers of tickets; at worst, the tickets do not exist.
Greater transparency would play a pivotal role in educating consumers about the risks of ticketing, and especially the practice of speculative selling, where tickets are listed that do not exist or are not available. That practice can lead to dire consequences, with fans thinking they have secured tickets, only to find that they have been misled. Investigations have uncovered instances where tickets worth more than £1 million were speculatively advertised online. Despite consumers being assured that protections are in place, it appears that some sellers remain able to circumvent protections, with the consumer paying the price and experiencing the double whammy of missing out and losing out financially.
Fans, whether at sports events, gigs or other events, should be at the heart of events, yet current practices lead to disillusion among fans and a disconnect with those they support and the sector more widely. Inflated prices leave loyal fans priced out of attending live events they once enjoyed, with the prohibitive cost of attending eroding the connection between fans and artists. Trust among fans is another casualty; when fans feel they are being exploited, their trust in both the industry and the teams or artists involved is eroded. Anger at missing out can be directed at those acts or teams, with allegations that they are complicit in a system that excludes ordinary fans, when this is largely through no fault of their own.
We have seen many recent examples where fans have expressed upset at the initial difficulty of getting a ticket and then at the surge pricing and instant relisting on secondary platforms. When tickets are resold at an inflated price, that does not benefit the artist or the venue. Instead, the profits are siphoned off, removing crucial funding from cultural communities. We know that artists rely on ticket sales as a significant portion of their income, especially in an era when traditional revenue streams such as album sales have dwindled due to streaming services. The success of a tour can hinge on the ability to sell tickets at a fair price, and unfair practices undermine the economic viability of live performances. So this is about protecting not just consumers, but entertainment more widely and making it more accessible.
So what is currently in place to protect consumers and the sector? Well, there is regulation and enforcement from a number of organisations: the Competition and Markets Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, trading standards and, in some cases, the police. The CMA published a comprehensive report in 2021 that outlined recommendations aimed at curbing detrimental practices in the ticketing market. Among them was a call for stronger measures against ticket resellers who exploit fans with excessive prices. The CMA’s investigation revealed that a significant portion of tickets listed were being sold at inflated prices on secondary platforms.
The previous Government were hesitant to implement all the CMA’s recommendations, which included further proposals. However, there have been recent changes in regulations in this area, with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and we have taken a significant step forward. There has been an expansion of the CMA’s investigation and enforcement powers, allowing for direct action against non-compliant reselling platforms. Additionally, the Act will enable the CMA to enforce existing rules, addressing a long-standing concern over the lack of transparency and ensuring that consumers have access to clear and accurate information. The previous Government could have gone further, but held back from embracing some of the reforms, which could have further strengthened consumer protections. I am pleased that the new Labour Government have already confirmed that a new consultation will take place and that we will revisit the recommendations.
As a proud Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I am delighted that the party has launched a new consumer campaign on this issue. The End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign highlights the fact that, whether it is dynamic pricing way above face value or fans being frozen out of culture, the party movement has always had consumers at the heart of it, standing up for consumers and helping to deliver everything from the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. I really welcome the latest campaign, alongside a petition that has already been signed by thousands calling for strong powers to stop fans being taken advantage of and to protect them from being exploited by touts and resale sites.
I know that the Government are setting up the consultation as we speak and that it will involve not only DCMS but the Department for Business and Trade. I hope that it provides a real opportunity to look at all options to take action that can fundamentally transform the ticketing landscape for fans, artists and the integrity of the market and to enhance consumer protection, ensure fair access to tickets and mitigate the current issues faced.
Campaigners have raised concerns about whether the current regulatory framework is being enforced. Following high-profile cases, the CMA has opened investigations, but the problem is far more prevalent. Will the Minister comment on how we can better use current legislation to provide protections to consumers? The Co-operative party has been campaigning for much tougher enforcement action against platforms hosting ticket touts. Where websites continuously exploit fans, could the use of fines and the removal of websites entirely be considered to strengthen the protection of fans?
Much as the Co-operative party has long been a movement for the consumer, access to arts and culture is a Labour value. It is why our trade union movement adopted the bread and roses slogan from the American suffrage movement. Life should not be just about the basics—food, housing and wages—but about the roses too. For too many at the moment, culture is becoming inaccessible because of a trade that relies on the exploitation of enjoyment, buying up excessive numbers of tickets before real fans have a chance, and reselling them at extortionate prices. I am sure that the Minister agrees that culture enriches lives, that it should be open to people and that fans should not be priced out due to a secondary ticket market. Can he reassure me that that will be at the heart of what we do as part of the consultation?
To conclude, although this matter may not be at the top of the list of things impacting on people across the country, it is important in demonstrating our values. Culture should be available to all and not just the privileged few. Live entertainment should not be in the purview only of those who are able and willing to pay extortionate prices. People already save up for the cost price to access events; they should not be made to pay multiples of that. A system that allows ticket harvesting, surge pricing and tickets being resold at multiple times their original value excludes people from the enjoyment of a gig, sporting event or show. Those actions freeze people out of enjoyment and take away their chance of having the special, memorable moments that live entertainment can bring, whether that is music or sport.
As the great Newcastle United manager Bobby Robson once said of football and our beloved Newcastle United,
“What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It’s not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city. It’s a small boy clambering up stadium steps for the very first time, gripping his father’s hand, gawping at that hallowed stretch of turf beneath and, without being able to do a thing about it, falling in love.”
Everyone deserves that opportunity to fall in love. I hope we can work to protect fans and end the ticket rip-off.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this important debate. She said secondary ticketing might not be at the top of everyone’s list, but it is incredibly important. It is one of those things that we do not know anything about until we become victims of it. I became a victim of it: I bought tickets to a concert in good faith. I then thought my parents might like to come along so I bought a second set of tickets. When we got to the venue, it turned out that my parents’ tickets had been duplicated. The other people had already got into the venue, so their tickets were invalid. The venue sorted it out and thankfully my parents got to see the concert, as did I. But that was 12 years ago at Sting’s Back to Bass tour at the Hammersmith Apollo in 2012, and frankly very little has changed since then. If anything, I would say the situation has got worse for consumers because we are seeing more sophisticated technology with the advent of bots that easily scrape up tickets from across websites.
It is not just the technology but the secondary ticketing platforms that employ the unscrupulous methods in the first place. I would also throw into the mix the primary ticketing platforms, which often release tickets in a way that is not transparent for the consumer and makes it difficult for people to understand where they can buy tickets. The rush on a Friday morning, when tickets still tend to be released, means people scramble for tickets, which pushes the price up and up. It makes it very difficult for consumers to understand what the best way to buy tickets is, and there is a lot of misinformation out there on the market.
The hon. Member talked about music and other cultural events, and rightly so—I completely agree with her on that—but it is important to recognise that this is not just about music and culture. It is also about sports, although we could say sports are part of culture as well. A lot of people argue that it is all just supply and demand: “People wouldn’t pay 20 times the face value if the tickets weren’t worth that.” But there is a very good reason why many sporting activities want to keep prices down: they want to keep the fans and players of the future—in child form—coming along with their parents and growing a love for the game. Rugby, for example, is keen on enticing families to come and watch games because they know that the children who come with their families are the players and fans of the future. They are looking at longevity—something that does not always exist in the music market. It is important to remember that this is not just about fans: it is about a long-term view of what our live events industry needs.
It is not just individuals reselling tickets. The police’s Operation Podium during the 2012 Olympics uncovered the fact that lots of organised crime networks were profiting from ticket reselling, raking in millions upon millions of pounds. It is a very serious, industrial-scale business for organised crime gangs.
Ticket reselling is not just a British problem. We have seen over many years that it happens elsewhere. I have heard of train tickets in India and hospital appointments in China being bought and sold in this way. It is a multibillion-pound industry, but we have the opportunity at least to change the relevant legislation to try to make things better in this country. It has taken far too long to get to this point. We need to give the CMA more powers and we need to give more funding to National Trading Standards.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this important debate. I am glad to hear that she is as passionate as I am about sorting out this broken market. I am happy to see the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism in his place. We have been on quite a journey together to get to this point and I very much look forward to him fixing all these wrongs in due course.
A lot has happened in the campaign to regulate the secondary ticketing market since I first introduced my private Member’s Bill on the topic back in 2010, which was before the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) suffered the problems she did in 2012. The problem would have been sorted if the then Member for Shipley had not talked out my private Member’s Bill. However, because of constant lobbying by yours truly and the growing scourge of parasitic touts becoming increasingly sophisticated and ruthless, the new Labour Government have decided to act, as we promised we would in our manifesto.
We now have the watershed opportunity to create the change we desperately need. Over many years in this place we have tried to regulate the market. We have tweaked legislation, first with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to bring in more transparency because it was said that that was what was needed. But that did not work. Then, with the successful Ban the Bots campaign, we secured an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill in 2017. However, that did not work either: we know that the use of bots and the profits of those using bots for sales are exploding. For a recent Sabrina Carpenter ticket pre-sale of just 10,000 tickets, there were 380,000 bots in the queue attempting to harvest them.
Research published last month by O2, which sells 1 million tickets per year through its priority scheme, estimates that touts cost British music fans an extra £145 million a year, but I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg. That money is taken from the back pockets of UK audiences and deposited into the bank accounts of offshore retail platforms and the touts who supply their inventory.
Despite uncontrolled touting taking place on an industrial scale, with tickets resold through sites such as Viagogo—there is that name on my lips again—prosecutions were few and far between under the last Government. Led by National Trading Standards, the precedent-setting convictions of just two groups of ticket touts worth millions of pounds each should have opened the floodgates to more action against those who flout the law and use platforms like Viagogo to put profits before fans, but sadly they have not, because resources have run dry. There has not been a single prosecution under the Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018 and nor have there been any prosecutions for using bots under the Digital Economy Act 2017, despite our securing the Ban the Bots amendment.
The details of the prosecutions are extraordinary, with touts fraudulently acquiring tens of thousands of tickets and then reselling them through websites such as Viagogo and GetMeIn—which does not exist any more—that were not compliant with UK consumer law. In both cases, it was strongly suggested that the resale platforms were complicit in the touts’ illegal activities.
Incredibly, although the touts were prosecuted and jailed, the resale platforms faced no such sanctions. They kept their cumulative 25% service fees from the illegal transactions—if we do the numbers, we see that means millions of pounds—and they continue to profit from further illicit trading. Where are all the illegal proceeds of crime? Why have they never been recovered?
As the CMA highlighted in 2021, this remains an unregulated market where stronger laws are desperately needed to protect audiences. As stated in the 2016 Waterson review, changes must include properly funding National Trading Standards, which, despite having a budget of only just under £15 million and so much more than just ticket abuse to look at, is the only body to have successfully prosecuted touts. Sadly, despite the mountains of evidence that campaigners such as Adam from FanFair Alliance and myself have provided the CMA with, it has carried out no such prosecutions and is in desperate need of clearer ministerial oversight. I hope that the Minister takes note of that point in particular.
We can see that legislation to outlaw resale for profit or to cap resale prices works in other countries. This is a golden opportunity to ensure that UK audiences receive similar protections and enjoy a capped, consumer-friendly and ethical resale market that works in their interests. Companies such as Viagogo pretend to be legitimate businesses, but the resales are not from fan to fan: they are absolutely dependent on touts committing criminal offences to harvest tickets on an industrial scale then resell them through the website. Citing research from FanFair Alliance just last month, which looked at all the Viagogo listings for 28 shows over the past year at Liverpool’s main mid-size venue, the 1,200-capacity O2 Academy, I can tell hon. Members that only one ticket was listed by a consumer.
This very morning, Sam Fender shows went on sale —we all know him from my region—including a gig in Newcastle’s Utilita arena. Coming from the north-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth and I do, we know that Sam’s shows are highly sought after. It is a balloted event, with four tickets per person and only for local postcodes, to try to restrict it and ensure that north-eastern fans get to go. But guess what? There is already a Dubai-based business selling 54 tickets in a single listing. On what site? Viagogo.
As I have stressed time and again, Viagogo has never been penalised in the UK, despite regularly flouting UK legislation, and it has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to mark its own homework. Listen to this: it was fined 7 million Australian dollars for misleading consumers, €20 million for breaking the law in Italy and €400,000 in France for breaking the law around rugby world cup tickets, but it has never been fined a penny here.
Capping ticket resales is a common-sense, cost-free benefit for fans across the country. In fact, cracking down on fraud, which is the most common crime in the UK, could be a net benefit for the country through the proceeds of crime. Although the two cannot be linked precisely, Ireland saw a large drop in fraud after it implemented a version of—guess what?—my private Member’s Bill. For the upcoming Oasis world tour, the only shows for which tickets are not being touted on Viagogo, StubHub and Gigsberg are the two at Croke Park in Dublin.
Although long-term impact reports are still under way, the Irish Government’s official post-enactment report on the Sale of Tickets (Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational and Sporting Events) Act 2021—essentially my private Member’s Bill—concludes:
“This is a positive endorsement of the operation of the Act and means that the objectives of the Act are being met whereby genuine fans can attend events at affordable prices.”
That is what we all seek and what artists and sporting events want to happen when they price their tickets. They know that tickets are worth more, but they do not want to rip off their own fans: they want grassroots sport and the players of the future to be able to attend.
My private Member’s Bill argued for capping resales at face value plus 10%. The 10% exists to account for booking and postage fees. I have never wanted any fans to be out of pocket, not even for the booking fees. I have only ever believed that we need to take out of the reselling of tickets any opportunity to profit, to stop them becoming a commodity that is sold to the highest bidder.
I was happy to see, therefore, Michael Rapino, the chief executive officer of Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, urge Governments in a recent interview with Bloomberg to regulate the business by capping resale. He said that resale prices are 20% above face value, and:
“You shouldn’t have a middleman that has nothing invested in the business make any money from it”—
hallelujah! I have been saying that for years.
A 20% cap, though, is still too high, because it leaves room for touts to operate by still harvesting large numbers of tickets to make large amounts of money. That extra 10%, if someone buys enough tickets, will make them a lot of money, especially if dynamic pricing is used as well. But that is recognition from the top of the industry that change is desperately needed—Michael Rapino never said anything like that before we got into government three short months ago.
Furthermore, disagreement over what constitutes face value must also be addressed, given Ticketmaster’s roll-out of dynamic pricing. In February, which was before the recent Oasis debacle, Live Nation unveiled a 36% increase in its annual revenues, to £22.7 billion, and Rapino said:
“Outside of the US, we’re in the first inning…We’re just rolling this out around the world. So that’s the great growth opportunity, obviously.”
Remember, where did they get their money? Fans—off the back of fans, regular people just wanting to see their favourite artist and to take part in the culture.
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth made all those points about what it is that makes our heart glad and what it is we want to do in our spare time. We want to see our favourite artist or attend our favourite sporting event, which is why people are so willing to press “Buy” when they see that crazy price. Something within us drives us to that, but culture and enjoyment should be accessible to all of us, no matter how deep or not deep our pockets are.
I am so glad that the Government immediately agreed to include dynamic pricing in their autumn review of ticket resales. I will continue to engage actively with them on this issue and the wider issues in the secondary ticketing market. We must take action to protect fans, venues, artists and athletes. Existing legislation is not good enough. For years we have said, “If we could only enforce what we have,” but we have tried that and it is just not working. I have been campaigning on this issue for more than 15 years. I have worked closely with industry experts and I presented Parliament with the solution back in 2010, with my private Member’s Bill—it is still the only solution. I therefore look forward to this Government making it, or a revision of it, law very soon.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing such an important debate. She invited us to share the details of our first gig. Mine was when I was taken to hear Soul II Soul at the Notting Hill carnival when I was little, which was cool. In fact, on the day I was due to be born, my mum decided to see Nina Simone instead, which is also cool. Unfortunately, I have not lived up to that musical heritage, because I have been to see three out of seven members of S Club 7 and two fifths of 5ive. To be honest, that day inflation pricing was not the issue; it was whether we were going to get our money back at all—after we had seen them.
In all seriousness, buying tickets under false pretences and selling them on at hugely inflated prices means that fans face a choice: they either stump up or they miss out. It is therefore not hyperbole to say that ticket touts are ripping the heart out of live music.
Cracking down on ticket touting is important to music venues, too. Driving prices for gigs higher and higher means that genuine fans cannot access live music, and that has implications for small grassroots music venues as well as big arenas. I can proudly say that my constituency of Ipswich boasts a phenomenally impressive music scene, but if fans are consistently frozen out of live music and the arts more broadly and see them as something they can no longer afford or access, it is grassroots venues and entertainers that will suffer the most.
Although our most famous grassroots music venue, The Smokehouse, right in the heart of our town, has nurtured the next generation of local talent, it has been close to closure. During the covid-19 pandemic, the financial pressures became so overbearing that it had to be saved by £12,000 of crowdfunding from local residents and grants from the local Ipswich borough council and Arts Council England. Research from the Music Venue Trust earlier this year shows that two grassroots music venues close every week, leaving holes in the cultural fabric of the cities and towns they once brought so much joy to.
Our county of Suffolk is famous for being the home of Ed Sheeran—apologies—who is a phenomenal success. We are proud of the strides we have made in Ipswich over the past few years. I give a big shout-out to all those behind the Brighten the Corners music festival, who have an insatiable thirst for going bigger and better every single year. Yet with 2024 set to be the worst year on record for grassroots music venue closures, I cannot help but wonder whether Suffolk’s next Ed Sheeran will be denied their chance to shine.
It is high time to face up to these challenges. That is why I am proud, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, that our movement has been campaigning hard to ensure grassroots music venues have the opportunity to be owned and operated by the community. Community-owned assets can keep their profits local, reinvesting any money made into the project and its successes. Because such assets are rooted in their communities, they provide not just a physical space for gigs but other opportunities for communities too. Some community-owned music venues provide training and development for young people, teaching them about music technology, sound design and stage management, and setting them up for proper careers. We should actively support that groundbreaking model for the live music sector as a route to keep our beloved venues open.
At its heart, our work to crack down on ticket touts is about fairness and protecting consumers and fans. Scams and rip-offs are becoming increasingly common and normalised. That affects not just the live music industry but everything from football to car insurance. The odds are increasingly stacked against ordinary people and the grassroots industry in favour not just of big corporations, which are far more shielded from the problems I have outlined, but of ticket touts and scammers. We must fix that.
I welcome the new Labour Government’s commitment to make arts and culture more accessible to ordinary people, from tackling ticket touts to broadening the curriculum in schools and expanding access to the arts across the board. Finding a way to stop prolific ticket touts and their often illegal practices is a first step in the right direction, but it must be a springboard for change, spurring on further action to make arts and culture truly affordable and accessible for consumers.
I thank the many Members in the Chamber who have been campaigning on this issue for many years, and the fantastic organisations that have been mentioned. With the new Labour Government’s commitment to take action on this issue, we have a real opportunity to put fans back at the heart of live music.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this debate so that we can discuss subjects that resonate deeply with our constituents. I wholeheartedly align with her position, which reflects my commitment as a longstanding Co-operative party member. The values we uphold—community, fairness and inclusivity—are essential as we confront the pressing issue of ticket touting.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her hard work over the past 15 years, which has been nothing short of phenomenal. I am sure the Minister is hearing the collective enthusiasm for cracking down on this practice.
The impact of unfair ticket pricing on ordinary individuals cannot be overstated. There are many barriers to accessing cultural experiences for communities in Leigh and Atherton. One of the most significant is affordability. Many are excluded from our vibrant cultural sector due to soaring ticket prices, which have become an obstacle rather than a gateway to enjoyment. If we are to make culture accessible, we must start with fair pricing practices.
Even cinema tickets, which were once a modest indulgence, have become unaffordable for many families. In response we have seen some remarkable achievements. Leigh Film Society is a fantastic Co-operative-inspired organisation that strives to screen films that are socially inclusive and affordable, prioritising accessibility for all. Run entirely by dedicated volunteers, that initiative recognises the inaccessibility of cinema tickets and is committed to broadening cultural access in our community. They now have a deal with the National Theatre whereby they can screen National Theatre Live. Bringing that to Leigh is incredible for our constituents.
The demand for live music in the UK is thriving. We must ensure that it remains accessible to everyone. Significant reforms in ticket pricing are essential. The Music Venue Trust is championing the cause of grassroots venues and advocating for a fair distribution of funding within the cultural sector. These venues are not just places for entertainment; they are community hubs that foster creativity and bring people together. While this debate is centred on ticket touting, we must not lose sight of the need to protect and enhance grassroots venues, which play a crucial role in communities like Leigh and Atherton. By supporting such venues, we can ensure that the cultural landscape remains diverse and vibrant.
I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth in her calls to reform ticket pricing practices. Together, we can create an environment where ordinary people can participate in our rich cultural life without fear of being priced out. Let us commit to supporting grassroots groups and organisations that enrich our communities.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for obtaining the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for all the work she has done on this matter. The issues I want to address are dynamic ticket or surge pricing and the queuing system for major, once-in-a-lifetime concerts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth referenced in her opening remark and which other Members have spoken about.
I have a deep-rooted connection to the music industry. In my younger days, I worked as a promoter and DJ in Liverpool. I was a music journalist and did press for bands when Britpop was at its height, and I have been privileged to spend many years surrounded by some of our nation’s best musicians. If we are sharing stories about our first gigs, for mine I queued up—in simpler times—outside the Empire Theatre when I was eight with my dad to buy tickets for Cliff Richard. We were allowed to get six. When we got to the show and he came on stage, I burst into tears and asked my mum where the man with the leg and the lip was; I thought I was going to see Elvis, who had been dead seven years.
Music is not just entertainment. It brings people together. It lifts the soul, and lifetimes of relationships are formed because of people’s shared love of music. Live performances are a huge part of that. The ticket prices surge and the queuing system recently made headline news with the Oasis reunion concerts. Tickets were sold by the primary ticketing company well beyond the price they were advertised at. A reunion that was greeted with such joy quickly turned into misery for many, as people realised when they got to the checkout that the price they had budgeted for—a price that they felt they could afford—was no longer the price. Instead, a price that was two, three or even four times more was quoted. After hours and hours of waiting, with their hearts racing and the timer ticking down, they had a few minutes to decide whether or not they wanted the tickets to see their favourite band—a band they would have only a once-in-a-lifetime chance of seeing.
The writer and musician John Robb recently wrote:
“The ticket buying systems and companies are…exploiting people’s excitement in the worst possible way.”
When prices are inflated with little or no transparency, that becomes a barrier that shuts out fans who work hard, save up and simply want to see their favourite bands live. Based on recent testimonies of several musicians such as Paul Heaton, it is not just the fans who are kept in the dark but often the artists too. Many artists are disconnected from the commercial side of their business and do not always have the knowledge to protect their fans before it is too late. Greater transparency on surge pricing is essential both for artists and for fans. It is not fair for fans to queue up for hours expecting a face-value ticket price, only to be met with an over-inflated bill when it is time to pay.
Exacerbating the situation with the Oasis reunion was the queuing system, about which we all heard countless stories. One of my constituents got up at the crack of dawn to get in the queue for Oasis tickets, and at 9 am she was number 7,000 in the queue on the website. She was made up, thinking she was definitely going to get the tickets. When she got to the purchase page, she spent half an hour trying to place available tickets into her basket. Finally, the system kicked her out when she tried to pay, and she was put at number 180,000 in the queue. She waited all day until the news came that no tickets were left. Similar stories were all over people’s WhatsApp groups and social media feeds that day, so it was not a one-off IT glitch or problem. It is just not fair.
We cannot ignore the wider issue of the secondary market. Tickets are being sold at exorbitant prices, further driving up costs for consumers. The recommendations made by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2021, particularly around speculative selling, remain unaddressed. These issues deserve serious consideration, as they place further strain on fans who are already facing inflated prices at the primary level.
In closing, I welcome the measures introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to give the Competition and Markets Authority a few more powers to tackle the secondary market, but it needs more, as recommended in the private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. We must also act on dynamic pricing and the queuing lottery. We need a system that works for fans, artists and venues alike. Transparency must be at the heart of dynamic pricing, and we must address the broader issues within the ticketing ecosystem. Live music should be a shared experience and affordable for all. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Government on this issue.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this important debate. I will put it on the table: the last gig I went to was Jason Donovan at Chepstow castle, and I think the next one on my agenda is also Jason Donovan, at Cheltenham town hall. For that, I have to thank my wife.
From personal experience, I know that it can lead to huge frustration and an inclination to do whatever it takes to get in if someone is denied the ticket they want. Fans often feel they have no choice. For fans of sports, music and festivals, there is nothing quite as disappointing as missing out on the tickets we want for that one event of the year that we want to attend. In some cases, it is 10, 20 or even 30 events, because we know that fans are fans. The one thing they want to do is get through the front door and see the thing they love.
Sadly, there are too many unscrupulous organisations that prey on good-natured dedication to a band, team or regular event. These unscrupulous organisations and individuals are getting away with it. It is an extreme example of market failure. When honest, hard-working fans miss out or are forced to pay hundreds of pounds over the odds because secondary ticketing platforms and touts sweep up the market, the sense of unfairness is very real. The UK’s secondary ticketing market had an estimated annual worth of £1 billion in 2019, with ticket touts mass-buying tickets—the “harvesting” we heard of earlier. They are doing that for sporting and cultural events, then selling tickets on at massively inflated prices.
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. When fans are forced to pay way over the odds, they are not able to then go to 10, 20 or 30 other concerts or sporting events, because they may have spent their budget for the year on that one special event that they really wanted to go to. Does he recognise that this issue robs the fans of those multiple opportunities?
Max Wilkinson
Of course, and fans want to be there, in the room or the stadium, as often as they possibly can. It enriches their cultural enjoyment, and it is really unfortunate when they end up only able to go to one match a season, or one gig a year, because they have to pay 10 times the price in some cases.
This problem contributes to the unacceptable and extraordinary statistic that an estimated half of Britons have at some point been priced out of the market for tickets to events that they want to attend. When I read that, I did wonder whether it was true, but apparently it is, which is absolutely extraordinary. That is simply unfair. The fact that this subject is being debated today, and that the Government have signalled their intent to make things fairer, is definitely to be welcomed.
Liberal Democrats have, for some time, been calling for greater protection of fans who are exploited by ticket touts. That means that we want to see the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on illegal ticket resale—and it was mentioned earlier that the authority itself might take a more expansive role.
We are calling for the prohibition of platforms that allow sellers to list more tickets for an event than the seller is able to procure legally from the primary market. That practice is clearly exploitative, misleading and wrong. The Liberal Democrats are calling for platforms to be strictly liable for incorrect information about tickets listed on their websites. Dodgy tickets that are not what they seem mislead the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) told us earlier.
We also believe that all secondary ticketing sites must be forced to hold a licence to operate in the UK. Many of us who have been going to sporting events for some time are familiar with the person standing outside the music venue or stadium who says “Any spare tickets?” as crowds walk past. The unlicensed nature of this market means that some secondary ticket operators are little more than that, but they are fronted by an official-looking website. Licensing will bring them into line or put them out of business, which is what they deserve.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a ban on the use of surge pricing by ticket platforms. It cannot be right that people pay a significantly higher price for the same product based on the fact that many others are seeking the same ticket at the same time. That is not an example of a liberal market that helps consumers; it is predatory behaviour. That said, it is clearly desirable for sellers to retain the ability to give early-bird discounts or late deals on undersold events. Those are examples of variable prices that work for consumers.
The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a reform to transaction fees, with the aim of placing a cap on the amount that can be added to ticket prices. How can it be right that a ticket listed for £50 or £60 can, by the time it gets to the checkout, end up costing £80 or £90? That is another example of dishonest and predatory behaviour.
We believe that the changes we are calling for would make it very difficult for professional sellers to sell tickets that have been procured unlawfully. They would also make it more difficult for the professional sellers to sell through secondary ticketing platforms in breach of the law. The changes would help event organisers too: their terms often prohibit or restrict resale to identify and cancel tickets, but sometimes those rules cannot be enforced.
Attending gigs, sporting events and festivals is core to the enjoyment that so many of us take in our leisure time. This issue is central to people’s ability to be happy and healthy, and to enjoy their lives. We must do all we can to stop the widespread abuse that causes so much frustration to so many.
I finish by saying that there is a suspicion that ticketing companies could solve this whole issue tomorrow, using technology that is currently available, but that choices have been made not to do so. That is why a crackdown is needed.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), and I hope she enjoys her nostalgic tour through all the concerts she plans to go to. For what it is worth, as we are sharing, one of my first gigs was Faithless, which I am quite proud of, although it does not quite stack up when I say that my second one was Tom Jones. Still, I enjoyed both hugely.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) talk about her parents becoming victims. There is some joke about Sting and getting the Police involved, but I will leave that for the moment.
I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her dedication and her expertise on this issue. We all know, as I have learned in the last five years, that we have to plod and plod in this place to keep getting heard. The fact that we are having another debate and that there will be a consultation is all credit to her.
Like the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), I too have seen three of S Club 7. My sighting was at a stag do with my brother in Newport. I hope that the hon. Member was not there—if he was, I hope he does not share the pictures.
As the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) noted, grassroots venues are so important. The UK is a centre for the creative industries, and that is the testbed; that is why we have world-class talent coming out, and we certainly do not want to lose that.
The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) brings a huge amount of expertise. I think she said she was a DJ, so I am looking forward to her doing the cross-party celebration of “Mistletoe and Wine”—there is a good Cliff Richard reference.
The issue of secondary ticketing and dynamic ticket pricing has affected many of our constituents, as we have heard today. It certainly seems that when Oasis came up with their masterplan to reform, the ticket promoters did not foresee the issue of dynamic pricing causing so many headlines and unfortunately detracting from the exciting news of Oasis reforming.
It is important to separate the secondary ticket market from the specific issue of dynamic ticket pricing. Unlike the primary market, in which tickets are sold at their original face value and the price is set by the artists, event organisers or box office, the secondary ticket market relates to tickets resold after their original sale. Prices for these tickets are often inflated and sometimes go for at least double the face value. We have heard the term price gouging, which particularly applies here.
Dynamic ticket pricing is, as the Minister will be aware, a pricing strategy used by a lot of sectors, including hotels, taxis and airlines, to name but a few. Dynamic ticket pricing can bring significant benefits for consumers when prices are lowered—for example, early bird tickets or late tickets, as we heard from the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
I appreciate that the Competition and Markets Authority has published a call for evidence on the use of dynamic ticket pricing for Oasis. I hope the Minister will agree that in the case of Oasis ticket sales the issue seems to be that fans may not have been provided with the necessary information up front and had not been given any clear information about what was going on. Above all, transparency is really important.
I hope the Minister will touch on how drip-pricing is slightly different and how that affects the live events sector. As we have heard, that relates to hidden costs. A customer should be able to see the full price they are paying up front and not have hidden unnecessary costs.
Mrs Hodgson
The shadow Minister—sorry. He pointed out that with dynamic pricing the price can go up but also come down. That might happen when it is Uber, airline prices or hotel rooms, but at yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse we heard from experts in the room, FanFair Alliance and Reg Walker, that that never happens with regard to ticketing. They never come down. The only way is up.
Dr Evans
I bow to the hon. Lady’s expertise. I hope that will be teased out when we know the terms of reference for the consultation. These are exactly the problems that we need to look at. We can all see that there can be a benefit for the market if dynamic pricing is used for cheaper theatre tickets, but if it is not used in the correct way, how do we enforce that? “How” is the hardest part. We have heard a lot about the problem, but how we solve it, with advancing technology, is what is really going to make the difference.
That takes me back to the point about the need to have information up front, so that people are not misled in the sales process. Clarity is key. I know the Minister is keen to quote the example of Dua Lipa, but I did my own research on ticket face value. My team and I came across a ticket on Viagogo that was priced at £250 but marked up to £5,167.
We can clearly see that that profit is not going where it should, which is upsetting for fans and frustrating for venues and, perhaps most importantly, angers the artists. Through no fault of their own, they are then labelled as a problem because they are pulled into the secondary market. As many hon. Members will know, and as we have heard, there was particular frustration about the use of computer-powered software. As we heard from the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth, we all welcomed the last Government taking action to strengthen the law on ticket information requirements and introducing a criminal offence for the use of automated software to buy more tickets online.
I often think that it is wise to learn from other hon. Members in this place. With that in mind, I looked to see what the Minister had previously said on the topic, given his long-standing interest. I noticed that in April, when the then Government announced a review into the market, he castigated them and said:
“The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]
He continued by saying that Labour
“will bring these measures in and go further”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]
So I have to admit that it is a surprise to see that the new Government’s plan, which they thought about for 14 years, is to introduce a consultation. In our exchange in the Chamber last week, the Minister quoted Bucks Fizz. He said,
“the previous Government had embraced Bucks Fizz…
‘Don’t let your indecision take you from behind.’”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 966.]
I am pleased to see him being decisive by choosing to do exactly what the last Government did. He is so decisive, in fact, that when he was asked this week, he said:
“That is why we will be launching a consultation on the secondary ticket market soon—the piece of paper in front of me actually says ‘in the autumn’, but I am never quite sure when that is, so I am going with ‘soon’.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 969.]
I ask the Minister not to look back in anger at the last Government—after all, the Conservatives were caught beneath a landslide by a Labour champagne supernova. He is in the Government, and it is the Government’s job to get this right.
I have several questions for the Minister. When will the Government launch their consultation, not the one by the CMA? What is the scope of the consultation and what are its terms of reference—for example, will it include the role of search engines that signpost customers to touts, which is a real problem? When does it aim to conclude? Wider still, how does the private Member’s Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) fit into this? Is it a Government handout Bill and does it have Government support?
Finally, no one in the House wants to see the public or the artist ripped off, as the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) pointed out, so can the Minister clarify how the following fits into Labour’s vision for tackling the secondary market? The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, stated that
“a Labour government will cap resale prices so fans can see the acts that they love at a fair price.”
Is that Labour policy? What is a “fair price” and for whom, and how does that translate into artists being paid for their talents? Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will forensically analyse the successes and weaknesses of the legislation that has been implemented in Ireland and is coming forward in Australia, with no fear or favour, to ensure that we get a fit with whatever is brought forward.
In closing, live events make a significant contribution to the UK economy, as many Ministers will know from their summers of concerts and sporting events. Indeed, it is tempting to mention the Prime Minister’s favourite country pop singer and her recent Eras tour, which provided an economic boost to this country of almost £1 billion. The Conservatives want the live events sector to continue to thrive, and to ensure that the ticket market is fair for consumers and well-priced. As the Opposition are looking forward to seeing the consultation, one could say that we are ready for it. I hope the Minister will announce further details not only “soon” but imminently.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It is a great delight to see you in your seat, Mr Rosindell, not least because we have been knocking around these parts as MPs for about the same time. It pays to hang on in there, doesn’t it? It is a great delight to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this debate. This is an innovation that I have started in the last few debates that we have had here: I am going to try to answer the questions that hon. Members have put to the Minister as much as I possibly can.
Chris Bryant
Hang on. In the words of Shania Twain, “That don’t impress me much”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked what we can do under the current legislation. It is a frustration, certainly for this Minister—I am not sure that previous Ministers felt it—that although several different bodies could bring forward prosecutions, the number of prosecutions has been so few. I fully understand why trading standards has struggled, because for the last 14 years, local authorities have had difficult budgets and sometimes it has not had the resources that it needs to take forward these issues.
It is not for me to directly tell trading standards or the CMA when to take action— we believe in the separation of powers, so that would be completely inappropriate —but the more that the prosecuting authorities feel able to act in this sphere, the better. If they want to come to me and say that they do not have the powers or the resources that they need, I am happy to hear that and we can act on that basis, but it is frustrating that I cannot tell them to act in individual cases.
Chris Bryant
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I will try to answer all the questions. I will come on to his questions later.
One key matter that we will have to get right—if and when we bring forward legislation in this field—is enforcement, because there is no point bringing forward new lews if we cannot enforce them. We made manifesto commitments during the general election that we are absolutely determined to implement. As for when they will be implemented in legislation, we have had one King’s Speech; there will be another one coming along. I do not want to tell the Leader of the House precisely who will have what Bills at what time, because I might not stay in my post if I keep doing that, but if there is a Bill at some point, we will have to ensure that we sort out the enforcement issue. That is one element on which we will be consulting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth said that this issue is not at the top of the list of Government priorities. Whenever I post about it on X, people say, “Bryant, get on with doing the things that really matter to your constituents.” Well, this is one of those issues. The Government can do more than one thing at the same time. This is part of a panoply of measures that we need to implement to ensure that we put fans back at the heart of music, live events and sport. It is part of a wider Government strategy to rejig the economy so that it works for all of us. As my hon. Friend quoted:
“What is a club in any case?...It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging”.
It is fundamentally about the fans. They are the people who have created the value, and it is despicable that they are not able to benefit from it.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) made the point that things have got worse since 2012. I think she is right, which is why it was a bit cheeky of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), to pretend that they had not been in government for 14 years, and to actually praise the previous Government for taking no action in this area. We are determined to take the necessary action, and I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford and her party will support those measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) used the word “parasite” at one point. On the “Today” programme, someone was saying that leeches have had great difficulty reproducing of late, but that they have discovered a new way. I do not want to overstate this metaphor, but we could argue that what we see in the secondary market is a form of leeching off the creative endeavours and the fan-led passion of so many others.
I will give some more examples. “Vampire” is my favourite of Olivia Rodrigo’s songs. We can get tickets for her concert in Manchester on 1 July next year on StubHub for £1,506, with a face value of £200. If we go to Viagogo, the price is £2,573 for exactly the same event—almost identical tickets, just a few rows in. That ticket’s face value, which we find only once we have gone two thirds of the way through the process with Viagogo, is £50. That is a shocking 5,146% increase. We can buy tickets for James Blunt—everybody knows I am not a great fan of his and he is no great fan of mine—that have a face value of £105 for £327 on StubHub.
It is not just about music: the England versus South Africa autumn international rugby tickets for 16 November, with a face value of £145, cost £889 on Viagogo. We should tell the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who I think is the world’s greatest Bruce Springsteen fan, that tickets with a face value of £150 are selling on Gigsberg for £1,044.08. Tickets for the world darts championship being held at Alexandra Palace on 30 December this year, with a face value of £55, are £248 on Gigsberg. I could go on, because this is an endless daily source of—frankly—racketeering based on a fundamental unfairness, and that is what we want to put right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and I have talked about several issues in relation to the creative industries in his constituency. He made the point about Ed Sheeran, whom I think has made Framlingham castle more famous for him than for Queen Mary, which is quite an accomplishment after so many hundreds of years. That is also part of our tourism industry, as people want to go to Framlingham castle to see the place that “Castle on the Hill” was written about, so we need to capitalise on that. But we cannot if none of the money ends up going back into the creative industries or even into the local economy, and simply goes off into a black hole.
Mrs Hodgson
I do not want this debate to end without mentioning Ed Sheeran and how much he has done to try to tackle the scourge of ticket touting. Lots of other artists, such as Iron Maiden, Arctic Monkeys, Mumford & Sons and many others have tried, but Ed Sheeran went above and beyond by cancelling tickets when they had been resold. Taylor Swift never did that because she did not want to break the hearts of all her fans, but Ed Sheeran has been a real warrior in that regard.
Chris Bryant
Absolutely; that is a well-made point. Indeed, several other artists are moving in the same direction and I encourage more artists to go down that route. In the end, we need to get to a place where the face value is the face value and where other people are not racketeering on the back of that. Sometimes, the artist gets it in the neck because people think they have enabled it to happen, but that is profoundly unfair.
Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South also referred to Sam Fender. I am afraid that when Sam Fender was on at St James’s Park, I was watching P!nk at the Stadium of Light. Interestingly, having two massive gigs on at the same time had a dramatic effect on the local economy in the north-east, which is really important. There are issues for the whole visitor economy that need to be looked at, and I had an interesting conversation with all the local authorities and the new mayor, thinking about how we can make sure that the visitor economy works for everybody when such big events are going on at the same time. Part of that has to be about making sure that the money that is currently going out of the door and never ending up in the local economy does end up there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley)—she is a great friend and we have known each other a long time—spoke about going to see Cliff Richard. I once saw Cliff Richard live, but it was at a wedding and we did not have to pay. He did not sing “Congratulations”, which we thought was going to come along at any moment. My hon. Friend made a point about sudden changes in prices just as we get to the checkout. Of course, we would be absolutely furious if that happened in Sainsbury’s, Tesco or Morrisons. Why should we be any less furious when it happens on a website?
I was looking at tickets on StubHub earlier, when suddenly it said, “Your price is locked in.” Well, I thought that was the price. What do they mean when they say it is locked in? This is crazy; it is a deliberate attempt to make us stick and keep on buying the ticket, even when we have realised that we are buying something for 5,146% of its original face-value price, because that is the point at which we learn that that is the face value. This is completely wrong; it is not the market working in the interests of humanity, but humanity having to serve the market in an inappropriate way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) made some really significant points. Many of us are making identical points, but that strengthens the argument that we need to take action in this space, and we are absolutely determined to do so. We will do it in a responsible way, and we want to make sure that every single element of the legislation that we eventually bring forward works, does what it says on the tin and is able to be enforced. That is why we will launch a consultation in the very near future, and I very much hope that many hon. Members will want to take part in the discussion about precisely how that consultation ends up being framed.
I think this debate is the second or third outing the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and I have had against each other. One cannot just blame one’s partner for one’s musical choices. That is like the moment in Genesis when Adam says,
“The woman beguiled me and I did eat”
after eating the forbidden fruit. I am not sure that Jason Donovan is the forbidden fruit, but if the hon. Member likes Jason Donovan, he should just own up to it. It is fine; we will not think any the less of him for going to see Jason Donovan all the time.
The hon. Member basically read out the list of things from the last debate that I said we wanted to do, so I am delighted that he agrees with me or that we agree with him. When it comes to the legislation and the consultation process, I very much hope that he will want to feed in. If there are things that we need to amend, just to make sure that we have got them right, we will do that.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth started off extremely badly, because he basically dissed Tom Jones, who is from Pontypridd—it’s not unusual, but I do not think it is very well advised. He asked a series of questions. He asked, “When?” I have already said that it will be soon. It will be in the autumn, and I reckon that the autumn is already upon us, so it will be soon or imminent—he can choose any word he likes, but it will be soon. Patience is a virtue.
The hon. Member asked whether the private Member’s Bill being advanced by one of my colleagues is a handout Bill. No, it is not a handout Bill; it is a Bill advanced by a private Member. He also asked whether there will be a cap on prices. We already said during the general election that that is our intended direction of travel. It is a moot point precisely what level that cap should be set at, because I do not want to completely ban people from selling tickets. If someone has bought four tickets but suddenly only two people can go, because somebody is ill or they have to change the dates, it is perfectly legitimate that they should be able to sell the tickets on. They might also want to be able to recoup not only the cost of the tickets themselves but some additional costs. That is one of the things we want to consult on, and what would be a suitable cap. I note the point that has been made about a level of 20%, which some people think is too high. Some people think that 10% would be too high; some people think that it would be too low. We need to make sure we get the level right. And of course we will analyse the situation in Ireland.
As we have all been announcing what gigs we have been to this year, let me say that, in addition to P!nk, who I have been to see three times now:
“What about us?
What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”
I went to see Depeche Mode in Cologne—the Germans just couldn’t get enough. And on Saturday night, I went to see Bronski Beat, on the 40th anniversary of the album “Age of Consent” coming out. That goes to the heart of why music can be so important: there must be hundreds of thousands of people in this country who remember when “Age of Consent” came out 40 years ago and how it completely transformed their understanding of themselves and who they could be in life. Being able to go to a live gig to celebrate that with lots of other people is completely transformative, and that is what I want to be available for as many people in this country as possible at a sensible, safe and sane price, rather than people being excluded because some people have much deeper pockets than others.
For me, to use a Welsh term—if it is okay with the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for me to use a Welsh term and to refer to Welsh artists—this is about chwarae teg, or fair play. Fair play is all I am looking for in this market. First, we need transparency on price along the whole process. When a ticket comes up in the secondary market, people should be able to know what the face value of that ticket is from the beginning and what the deal is. Secondly, we need genuine equality at that 9 o’clock moment when everybody goes online to start bidding for tickets. The hoovering-up of tickets brings the word “hoover” into disrepute. It was striking that all the Coldplay tickets had gone in 40 minutes and yet, even before all of them had gone, tickets were being sold for £2,916 on the secondary market. That is clear evidence that something is awry with the way the system works.
Also, where there is an excessive increase in the secondary market, as we have referred to, that is just wholly inappropriate. It prices people out and, as many Members have said, it does not mean that any of the money goes back into the creative industries or the local economy, which is highly problematic.
I want openness in dynamic pricing. People should be able to understand from the very beginning if that is the process they are entering into. Originally, we were going to consult only on what precise measures we should bring forward in relation to the secondary market, but we are now looking at dynamic pricing. As several Members have said, there are versions of dynamic pricing that do work, and we do not want to ban those. I would argue that the early-bird tickets available for the Rhondda arts festival in my constituency—I suppose I should declare an interest—are a perfectly legitimate part of the whole equation. They sometimes bring money into venues early on, and we do not want to ban that.
We are not looking at dynamic pricing in the whole of the economy, but simply in relation to live events. Because that was not a manifesto commitment before the general election, we will be doing a call for evidence. If people have evidence of where the dynamic pricing model is not working and is counterproductive to the market, please get in touch.
I praise some of the action taken by some of the artists in the industry, which has been referred to. It looks like that is everything—no, there is one thing more I want to say.
Chris Bryant
And yet so far. Change is coming. I say to all the people I have referred to—Gigsberg, Viagogo, StubHub, Ticketmaster and all the rest—that change is coming, so they should start getting ready for it, because that is what we are determined to deliver.
Emma Foody
I thank the Minister for his response, and I look forward to working with him to take forward this crucial issue. I thank all hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson); and everyone else. The amount of concern and shared endeavour on this matter is hugely welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the secondary ticketing market.
Written Correction
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fleur Anderson
The Ballymena bus manufacturer, Wrightbus, recently signed a deal worth £100 billion to supply more than 1,000 buses to Go-Ahead.
[Official Report, 23 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 261.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson):
Fleur Anderson
The Ballymena bus manufacturer, Wrightbus, recently signed a deal worth £500 million to supply more than 1,000 buses to Go-Ahead.
Written Statements
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Biological Security Strategy
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
I want to update the House on the implementation of the 2023 UK biological security strategy. The strategy’s ambition is to ensure that, by 2030, the UK is resilient to a spectrum of biological threats and a world leader in responsible innovation.
In adopting the strategy, this Government have reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to improving our preparedness for future pandemics and infectious disease outbreaks, countering proliferation of biological weapons and mitigating the risks of biological accidents and incidents, prioritising a holistic approach to developing national capabilities to shore up our defences, and learning and applying lessons from covid-19.
Over the past year, the strategy has delivered impact across short, medium and longer-term commitments, including:
Delivering system-wide leadership across the UK including by establishing a lead Minister, senior responsible owner and a dedicated team in the Cabinet Office;
Enhancing the UK’s early warning capabilities, including a prototype biothreats radar and pilots for a new national biosurveillance network;
A new UK Biosecurity Leadership Council, bringing Government together with business and academic leaders, developing responsible innovation practices and policies with the biotech sector;
Publishing voluntary screening guidance for providers and users of synthetic nucleic acid to guide use for legitimate purposes, while also mitigating risks of malicious or accidental misuse;
A new UK-wide Microbial Forensics Consortium to develop new tools and capabilities to attribute biological incidents and deter the use of biological weapons;
Funding for the international biosecurity programme which supports international projects to enhance global biosafety and biosecurity, reducing deliberate and naturally occurring biological risks to the UK;
Building new standing capabilities to carry out sensitive testing of biological risks in AI models;
Establishing a chief scientific advisers group dedicated to chemical, biological and radiological security to provide holistic, expert advice to underpin policy development and delivery;
Launching the US-UK strategic dialogue on biological security, reflecting our shared ambition and approach to protect against a growing and diverse spectrum of biological threats.
To get ahead of future threats, we need to continue to innovate to understand, prevent, detect and respond to biological threats. We will ensure that we have the capabilities we need to protect the public from a spectrum of biological threats, no matter how they occur and no matter who or what they affect.
[HCWS161]
Interim Compensation Payments for Victims of Infected Blood
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
In May, the infected blood inquiry produced its final report, and the country heard the full extent to which thousands of men, women, and children had their lives overturned by the use of infected blood and blood products in the NHS. The infected blood scandal is a shameful mark on our national history. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of every single person who has suffered because of the use of infected blood and to those who have taken tireless action to ensure their community is heard. Every death that results from the infected blood scandal is a tragedy, and this Government are committed to acting on the findings of the infected blood inquiry to ensure swift resolution for all of those impacted.
The principal recommendation from the infected blood inquiry was that the Government compensation scheme for victims of infected blood should be established “now”. The infected blood compensation scheme was legally established for people who are infected and claiming compensation through the core route in regulations laid on 23 August. We expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making payments to people who are infected by the end of this year, and last week the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reached out to the very first claimants under the scheme. However, there is still more to do. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government are aiming for a second set of regulations to be in force by 31 March 2025. This will support our shared aim to begin payments to people who are affected in 2025.
The Government also recognise that people have waited far too long for compensation payments. That’s why interim payments are crucial for supporting people until the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is up and running. In October 2022, interim payments of £100,000 were made to living infected beneficiaries or bereaved partners registered with the infected blood support schemes. In June this year, further interim payments of £210,000 were made to living infected victims of infected blood. Through these interim payments, over £1 billion has been paid to people who are infected or their bereaved partners.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 placed a statutory duty on the Government to deliver interim payments of £100,000 to estates for deaths not yet recognised through financial compensation. This followed the recommendation in Sir Robert Francis’ compensation framework study that interim payments should be made
“to recognise the deaths of people to date unrecognised and thereby alleviate immediate suffering”
and achieves the spirit of recommendation 12 of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report in the most practicable way.
On 26 July, I informed the House that the applications for interim payments due to be made to estates of deceased infected persons were scheduled to open in October, and that further details were to follow. Today, I can announce that the process under which estates can apply for interim compensation payments has now opened. For many people, this is the first substantial compensation payment they will benefit from to recognise the lives of people they have lost as a result of the use of infected blood and blood products.
This is a £100,000 interim payment, and as with any compensation payment related to infected blood, it will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax and disregarded from means tested benefit assessments.
As with the previous interim payments, these payments will be delivered through the existing infected blood support schemes. These payments are to be made to the estates of deceased infected persons, where interim payments have not already been received, in those cases where the deceased infected person was registered with an existing or predecessor scheme on or before 17 April 2024.
Those who were not registered with an existing or predecessor scheme on or before this date may still be eligible for compensation. For these cases, estate representatives will need to apply to claim compensation with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, once applications open. I will provide a further update on this in due course.
Where an interim compensation payment has already been made directly to the infected person, to their bereaved partner, or their estate, an estate will be ineligible for this interim payment.
Only the personal representative of the estate is able to make the application. Applicants will need a grant of probate, letters of administration, or a grant of confirmation —specific to Scotland—to evidence entitlement to claim interim compensation on behalf of the estate. To assist the legal process of obtaining this evidence as quickly as possible—for those that do not already have it— applicants can claim back their exact legal costs up to £1,500.
The application form is available to download online at gov.uk, together with full guidance on how to apply. Applicants may request a hard copy of the application form from the UK infected blood support scheme operating in the nation of the UK where the deceased infected person was infected. The completed form and supporting documents should be sent to the relevant infected blood support scheme.
[HCWS164]
Internet Television Equipment Regulations 2024
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Media Act 2024, which received Royal Assent on 24 May, introduces a new online prominence regime. The regime will require particular TV platforms, referred to in the Act as “regulated television selection services”, to give prominence to designated public service broadcaster services—referred to as “designated internet programme services”.
Today the Government have laid the first statutory instrument that will start the implementation process of the new regime.
In particular, these regulations specify which categories of TV devices are to be considered as “internet television equipment” for the purposes of this new prominence framework. This is the first step required to start the designation process.
The next step is for a further set of regulations to be developed, following advice from Ofcom, and establishing which television selection services—used in conjunction with internet television equipment—should be regulated under the new prominence regime.
The purpose of this approach is to ensure that regulation is both targeted and proportionate, and, in particular, that only those devices used by a significant number of UK viewers as a main way of accessing TV will be captured.
The regulations laid today specify smart TVs and streaming devices, including set-top boxes and streaming sticks, as internet television equipment.
However, the Government recognise that, as viewing habits change and new technology emerges, the devices considered internet television equipment may change in the future. Therefore, we will review the list a year after implementation to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.
The Internet Television Equipment Regulations 2024 have been published and can be viewed online at
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/1056/contents/made
An accompanying policy statement can be viewed online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prominence-specifying-internet-television-equipment-a-policy-statement
[HCWS166]
Sudan
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I would like to update the House on the situation in Sudan since the outbreak of conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces in April last year. Eighteen months on, this senseless war has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe and led to the world’s largest displacement crisis.
More than 24 million people—over half of Sudan’s population—are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. In August, a determination was made that famine existed in the Zamzam camp for internally displaced people, where 500,000 people live. Famine is also likely to exist elsewhere across Sudan. This is just the third time such a determination has been made in the 21st century. The situation has been exacerbated by deliberate efforts by the warring parties to obstruct aid reaching those who need it the most. Health systems have been decimated and disease outbreaks continue to spread unchecked.
On 6 September 2024, the UN-mandated fact-finding mission in Sudan released its inaugural report, highlighting the unprecedent scale of atrocities committed by the warring parties against civilians, in particular in Darfur. Women and girls are subject to rape and sexual violence. Houses are being burnt to the ground. People’s livelihoods are being destroyed.
Over 10 million people have been forced to flee their homes, with many seeking refuge in neighbouring countries facing their own crises, such as Chad and South Sudan.
In August I visited South Sudan, where I saw at first hand the harrowing consequences of the conflict. I spoke to many of the refugees and returnees who had fled violence in Sudan and heard how the UK can work to better respond to the obvious regional implications of the conflict.
The UK continues to work relentlessly to ensure that the international community does not turn its back on Sudan.
On 9 September 2024, in our role as one of the co-leaders of the UN Human Rights Council core group on Sudan, the UK led the adoption of a resolution to extend the work of the independent fact-finding mission on Sudan. This mission is critical to documenting, reporting and investigating evidence of human rights abuses and war crimes by all parties, and ensuring that those responsible for unimaginable suffering are held accountable.
In collaboration with our international partners, the UK was able to successfully extend the vote margin in favour of this critical mission. It is notable that a greater number of African states supported the extension of the mission this year. This underlines the growing global consensus that the situation in Sudan requires sustained international attention. We are committed to ensuring that the fact-finding mission gains the access it needs to Sudan to investigate properly, and continues to provide the evidence needed to bring justice to the victims of this brutal conflict.
On 26 September 2024, as world leaders gathered in New York for the UN General Assembly, the Minister for Africa hosted an event with his Dutch and Swiss counterparts to discuss the alarming rates of conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan and the inadequacy of current responses. This event spotlighted the situation for women and girls on the ground, ensured a platform for Sudanese civil society figures, explored the gaps in the ongoing response to CRSV in detail, considered the role of the international community in supporting and facilitating local and women-led efforts, and highlighted the urgent need for accountability.
In response to the obstruction of aid by the warring parties, the UK has convened international partners to build pressure on the warring parties to increase aid routes both into Sudan and across lines of conflict. At the UN General Assembly, I made the UK’s position clear: starvation as a method of warfare is a war crime. On 18 October 2024, the UK led a joint statement with 10 other donors to condemn the obstruction of humanitarian efforts and to call upon the warring parties to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law.
The UK remains a committed donor to Sudan and has spent £113.5 million this financial year in response to the conflict in Sudan and the resultant regional refugee crisis. This includes our bilateral official development assistance to Sudan, which stands at £97 million, together with our support to Sudanese refugees in the neighbouring countries of Chad, South Sudan and Libya.
Looking ahead, the UK will assume the presidency of the United Nations Security Council in November 2024. During our presidency, we will convene UNSC members for a debate on Sudan. This will focus on translating the United Nations Secretary-General’s recommendations on protecting civilians, as requested in UNSC resolution 2736, into tangible action.
As the Prime Minister noted in his UNGA remarks, the situation in Sudan remains one of the world’s most pressing humanitarian emergencies.
The UK’s response remains robust and unwavering. We will continue to work through the United Nations, the Human Rights Council and other international forums to push for peace, accountability and humanitarian relief. The people of Sudan deserve a future free from violence and oppression, and we are committed to supporting them in their pursuit of peace, dignity and justice.
[HCWS165]
Windrush
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
The Windrush scandal saw Windrush and Commonwealth communities who have the right to live in this country victimised because they were unable to prove that right, through no fault of their own. However, the justice and change that victims deserved have not been delivered, and some are still waiting for the compensation that they are due.
I want to update the House on the Government’s progress in fulfilling our manifesto commitment to the Windrush generation, ensuring that they receive the support they deserve quickly and efficiently. Additionally, we are reigniting the vital transformation work from Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review, in order to embed lasting changes in how the Department serves all communities.
We are establishing a Windrush commissioner, an independent advocate for all those affected. This role will oversee the compensation scheme’s delivery and the implementation of the Windrush lessons learned review, and will act as a trusted voice for families and communities, driving improvements and promoting lasting change.
As promised, we have re-established a Windrush unit in the Home Office, reporting to the departmental ethics adviser and dedicated to driving forward the action needed to ensure that what happened to the Windrush generation can never happen again to any part of our society. The new unit stands ready to support the Windrush commissioner when they are appointed.
This renewed work and the recruitment of a dedicated Windrush commissioner must drive enduring change that matters to the Windrush community and has wider impact across the whole Department and across Government.
Regarding the Windrush compensation scheme, during the lead-up to the general election, we frequently heard from the community and stakeholders that the application process is too complicated and the available support for making a claim is inadequate. This is discouraging some people from seeking the compensation they deserve. To address this, we are injecting a £1.5 million spend into a program of grant funding for organisations to provide essential advocacy and support for applicants who need additional help with the application process, ensuring that claimants feel supported. For many, filing a claim is intimidating and requires them to revisit past traumas. By sharing their experiences with impartial community members, we want to make this process as supportive as possible. This assistance will be offered alongside but separate from existing claims support, giving claimants flexibility and choice regarding the type of help they want and where they can access it.
We are also rapidly reviewing the issue of private and occupational pensions losses which has caused real frustration and concern.
Finally, this Government are determined to hear at first hand and to learn from the Windrush generation and their families. We know that for some the hurt and trauma is too much. But, as we look to turn the page and embark on the reset we promised in opposition, we want those who want and are able to tell their story to be heard.
Only by hearing and reflecting on the impact that policy making had and continues to have on their and their families’ lives can the Government ensure that we never let such an injustice happen again.
[HCWS167]
Phone-paid Services Authority: Transfer to Ofcom
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Premium-rate services will be familiar to anyone who watches prime-time Saturday night television, enters competitions on the radio or donates to charity via their phone. Premium-rate services are provided where goods or services are charged to one’s telephone bill and include premium-rate phone calls, for example, to directory enquiries.
Premium-rate services are used by millions of people, but the ability to simply text or make a call and be charged a potentially significant sum for such a small act makes these services prone to abuse, and therefore requires proportionate regulation.
The Phone-paid Services Authority, under different names including the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of the Telephone Information Services and Phonepay Plus, has been the regulator of the premium-rate services sector since 1986. It has been largely successful in discharging its duties and establishing a compliant and productive market. However—like much of the telecoms landscape—the premium-rate services sector and the role of the regulator have changed since the mid-1980s.
Where once the PSA’s focus was largely on setting standards for the providers of premium-rate services, such as information lines and chat lines, the scope of the regulator’s remit has grown significantly. Consumers are now also able to pay for subscription streaming services, purchase apps and give money to charity via text message, with the charges being added to their phone bills. The sector has evolved and continues to evolve, and so must its regulation if consumers are to remain protected into the future.
The Government will be laying the Regulation of Premium Rate Services Order 2024 (SI 2024/1046), a statutory instrument to confer the regulatory functions of the kind exercised until now by the PSA on Ofcom. This decision reflects the continued commitment to streamlining regulatory oversight, enhancing consumer protections and ensuring the efficiency and coherence of our regulatory framework.
The transfer of regulatory responsibility will lead to the closure of the PSA, which is a private company, and Ofcom’s assumption of direct day-to-day regulatory oversight of the premium-rate services sector. To ensure consistency, the Regulation of Premium Rate Services Order 2024 largely replicates the existing code of practice, currently on its 15th version, which governs the sector. However, the order makes a number of minor changes, including extending requirements to all PRS providers to take steps to identify and mitigate risks posed by their services to those who are vulnerable.
To ensure that the specialist and dedicated staff of the PSA are retained and able to continue in their work, the Government will be laying the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Transfer of Staff to the Office of Communications) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/1047), a statutory instrument to ensure that the employment of the staff continues, and they are not disadvantaged by the transfer. PSA employees have been consulted about the transfer.
We recognise the significant contributions made by the PSA in safeguarding consumers to date. However, the time has come for a more integrated approach, and we believe this consolidation is the right step to ensure that the regulatory framework is fit for purpose in the digital age.
I will provide further updates to the House as we progress with this transition. We remain committed to ensuring a smooth handover and maintaining the highest standards for consumer protection throughout the process.
[HCWS163]
Office for Nuclear Regulation Annual Report and Accounts
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s annual report and accounts for 2023-24. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with paragraph 25(3) of schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS162]
House of Lords
Special Educational Needs
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the effectiveness of the ‘education and healthcare plans’ process for identifying and delivering support to those with special educational needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I remind the House of my declared interests.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government acknowledge the struggles faced by children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities and their families when trying to access the right support, particularly through a long and difficult EHCP process. We are currently working on plans to deliver our manifesto commitments to take a community-wide approach to special educational needs and disability. This work will improve inclusivity in mainstream schools and ensure that special schools cater to those with the most complex needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the current system has, basically, failed completely? When can we get an assurance from the Government that they will manage to get to a situation where schools are identifying special educational needs, rather than concerned parents going to the school and asking them what the problem is? This is the situation at the moment, which favours the wealthy and informed parent throughout the system, right up to the plans.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. In fact, so does the National Audit Office, which published a report this morning, and so do members of the former Government, who have described it as a lose-lose system. That is exactly why we need to ensure that within our mainstream schools, and in our early years provision, where most children’s special educational needs can and should be identified, we have better support and training for the staff and more support for those children when their needs have been identified, short of having to go through the very arduous process of getting an education health and care plan, on which the noble Lord is absolutely right.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner for England, has recently produced a report on waiting times to get a diagnosis for autism. She says:
“We have created a system … working against itself”.
Children need the diagnosis before they can get SEND provision and they have to wait up to five years, sometimes, for a diagnosis. Will my noble friend look at this and the report? In the meantime, children are getting no help and support at all. We have to change this.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why, as part of the 10-year plan for change and modernisation in the NHS, I am assured that there will be a focus on reducing the length of waiting times and improving the provision of autism services. The SEND Code of Practice is also clear that meeting the needs of a child with special educational needs and autism does not require a diagnostic label or a test. We expect schools and colleges to monitor the progress of all pupils and put support in place where needed. There has been some good work—for example, by the Autism Education Trust—to provide a range of training and support for staff on autism. However, it is clear that there is more we need to do, both to identify and then to support children and young people in this situation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, what is the Government’s plan to have the right level of SENCO support throughout our education system? Similarly, what are the Government going to do in terms of access to clinicians and experts for the preparation of reports? It cannot continue to be a matter of those who can pay, paying, and those who cannot, sadly, having to wait and often ending up in an endless loop, never ending up getting the diagnosis and help they require.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that in an education, health and care plan, the health element is also very important. As my noble friend identified, where there are delays in getting a diagnosis, that can also mean that children and young people are not getting the support that they need in schools or being identified for additional support within those schools, which is wrong. That is precisely why the Government are determined to make the long-term fundamental reform that will support inclusive mainstream schools for the early identification and support of children, and also ensure that where special schools are needed, there is a place in them for the most complex needs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
At the end of their time at school, many of these people—who are now young adults—have ongoing educational needs to be addressed to allow them to integrate into society and find places of work. Are the Government planning to make sure that they look at continuity, so it does not just end at the age of 18—or whenever they leave—but that educational provision is included right up into their early 20s, to make sure that these children can eventually become well integrated into society and have a prosperous and fulfilling adult life?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that as good practice for children and young people with special educational needs and disability, we need to prepare them for a healthy and productive adulthood. That is already clear in the SEND Code of Practice. For those with an education, health and care plan, there must be a focus from year 9 onwards on preparing the young person for adulthood, as part of their annual review. That also means that we need the expertise within our further education colleges and higher education as well, where students can receive specific support. This will make sure that the support is there available for them through the education system and onward into fruitful and satisfying employment.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, as I understand it, the situation for looked-after children—who, as we know, have a much higher proportion of EHCPs and SEND—is that, when they move from one area to another, the new local authority has to conduct a review of the EHCP. This causes further unnecessary delays. Can the Minister confirm that, as part of the review of current provision, this unnecessary duplication will be addressed?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point about the experience of looked-after children, which I also discussed in an Oral Question earlier this week in response to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. We have to get to a system where there are fewer bureaucratic processes to enable children and young people to get the support that they need. The point about moving from authority to authority is very important, and I will certainly take it back to my colleagues in the department. This strikes me as an additional piece of bureaucracy. While it is obviously important that, in every context, children’s needs are properly understood—and that provision through an EHCP, for example, is properly put in place—that should not be a bureaucratic process that prevents children getting the support they need when they need it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Government are committed to continuing the reforms that the previous Government set out in the SEND and AP plan to set national standards and to digitise the process, so that EHCPs are much clearer and speedier, removing a lot of stress for parents and their children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that the process of going through an education, health and care plan—even now, only 50% of parents get them within 20 weeks of applying for them—is made much easier. I am sure that there are ways that we can build on work from the previous Government to ensure that that happens. Fundamentally, the problem with the system, which we also inherited from the previous Government, is that too many parents feel the need to go through this arduous process alone, because they do not have the support in the rest of the school system and do not get identification early enough. That is what, more fundamentally, we need to put right, and that is what the Government are committed to doing.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
In Wales, the additional learning needs framework was introduced in September 2021 to provide children with an independent development plan in place of the SEN statement. There is also a right to advocacy for children—an active offer of advocacy—provided by the National Youth Advocacy Service Cymru. Have the Government evaluated these initiatives, and would they help to alleviate the pressure in England? My grandson is being helped with special schooling and travel under just such a plan. Cardiff is truly an exemplar that all local authorities should follow.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am very pleased to hear that Labour-led Wales is providing a good service for the noble Lord’s grandchild. In the fundamental reform that we need to undertake, we will be very keen to learn from good experience, wherever it comes from. I will certainly ask officials in the department to look into the examples that the noble Lord highlighted.
EU Settlement Scheme
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to further protect the rights of EU citizens living in the UK; and what improvements they intend to make to the EU Settlement Scheme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government take citizens’ rights very seriously. The EU settlement scheme has provided 5.7 million people with the immigration status they need to continue to live in the United Kingdom. Pre-settled status is extended automatically to ensure that people do not lose rights because of a failure to make a second application to the scheme. In future, we plan to start granting settled status automatically where we hold the data to do so.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, of a number of concerns that EU citizens living in the UK have, one that stands out is the lack of a physical back-up for immigration status. That is important not only for the vulnerable and digitally excluded. First, will the Government improve the implementation of the digital status so that it can sit with the status holder even when there is no internet connection, providing the physical back-up that the previous Government denied? This remains a concern, particularly with the move to e-visas. Secondly, will the Minister meet with parliamentarians and others, including the3million, to discuss ways forward for this and other concerns?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that I can assure the noble Earl that, if a request comes in, I will always meet with any parliamentarian to discuss issues in my area of responsibility. It may take time to sort, but I undertake that commitment. The simple answer to his first question is: yes, work is ongoing.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, on the settled status voting rights, will my noble friend the Minister look at how advice on voting rights on the Government’s website can be made much clearer? Will he also consider further steps, such as providing guidance to local authorities on the ways in which EU citizens with settled status can be better advised on their voting rights, so that we can increase voter participation and registration?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Elections Act 2022 preserved voting rights for individuals from the European Union who had settled status in the United Kingdom. They can vote and stand in elections in every way, with the exception of general elections, where they cannot vote or stand. This is a Cabinet Office responsibility, but I will ensure that the points made by my noble friend are brought to the attention of the Cabinet Office Minister. There is clarity on the Electoral Commission website to that effect, which gives the information that is required.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the EU settlement scheme has generally been a success, but there are some problems with it, including those attracting legal action by the European Commission that raise the prospect of another Windrush. Will the new Government undertake an overall review of the scheme, including the impact assessment that has never been done of the denial of physical proof of residence rights and the imposition of digital-only status? That is to be extended throughout the visa system, but we have never had an impact assessment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have been aware of both the court cases and the challenges that have taken place—that happened under the previous Government. We believe that we are now legally meeting the obligations of High Court judgments and of the status scheme that was implemented following the withdrawal agreement. However, obviously we keep that under review. We are also aware of the challenges mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on digitisation and we are working through to, I hope, meet our obligations to those citizens who have a right now to live, work and indeed in some cases vote in this United Kingdom.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will have discovered that, among his officials, one of the most efficient teams is that which deals with the EU settlement scheme. To what extent are the Government committed to retaining the status review unit, which we set up under the last Government to ensure that those who had obtained EU settled status by deception or had not otherwise met the requirements were dealt with in the appropriate way?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord has said, and although that is not directly my responsibility within the Home Office, I will refer that to my colleague who works in the House of Commons and who has direct responsibility for this area. However, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that there have been 8.1 million applications to June of this year, 7.9 million applications have been concluded, and the overall refusal rate is only around 9%. Very often, those are for reasons which this House will accept: due to criminal records or criminal behaviour. So, I hope the scheme is working well. We need to monitor it, it will be ever-changing, and I will certainly take back the points that the noble Lord made.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, following on from the original Question, many people encounter problems with their digital status when trying to travel home to the UK in different time zones. There is a staffed helpline, but it operates only during working hours, so people are likely to get an AI-generated webchat response, which is not always helpful. Will the Government commit to providing a people-staffed helpline 24/7 to help people who are trying to return from different time zones?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. I cannot commit to that today, but it will form part of a review as to how we look at digitisation and ensure that the people who have the right to have settled status can exercise that right and understand it, have the appropriate paperwork and meet their obligations as well as ours. I fully sympathise with the noble Baroness on chatbots, which I find quite annoying.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that a large number of Roma people came over here when we were in the European Union to escape a really inhospitable environment, who, largely through digital exclusion, have not been able to apply properly for settled status? In addition, there was some ambiguity about the need for the children of those Roma people to apply separately. Will he look into these problems and see whether they can be remedied?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government take citizens’ rights extremely seriously, and we will continue to work constructively with both the EU and internally with those who represent those who wish to have citizens’ rights, to ensure that we meet the provisions of the withdrawal agreement and that they are properly implemented within the United Kingdom. I heard what my noble friend has said and I will take that back and reflect upon it.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question from my noble friend Lord Murray, in some areas concerns have been raised about potential abuses within the EU settlement scheme, including the ability of those with criminal records to apply. What steps will the Government take to ensure that these loopholes will be closed and that we are able to keep our streets safe from foreign criminals with no right to be in the UK?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing that question forward. The first duty of the Home Office is to keep our citizens safe and to make sure that those who have criminal activity are punished by being sent to prison or, in this case, potentially by deportation. It is very important that we reflect on that. A large portion of the 9% of refusals are individuals who have a record of criminal behaviour and therefore have been refused under the settled status scheme. We will monitor that ongoing situation, and I assure the noble Earl that criminality has no place within the EU settled status scheme.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will have the noble Baroness first and then the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the previous Government issued EU settlement scheme status to people yet later denied that they had any rights under the withdrawal agreement. Will my noble friend the Minister provide an assurance today that the Government will ensure that everyone with status under the EU settlement scheme is a beneficiary of the withdrawal agreement?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give my noble friend that assurance with a firm yes.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the Minister accept that most of these people are not criminals, that they are welcome in this country and that the way we deal with them should show that people with whom we share culture, history and a great deal of common interest are welcomed, instead of sounding as if they are being pushed back?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not believe I have given the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that impression—I certainly hope not. Some 5.7 million people have been accepted under the scheme, and they are very welcome. They work among us in this city and in my area where I live, they live among us and their contribution is welcome. But we have to monitor the scheme to ensure its integrity, for the reasons that the noble Lord’s Opposition Front Bench indicated.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, when the Minister conducts the inquiry into the digital aspects of settled status and the aspects of possibly having either a plastic or hard copy, will he take account of the large amount of work done by your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee, which three times recommended that it should be possible for a plastic or hard copy to be made available, particularly given the problems of very elderly and infirm people?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that contribution. I hope I have indicated that we are examining those issues, and he has certainly given me some weekend reading for the future.
UK-Scottish Government Relations
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what meetings have taken place between UK Government Ministers and Scottish Government Ministers in the past month and what matters were discussed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and in doing so I welcome my noble friend, who was born in Edinburgh and who is answering for the first time on behalf of the Government a Question on Scotland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his generous comments—let us hope I live up to them. The Government are committed to resetting relationships with the Scottish Government. Ministers across departments have been meeting to discuss a broad range of issues with their counterparts from the Scottish Government, and ministerial engagement is underpinned by regular engagement at official level. Intergovernmental relations are led from the top by the Prime Minister, who chaired the inaugural Council of the Nations and Regions on 11 October. The council will reconvene in the spring.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, that is a helpful Answer. However, the Minister knows that while justice is devolved, there is great concern here in the rest of the United Kingdom about the fact that Operation Branchform, which is dealing with serious matters of fraud, embezzlement and signature-copying, has now taken over three years. It is in no one’s interest that it should drag on and on. So, if Police Scotland asks us to provide specialist help from the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office, can we give it that help?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I am of course aware of the Police Scotland investigation into the Scottish National Party. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on an investigation that is ongoing, and operational decisions are a matter for Police Scotland. Of course, if it was to make such requests, I am sure that every agency would wish to assist.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I welcome the noble Baroness to Questions. Can she please tell the House when Sue Gray will start work in her new role as envoy to the regions and nations?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
We are delighted that the Council of the Nations and Regions is now up and running and will be meeting again in the spring. Sue Gray has been appointed as the envoy but obviously, she had a busy two years while getting ready for ensuring that the Labour Party won the general election, so she is taking a holiday. She will be appointed in due course, and I will report to the House.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Scottish Government set up a review by the former chief executive of the Scottish Law Commission to look into the dual role of the Lord Advocate, first, as the head of the prosecution service in Scotland, and, secondly, as an adviser to the Scottish Government? If the review suggests that there should be a division of these responsibilities, which would require legislation in this Parliament, would His Majesty’s Government be willing to facilitate that, should the Scottish Parliament ask?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
We look forward to the outcome of the review and will respond in due course, in the usual manner.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Was my noble friend the Minister excited and interested to learn that the SNP Scottish Government have, after considerable effort and research, managed to identify and officially classify 24 different genders? Do His Majesty’s Government have any intention of replicating that research?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am always interested in what the SNP is doing in Scotland. At this point, I am not aware of any efforts by the UK Government to repeat that research.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, in the debate on the humble Address, I asked the Minister about the future of the Prime Minister/First Ministers council in relation to the setting up of the new Council of the Nations and Regions. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. In opposition, the now Government’s position was that both councils would continue to exist. Is that still their position? When will the next meeting of the Prime Minister/First Ministers council take place?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The new Prime Minister met with the Scottish First Minister the first weekend after the general election. It was the Prime Minister’s first official meeting. We also have the Council of the Nations and Regions, which met only this month; it is an extraordinary thing and demonstrates devolution in action.
On future engagement, with the greatest of respect, I find it extraordinary that, although those meetings were agreed to in 2022, they did not happen under the previous Government in 2023, nor in the first six months of 2024. We are reviewing when that meeting will happen next but, for the moment, the Council of the Nations and Regions and the intergovernmental relations body will continue in parallel.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the previous Government set up the system of quarterly reports on intergovernmental relations. The last of those reports was delivered in December last year, which is quite a lot more than a quarter ago. Is this system still in operation and if so, has it reverted to the Cabinet Office? It had moved from the Cabinet Office to what was then the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
We are re-establishing the scheme, and data is currently being compiled. I will have to get back to the noble Earl on whether it has reverted to the Cabinet Office.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, quite a few intergovernmental units have been set up recently. The Minister will of course be aware of the east-west council, which was set up under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper earlier this year. One of those meetings has taken place. Do the Government value the east-west council and the bringing together of the devolved Administrations with Westminster? If so, how frequently will the east-west council meet?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She will be aware that we have a future Question on Safeguarding the Union, and that is when we will give a formal update. Of course we celebrate bringing together all the people who run the nations and regions of the United Kingdom—that is why the Council of the Nations and Regions was convened. It held its first meeting in Scotland, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland were present, as were the mayors and those who lead combined authorities. It is devolution in action, with everyone responsible for delivering for the people of the United Kingdom coming together to make sure that it works. I will get back to the noble Baroness about when the next meeting of the east-west council will follow.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, a number of detailed government Bills with implications for people and citizens across the UK are being considered by both Houses at present. I am thinking of measures such as the water Bill, bearing in mind that waterways adjoin the different nations of the UK, such as the River Tweed, which adjoins Northumberland and Scotland. Can the Minister assure me that detailed measures concerning the practical decisions we need to take, in conjunction with the devolved authorities, are being considered in an orderly and detailed way?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Ensuring that consideration is given to the wider impact of legislation in this House and in the other place is fundamental. That is why Ministers have met their Scottish counterparts more than 20 times in the past month to discuss each part of our legislative agenda.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, one of the many successes of the Scotland Office under the previous Government was building deep relationships with the 32 local authorities in Scotland. Of course, that was greatly assisted by £3 billion of Treasury funding, whether it was the community ownership fund, the levelling up fund, the city deals or the towns fund. We know that it was successful because the 32 local authorities told me personally that they were having better interactions with the UK Government than they did with the Scottish Government, and that includes SNP-led councils. My friends in Argyll and Bute tell me they are concerned that the £70 million rural growth fund, which is a commitment, is on hold pending the upcoming Budget. Can the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to strengthening the union and to continuing funding, direct from the UK Treasury, the 32 local authorities in Scotland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This Government are of course committed to doing everything we can to secure the union. The Budget is only six days away, so the noble Lord will have to wait for an update on expenditure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland was introduced more than 100 years before the Scottish Parliament was established, and it has not been sufficiently considered since then. Are there any plans to review the role?
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, earlier on, the Minister may have misspoken in her answer to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s question. She said that Sue Gray had been appointed as an envoy and would be appointed as an envoy. Can the Minister confirm which is the case, and whether Sue Gray will be at the next meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am sorry if I misled the House; that was not my intention. Sue Gray has been appointed. I am not sure of her start date—I am not in charge of HR for the Government.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, is this a good moment to offer our thanks to and support for Sir Chris Hoy, a great Scotsman who has worn the union jack around his shoulders in so many places around the world for so many years? He has inspired an entire generation of young people, and he has brought joy to elderly people in their chairs—even on these red Benches. He now faces a new challenge, which he is doing with extraordinary courage. May we express our thanks for his inspiration, and hope that the inspiration and joy he has brought us will be returned to him in his way ahead?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My father has recently completed cancer treatment, and I am in awe of those who are experiencing exactly what Chris Hoy is experiencing. He is an inspiration, as members of the Royal Family have been in recent days, for everybody who faces an incredible uphill battle. I send my thoughts and prayers to him and his family at this very difficult time.
Red Sea: Houthi Attacks
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to respond to Houthi attacks on global shipping passing through the Bab el-Mandeb straits and Southern Red Sea; and what recent advice has been given to UK flagged merchant ships travelling through that area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, given that my noble friend is in uniform, I feel underdressed on this occasion.
My noble friend asks a serious Question. UK forces have participated in five joint operations with US forces against Houthi military facilities to degrade their ability to persist with their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. We continue to defend the freedom of navigation, safe passage and British lives at sea. We share with British shipping regular updates containing relevant security information, which support commercial decision-making.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. I am sure she shares my admiration for our ships that have been involved there in very difficult circumstances and the aircraft that have carried out the attacks.
Having one ship there means that we need three ships. If we put two ships there, we need six ships. This being Trafalgar week, I think of Nelson, who said he would die with “lack of frigates” engraved on his heart. He had 210 frigates in his Navy. Today we have six operational frigates in our Navy. For many years we have been warning that this is the state we would get to. Looking to the future, ships are being built but very slowly. Can the Government speed up the rate? For example, the Japanese build a large destroyer in three years. We take eight years to build a small frigate. Can the Government pursue this, to speed up the building rate and get a quicker drum beat?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend would expect, we are committed to making sure that our military, be that on air, land or sea, is adequately equipped and has everything it needs to do its important job. We currently spend around £54 billion on defence and are working hard to get to a point where we can meet our commitment to spending 2.5% on defence.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is beyond urgent to put global pressure on the parties in the Middle East to bring the conflict to an end, given the devastation, loss of life and instability, as in this case, that it has produced? What action are the Government taking?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The implication of that question is that somehow the behaviour of the Houthis regarding shipping is related to the instability and the war in Israel and Gaza. We do not accept that. The behaviour of the Houthis needs to stop. It is a threat to security and stability more widely in the Middle East. We do not accept the Houthis’ contention that their behaviour is in any way related to the situation in Israel, Lebanon or Gaza.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, just to add to that question, will the Minister look at the wider situation regarding the peace agreement in Yemen? Until there is more momentum behind the peace talks in Yemen, this problem in the Red Sea is not going to be solved.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Until the horrendous attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October, the peace process was progressing. An envoy was engaged, and it looked as if there may well be some progress. Sadly, that is not the situation that we are in at the moment. We will use every diplomatic lever that we can, in addition to the measures we are taking to defend shipping and prevent further attacks, to bring about stability and de-escalation.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, one effect of the attacks on shipping in the Red Sea is the increase in maritime insurance premiums. London is a world leader in maritime insurance. What discussions are taking place with the maritime insurance industry to ensure that shipping is insurable?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Clearly, the cost of insurance has been impacted by the activities of the Houthis. We have seen much shipping diverted around the Cape of Good Hope, which takes much longer and is more expensive. We are concerned about this. London is host to the International Maritime Organization, so we play a leading role in international maritime security. We continue to monitor closely the implications of this activity on the cost to shipping, which is one of the reasons why the action we have taken has been so decisive. We will continue to work as hard as we possibly can, using whatever levers are available, to prevent this danger to life and to stability in the region.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one of the things that affect the security of the Red Sea routes, as we have discussed before, is security in the Horn of Africa. With the current inability of Ukraine to export its grain to that region—it is now almost exclusively going to western Europe—Russia has seized the opportunity to back-fill the provision of that grain to the region and to use food as a political tool to spread its malign influence. What are the UK Government doing to counter Russia’s activities in this regard?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The behaviour of Russia in this instance, as in many others, is deplorable. This shows how interconnected many of these conflicts are, meaning that our response to these issues and the posture that we adopt need to be carefully calibrated so that we work very carefully, consistently and with some effect—although we want to achieve far more to make sure that aid can get into Yemen and that the people of Somalia and Ethiopia get the support they need. The activities of Iran and Russia have been devastating to the lives of many people living in those countries.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I think we all wish to commend the professionalism of our Royal Navy personnel, so evident in this part of the world. In particular, HMS “Diamond” has been protecting shipping in the Red Sea. She called in a couple of weeks ago to refuel at Diego Garcia. Can the Minister confirm that the recent transfer of sovereignty of BIOT to Mauritius will not in any way obstruct the ability of the United Kingdom to protect UK-flagged merchant shipping in the region?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely. I am happy to provide that assurance, particularly since, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the Houthis have made statements on wishing to extend their activities into the Indian Ocean. She is completely right to raise that, and I can provide the assurance she seeks.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the Houthis have cast the United Kingdom as one of their enemies. People have been marching on the streets of Britain disgracefully supporting that. Will the UK Government proscribe the Houthis now?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are doing everything we can to de-escalate the situation. We do not seek a conflict with the Houthis. We have had to take military action to respond to the threats to shipping, including to British vessels, and we will continue to do that as we need to. Everything we do is with the aim of de-escalation, not least because that is what the people of Yemen need. They are experiencing extreme hunger. We need to be able to keep getting the aid into the north of Yemen for the sake of those people.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, can UK-flagged merchant ships be armed if the owners, captain and crew agree?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Regarding decisions on maritime security, we have constant conversations with those responsible for shipping and give advice on security. We have not advised shipping to divert away from this route, but clearly those responsible are making decisions for themselves. We have seen a large number of vessels divert around the Cape of Good Hope, for obvious reasons.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I thought the question was about arming vessels, not the route they took. Can the Minister answer that, please?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The answer I provided may not be the one that noble Lords opposite wanted to hear but, none the less, it is my answer. We work closely with those who are responsible for maritime security and for shipping. I think that is what a responsible Government would do. That is as far as I will go today.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Thursday 24th October 2024
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Climate Agenda
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley
That this House takes note of the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s climate agenda on jobs, growth and prosperity.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great and somewhat unexpected privilege to open this debate. I particularly look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead. It is fitting that her first contribution should be to this debate, since the net-zero commitment is very much her personal legacy. It also gives me a chance to thank her for what she and your Lordships may feel was a less wise part of her legacy, which was nominating me to this House.
It is hard to overstate how crucial cheap energy is for economic growth and prosperity. The quadrupling of oil prices in 1974 ended three decades of rapid growth in western economies. Energy price rises have invariably been followed by a slowdown in growth. On the other hand, thanks to shale oil and gas in America, that country has had cheaper energy and grown faster than other western economies, and China’s extraordinary growth has been fuelled by cheap coal.
Let me start with a few facts about climate change and the climate agenda impacts. First, Britain has reduced its territorial emissions of CO2 more than any other major economy and they are now back to the level they were in 1879. Secondly, Britain has more offshore wind power than any other country bar China, not to mention its onshore wind, solar and bio energy.
Thirdly, despite or because of this, British industry pays the highest electricity prices in Europe. They doubled in real terms over the two decades up to the start of the Ukraine war, even though real gas prices remained largely unchanged over that period.
Fourthly, we have already lost most of our aluminium industry and are losing our primary steel-making capacity and, with it, thousands of jobs. We are seeing the Grangemouth refinery turning into an import terminal and other British refineries under threat. We import an increasing proportion of energy-intensive goods, such as cement and bricks.
Fifthly, when our manufacturing industry moves abroad, it does not reduce global emissions at all—far from it. We now import many carbon-intensive products, so the reduction in Britain’s carbon footprint is only 36%, much less than the near halving of our reported territorial emissions.
Finally, the Government propose to accelerate the move to net zero regardless of cost, to prevent new North Sea exploration and instead import oil and gas, and to ignore or deny the impact this will have on our energy costs, growth and jobs.
This is an unusually significant debate because, as far as I can tell, it is the first time that Parliament has formally debated the impact on jobs, growth and prosperity of our decision to decarbonise our economy. Our failure to do so has been part of a collective institutional failure by Governments of all parties, both Houses of Parliament, the BBC, the Climate Change Committee and other public bodies to permit or promote an informed debate on the economic costs and benefits of net zero.
Costs were never discussed during the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008, nor during the 90-minute debate committing us to net zero in 2019. It is extraordinary that we still have no official cost-benefit analysis of net zero, five years after embarking on the project.
Long ago, our national broadcaster formally decided not to give airtime to any views that might undermine public support for net zero. I discovered this when expressing doubts not about the science of global warming, which is rock solid, but about its scale and impact. The BBC published an apology “for giving voice to Peter Lilley”, removed the offending programme from the BBC iPlayer lest other people hear my voice, sent the producers on a re-education course and banished me from their studios on this issue ever since. Now my absence is no great loss to me or the nation, but our national broadcaster’s refusal to allow serious debate on the costs of the most expensive commitment since the welfare state is a travesty.
The most egregious failure has been that of the Climate Change Committee, which should have provided unbiased estimates of costs for public debate. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Deben will be able to explain why it has refused to do so. It even spent large sums of taxpayers’ money resisting a freedom of information request for details of its forecast that net zero would cost the nation 1% to 2% of GDP by 2050. Many assumed that this was the cost of getting to net zero but, actually, this is the cost we will face after 2050 once we have eliminated our emissions. The CCC has not calculated the cost of getting there; maybe its forecasting instrument is like one of those telescopes that can focus with great clarity on distant objects but renders anything near at hand a blurred and fuzzy image. There seems to be no other reason for not giving us the costs of getting to 2050.
The CCC’s reluctance to publish its workings was perhaps understandable given that it was so optimistic but, as it turns out, that is true of estimates produced by most public bodies. Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith—the lead author of the Royal Society’s report on the cost of large-scale electricity storage—recently pointed out that all official estimates were grossly optimistic, and he was honest enough to include his own, by the Royal Society. It is sad that we do not have the information on which we can have an honest and informed debate.
True believers in net zero are reluctant to discuss its costs because they have convinced themselves that there are none. It will give us cheap energy and boost growth by creating new jobs in new industries, exporting clean technologies worldwide, making the world greener and ourselves richer. How wonderful if that were true. There is an old saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is not true. I hope that wind power, in particular, because we have lots of it, will one day be cheaper than fossil fuels, but it patently is not yet. If wind and solar are cheaper, why have our electricity prices doubled as they have replaced fossil fuels? If renewables are cheaper, why is our electricity more expensive than in other European countries, which have less than us? If renewables are cheaper, why do they need subsidy?
Apologists say that those are the costs of old technologies and that the costs are coming down. The first part is true, although it is a shame they did not tell us at the time. Dieter Helm has calculated that Britain wasted up to £100 billion by investing prematurely in immature technology, rather than waiting until it was cost effective.
The Secretary of State assured us last month that, on the basis of recent auctions, renewables are the cheapest form of power to build and operate. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. The latest auction price for offshore wind was £82 per megawatt hour in today’s money, whereas his own department’s figures—for reference, on page 24 of the Electricity Generation Costs 2023 document—put the cost to build and operate a new gas plant at less than £60 per megawatt hour. Does the Secretary of State repudiate his own departmental figures?
Moreover, this is only half the story, because the comparison is not like for like. Wind is intermittent, and Dieter Helm advised the Government that, to make a true comparison, the costs of wind should include the cost of back-up generators or storage. Electricity that is not there when you want it is less valuable than electricity that is.
My economics lecturer taught us this by the old fable of the two New York bakers. One advertised bagels at 50 cents each, the other opposite at a dollar. A customer went to the cheaper baker and asked for a bagel. “Sorry, we’re out of bagels”, he was told. So he went to the other store and asked if they had any bagels. When the shopkeeper gave him one and charged him a dollar, he protested, “But the shop opposite only charges 50 cents a bagel”. “Well, why didn’t you go there?” “I did, but he’s out of bagels just now”. To which the other shopkeeper replied, “When I’m out of bagels, I only charge 50 cents”. Wind may be as cheap as other things when it is available, but it is a lot more expensive when it is not.
Electricity when it is not there when you want it is less valuable electricity, so you need back-up gas plants or storage. Back-up gas plants are doubly expensive because they can operate only when the wind is not blowing and they in turn need carbon capture and storage, which, even if it can be made to work with gas-fired stations, which it has not yet, will add further costs—again doubly so, because it will operate only part-time.
The second leg of the too good to be true story is that if we plough ahead with decarbonising our economy supply, we will enrich ourselves by generating new export industries. The Industry Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who pursued the Sue Gray route to the upper echelons of the Labour Party, was given a little section of his own in the Labour manifesto, in which he said that
“by accelerating the transition to clean, homegrown energy”
we will not only
“end the era of high energy bills”
but be
“helping ourselves and exporting our solutions worldwide. But if we choose to go slowly, others will provide the answers, and ultimately we’ll end up buying these solutions rather than selling them”.
Where has he been for the past 20 years? Far from choosing to go slowly, we have outpaced other countries, but we have had to buy the solutions from abroad. Imports of renewable technologies vastly exceed our exports. Foreign suppliers have finally begun to make wind vanes in this country and assemble generators here, which is welcome, but they are largely for our fields, and those companies are not going to make us an exporter. The only turbines we export are gas turbines, which we are phasing out and urging others to do likewise. The only area where we might take the lead in developing a new industry is small nuclear, which I persuaded the Energy and Climate Change Committee to back a decade ago. I hope this Government will give that project more welly than my Government did.
An honest appraisal of the cost of net zero will conclude that it is bound to be costly. That does not necessarily mean that we should abandon it. If the costs are less than the likely benefits to the world in reducing the impact of global warming, it is worth the world bearing those costs. Of course, Britain’s contribution to global emissions is very small—less than 1%—so our impact alone is negligible. I accept that we must be prepared to make our proportionate contribution to that collective effort.
I know that many noble Lords believe that we should lead the world by going further and faster in that direction. I confess that I have always found the idea that we can lead the world somewhat hubristic—a hangover from our imperial past. So far, the big emitters —China, India and, in future, Africa and Latin America —have made it clear that they do not give a damn what we do. The one thing that we can be sure of is that if we impose such costs on our economy that we self-harm and reduce our emissions by exporting our industry abroad, other countries will take note, learn the lessons from our folly and make sure that they do not follow our lead.
I hope that we can now have an honest, frank, well-informed debate comparing the costs of action with the benefits of action. I am sure that will be a point that my bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, will make in due course since, although we may not agree on this issue, we agree on the importance of honesty. We can have an honest debate only if it is well informed and if we stop trying to convince ourselves that fairy tales are true. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I welcome this debate and look forward to the other speakers and the debate that will take place between them. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead.
I will not pursue the specific points that were made in the introductory speech. I will use the limited time available to me to highlight some excellent and important work that has been undertaken on climate change by the actuarial profession. I declare my interest as a member of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries as entered in the register. Climate change is an issue to which actuaries are devoting increasing attention. What happens in the future is intrinsic to the work of actuaries, hence the risks inherent in climate change are an essential element in the work that we do. It is already built into our professional standards. We are, in an important sense, risk scientists, able to uncover uncomfortable possibilities involving the risks we face, to which mainstream debates struggle to give sufficient weight.
I do not have enough time to go through all the arguments, but I trust my noble friend the Minister will follow up the information and perhaps even organise a meeting at which they can be explored at greater length. In summary, work undertaken by the profession in the report it produced last year, The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios, identified that many of the models used to predict economic damage from the hothouse world we face have been too optimistic. Actuaries are saying that the models are not sufficiently accurate for us to place sufficient weight on them. They underestimate the rate at which the Earth is warming, hence carbon budgets based on those estimates are no longer applicable.
More recent work by the profession has identified how close we are to the risk of real problems and how they should be taken into account when making our decisions on policy. The key document here is the institute’s report from March this year, written in conjunction with Exeter University, Climate Scorpion—The Sting is in the Tail. The point made in the title is that the models currently used fail adequately to take into account what are called “tail risks”: the problems that appear towards the end of the period that is being assessed. The risky outcomes of climate change are those in the tail end of the models that are being used.
In short, the message is that we need to give greater weight in our assessment to worst-case scenarios. They need to be taken into account when making policy on climate change. This is essential, given our growing yet precarious lack of knowledge about extreme climate risk and, crucially, the range of tipping points that we face. For example, we have to treat the 1.5 degrees centigrade limit as a physical limit, not a political target. Too often the long-term impacts of climate change are described in terms of central estimates, when rule number one of risk assessment is to focus on the worst case. This subsequent note by actuaries makes it clear, first, that current energy policies are not sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals, that an overshoot of the 1.5 degrees centigrade threshold is now more likely than in the past, and that the rate of global warming was accelerating in 2023. In fact, the rate of acceleration was accelerating. We are going faster towards these tipping point risks.
Secondly, there are material risks associated with a failure to meet those goals, with the risk of triggering multiple climate tipping points and a potential tipping cascade. We must understand that a failure to meet the target does not mean that things will be a bit worse; we must take more seriously the fact that passing one of the tipping points will result in catastrophe.
I am therefore concerned about the Answer that my noble friend the Minister gave yesterday to the Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referring to AMOC, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; at school we may have referred to it as the Gulf Stream drift, but it is now AMOC. The collapse of AMOC undoubtedly presents existential—an overused word, but in this case it is meaningful—risks to food production and water availability. Saying “It’s okay so far, and there are a range of views” is not an adequate response to the risks that we face.
The actuarial profession is taking these risks seriously. There are reports by practitioners who understand the nature of risks and how to adapt policy to those risks. I hope the Government will accept the information they are being provided with and adapt their policies to reflect these new dangers.
Lord Browne of Madingley (CB)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register, specifically my chairmanship of BeyondNetZero, of Carbonplace and of the board of Equatic, and my membership of the board of the Institute for Carbon Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. I also refer noble Lords to my co-chairmanship of the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology. I very much look forward to hearing the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in this debate. Meanwhile, I will make four short points.
First, targeted investment in net zero will encourage rather than hinder economic growth, and for that reason it is worth pursuing. The market opportunities are sizeable and, importantly, the UK labour market possesses the relevant skills to grow climate-related activity at scale. We are fortunate to have world-class research scientists and academics at the cutting edge of climate and energy technologies. Structures such as the Faraday Institution, the UK’s flagship institute for electrochemical energy research and development, show what is possible when industry partners are involved, working together with the innovators on projects with real commercial potential. We probably have 50% of the technologies that we need to get to net zero, but we also have universities such as Cambridge that are awash with groups that have the potential to take discovery science, incubate it and prepare it for the commercial markets at the scale that we need not just in the UK but also in the world. There is a wealth of engineering and technical expertise among those who have spent decades working in my old industry, oil and gas, that can now be deployed in the wind, solar, nuclear and other energy sectors.
Secondly, the Government’s commitment to net zero must be reflected in consistent policy approaches. Whatever the rationale at the time, the previous Government’s announcement that they would delay banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by five years to 2035 was counterproductive. It sent mixed messages to investors, and electric vehicle supply chains were heavily damaged. Supply was disrupted and consumer confidence suffered. The new Government’s green energy mission, the establishment of Great British Energy and the convening of solar and wind task forces are all encouraging but they cannot simply be strong statements of intent; they must be accompanied by vehicles for focused delivery. For that, the private sector must be invited to the table and provided with incentives to invest and scale its operations even further.
This brings me to my third point: incentives and private sector investment. Incentives are the result of pricing externalities, something that we must tackle head on if we are to achieve the necessary climate correction. For example, the carbon released by one actor but affecting another must be priced and paid for. Incentives to release less carbon or to avoid emissions altogether then follow. Governments are well placed to introduce incentives of this kind or preferential tax regimes, but they must be accompanied by substantial levels of private investment if the national energy transition is to be delivered and the necessary climate technologies commercialised and, importantly, scaled. Governments can set the regulatory environment to encourage investment and in some cases they can lean in, providing incentives or concessionary finance, but they cannot be expected to deliver. The UK continues to lead the world as a wellspring of sustainable finance in the form of venture capital, private equity and large-scale institutional investors. The success of the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States is a case in point.
Fourthly, we must now pick up the pace. The direction and quality of investment flow are eminently predictable if the surrounding conditions are known and controlled. This is the story of economic growth in all sectors, perhaps most notably in the extraction and burning of hydrocarbons over centuries past in this country. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to be true in the story of our new energy and climate revolution. I am very optimistic, and progress is picking up, but the missing element is time. In my opinion we are approximately 25 years behind, so we must accelerate the rollout of incentives, financing and R&D breakthroughs. This country is well placed to do just that.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for securing this important debate. I am looking forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady May, who I know will bring great insight and experience to your Lordships’ House. I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
We need to take climate change extremely seriously. I commend the previous Government, and indeed some of the plans of the present Administration, for the steps they have taken and are taking. I support the plea by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for open and transparent costs of net zero so that we can make informed choices; that seems fundamental to all that we do in every part of our work. Other noble Lords will be able to speak in a more informed way than I can about the positive impact that net zero can have on the economy, not least in terms of jobs in new and emerging sectors such as renewable energy. It will also offset the negative economic impacts that climate change brings with it, such as droughts, pollution and ill health.
I shall limit my comments to quite a focused area: the use of land and, in particular, working with our farmers. Farmers are acutely attuned to changes in weather and therefore to the impact of climate change. They do not have a choice; their whole livelihood depends on it. Some of the increasingly extreme weather that we have seen over recent years, with record windfall and subsequent flooding alongside periods of extreme heat, has hit farmers very hard. I outlined to your Lordships’ House a few weeks ago the devastation and economic costs dealt to farmers recently in the wake of extreme flooding. I remind the House that, last winter, parts of the UK experienced double the level of the monthly rainfall totals of the period that were experienced between 1991 and 2020.
Farmers, as stewards of so much of our land, are uniquely placed to play an important role in helping to achieve His Majesty’s Government’s climate change agenda through nature recovery, sustainable food production and clean energy supply. There is a real opportunity here to have our agricultural industry set a leading example of how economic growth, food security and new energy technologies can work together as a force for good in responding to the environmental challenges we face. I urge the Minister to ensure that farmers are treated as crucial partners in pursuing the climate change agenda; that they are listened to and supported as the burden of demands made on them continues to increase.
In one of the counties in which I am privileged to serve, Hertfordshire, we have some of the most innovative and forward-looking farmers in the whole world. They are right at the cutting edge of how we are going to face the challenges of food production, food security and net zero. What they are asking for, of course, is a level playing field in the international markets and, as any future trade agreements are brokered, their concern is that they should not be disadvantaged in any way. In light of the urgent need to safeguard our environment and to make the Government’s aims for food security, energy security and net zero a reality, the Government must provide a renewed and improved agricultural budget of at least £4 billion a year, which is what the NFU has been calling for, so that farmers can play their part in what is required.
British farmers already own or host about 70% of the UK’s total solar generation capacity, whether on the rooftops of farm buildings or in solar farms. Many food producers also host on-farm wind power. They have a clear role to play in the Government’s commitment to making the UK a clean energy superpower, but it is important that this is balanced with protecting the best agricultural land for food production. It was only a couple of years ago that we saw the invasion of Ukraine having an immediate impact on the cost of food and fertilisers. It was really impacting upon us, so food security is not some optional thing; it is absolutely fundamental to us as a nation.
While rooftop installations offer an ideal platform for renewables, I urge the Government to ensure that those, along with brownfield sites, are prioritised for mounting solar farms, rather than using the most productive agricultural land, which we must protect for our food production. I seek assurances from the Minister that he will do all he can on this front to ensure that these principles are enshrined in the forthcoming land use framework.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend Lord Lilley’s speech and congratulate him on calling this debate, because climate change is a challenge that we need to face, especially those of us who believe in an open, free-market economy. We have to accept that, historically, our free and open economies have operated without properly acknowledging the external costs created by the energy that we were using, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said. We need to move to honest prices that fully reflect the costs of carbon emissions as part of a belief in a functioning market economy.
If we go through this process, we will end up with a system with enormous benefits: with greater security of supply, with much less exposure to the risks of volatile gas prices and indeed, in many cases, with lower operational costs, particularly for people driving motor vehicles. The costs of adjustment are indeed high. We absolutely need rigorous economic analysis of what those costs are and who bears them. At the Resolution Foundation—I declare an interest as president —we absolutely try to apply economic analysis to those costs.
I am delighted that this is a debate where we will be hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead. One reason, of course, is that she took a lead in committing Britain to a net-zero target. But, if I may say so, there is a second reason as well: she also took a lead in focusing on the living standards of people who were just about managing—people who were struggling to make ends meet. She reminded us that concern about those living standards should be a cross-party issue and not the prerogative of any one party. This debate is an opportunity to combine our concern about the challenge of climate change with a recognition that the costs of adjustment must be borne fairly.
Some of these issues are most acute in the transport sector, which I would like to touch on in particular. This is not an area where we have made massive progress. Transport emissions of carbon dioxide are now greater than they were in 1990. The problem is getting worse, not better. In large part these emissions are associated with car use—over 80% of journeys are still taken by motor car—but it is also where the gains from successful adjustment are massive, with hundreds of billions of pounds of savings when we move to fundamentally lower-cost electric vehicles, powered by clean energy. At the moment, the cost of buying these vehicles is still too high while the benefits, once you have one, can be very low. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plans are to improve the regime for electric vehicles.
For a start, if you are able to charge your electric vehicle at home—in a private driveway or whatever—the costs of charging are only half those faced by less affluent people who are having to charge their cars on the street. This gap in pricing is a major problem. We need to improve the planning regime, so that on-street charging becomes cheaper and quicker, and we need greater competition. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what plans the Government have to narrow the gap between the costs of on-street and off-street charging, which is now very substantial.
We have historically been rewarding the purchase of electric cars with a very favourable tax regime. These benefits have largely gone to affluent people buying them. That is where innovation starts; they were initially very high cost and it was understandable that the driver of the change would come from the people who could afford expensive electric vehicles. But as the costs fall, will the Government accept that it is no longer necessary to have such expensive subsidies and rewards for the costs of buying an electric vehicle, and instead put more support into holding down the costs for people charging them?
Briefly, another area of transport where we face serious challenges is flying. The growth of emissions from jet flights means that we will soon be seeing them as the biggest single contributor to carbon emissions in the transport sector. There is another uncomfortable fact about the distribution of the costs of adjusting to climate change and the inability, at the moment, fully to cover those costs. It is very likely that the emissions simply from the jet travel of the most affluent 20% of people in this country will be greater than the total emissions incurred by the least affluent 20% from heating their houses, using transport and any other costs. Yet jet travel is an area where we are still not properly covering the costs of the carbon that we emit. Is that not an area for radical progress?
At the end of the day, I think we will end up with fantastic opportunities for Britain; the economic analysis is pretty compelling on this. This will be not because of fantasies about being world-leading, and certainly not by ignoring the economic costs, but by investing in technologies and our natural advantages, with wind and offshore power, tidal power and small modular reactors. We can then have a more efficient economy and a more equitable one as well.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to be standing here in this place to make my maiden speech. In doing so, I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests, in particular my chairmanship of the Aldersgate Group, a not-for-profit which deals with climate change and environment matters, and of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.
I stand here feeling the privilege of being in this place, but also with a sense of trepidation. People outside this House have said to me, “Don’t worry—you were a Member of Parliament for Maidenhead for 27 years. It’ll be all right. You’ll know what the ropes are—you’ll know the rules”, and I say, “No, this is a very different place”. When they ask how, I say, “Well, for a start, their Lordships normally speak only when they know what they’re talking about”. I will endeavour to follow that rule in my contributions in this place.
I thank all those who have welcomed me and eased my transition: the staff of the House, Black Rod and her staff, the doorkeepers, the clerks, the Lord Speaker’s office and the catering department, which provided a wonderful lunch after my introduction. I thank the security staff and others who have helped and guided me when they have found me wandering aimlessly along a corridor. I thank my two supporters on my introduction, my noble friends Lord True and Lady Evans of Bowes Park.
I also thank my mentor, my noble friend Lady Goldie. I hope she will not mind if I tell the story of the day of my introduction. I was standing in the Moses Room with my supporters, waiting to process into the Chamber, and my noble friend turned up with a very large envelope for me. My supporters indicated how generous it was of her to give me a gift. She said, “It’s the Companion to the Standing Orders to read during recess”. I have not yet been tested on it, but I thank my noble friend for the help and support she has given me, not just recently but over many years.
It is a great pleasure to be speaking in a debate on climate change. I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for initiating this debate but recognise that there may be some differences of opinion across the House on this issue. I view with deep concern the changes in our climate recently; 2023 was the hottest year in human history. Without action, we will see the frequency and severity of extreme weather events accelerating. The Amazon rainforest will become a carbon source, not a carbon sink. Some of those countries currently sitting around the Commonwealth Heads of Government table will simply cease to exist.
But I believe that there is good news and that we can reap economic benefit from dealing with climate change. The net zero review of 2023 indicated that dealing with the transition from fossil fuels to sustainability was the growth opportunity of the 21st century, estimating that we could see nearly half a million new green jobs here in the UK by 2030. McKinsey has estimated that dealing with providing goods and services for the global net-zero transition could bring £1 trillion to the UK economy by 2030.
I also believe there is a cost of inaction. As just one example, the Green Finance Institute has estimated that the degradation of our environment linked to climate could lead to a loss of 12% of our GDP. I also think that, if we look at this debate just as a matter of who has the biggest sterling figure on their side of the argument, we are missing something. There is a real human cost to climate change.
When extreme weather destroys homes and livelihoods, harvests fail and water supplies dry up, people are driven to destitution and desperation. In that destitution and desperation lies vulnerability, and particularly vulnerability to modern slavery and human trafficking. If the agriculture in a community fails year on year, parents are more likely to take the difficult, heartbreaking decision to let their sons and daughters move or be taken away to the promise of a better life—but in fact taken into slavery, forced into work from which they cannot escape, their freedom and human dignity cruelly taken from them. I believe that is an issue we simply cannot and must not ignore.
In looking at and dealing with climate change, I believe there is an economic benefit. It can bring jobs and prosperity, but it can also help us reduce vulnerability to modern slavery and human trafficking. I urge the Government and all across this House to recognise the need to deal with climate change to save our planet and to save our humanity.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be the first to commend the moving and compelling speech of my noble friend, and my former Member of Parliament. How appropriate that it should be made on the subject of climate change where, as we have heard, my noble friend ensured her legacy by making the UK the first major economy to enshrine in law a net-zero carbon target. She also accelerated progress internationally, cementing our credentials as an ambitious and reliable climate change partner. My noble friend is particularly welcome in your Lordships’ House because, as Prime Minister, she responded to the Burns committee report by exercising restraint in new appointments, unlike the generosity of her immediate successor.
Our paths first crossed nearly 30 years ago when Maidenhead Conservatives were choosing a new candidate. My seat in London had been abolished, and I fancied my prospects in this newly created constituency. My family had lived in it for more than 200 years, my wife had been on the local council, my children had been to the local comprehensive and I was in the Cabinet. The selection committee threw me out in the first round and chose instead an unknown councillor from Merton.
My noble friend became a great local MP, dominating the pages of the Maidenhead Advertiser every Friday and surprising constituents between elections by knocking on their doors on a Saturday morning to ask what they thought of the train service to Paddington. She did that even when she was Prime Minister. No cause was too small to generate her support—literally, as she came to Cookham last year to celebrate the return of the water vole to the banks of the River Thames.
My noble friend was on the Front Bench from 2001, becoming the longest-serving Home Secretary for 60 years and then becoming leader and Prime Minister in 2016, without the necessity of asking party members—not the most reliable of electorates. She generously invited me to join her Administration and retained my services throughout, unlike her predecessor who sacked me not once but twice.
My noble friend led the country with patience at a time of maximum turbulence in her party at the other end, which treated her badly. In retrospect, Parliament should have backed her proposals on Brexit, as the country would have had a better deal than the one we ended up with.
Along with the net-zero commitments, my noble friend will be remembered for the Modern Slavery Act. She is pursuing that cause by leading the Global Commission on Modern Slavery & Human Trafficking, focusing on the impact of climate change on population movement.
Throughout her public life, my noble friend has demonstrated decency, integrity, courage and selflessness. Before we heard of the Nolan principles, she embodied them. In her book The Abuse of Power, she poses this question: “Does politics attract people who yearn for power, rather than for the opportunity to serve?”. For my noble friend, there is no shadow of doubt about the answer. We warmly welcome her to the House and look forward to her future contributions.
Turning to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s Motion, I will make just one point as I have used most of my available time. My noble friend invites us to take note of
“the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s climate agenda on jobs, growth and prosperity”,
but he is choosing his own criteria. Without pressing the analogy too closely, but just to make a point, what would have been the reaction of your Lordships if, 80 years ago in 1944, my noble friend had asked what was the impact on jobs, growth and prosperity of World War II? The answer then would have been that, while those issues were important, there was an overriding priority.
Of course, climate change is not about saving freedom and democracy, but the Prime Minister and others, including in this debate, have described it as an existential threat. It follows that taking steps to avoid that threat would push the criteria my noble friend has chosen down the agenda. To that extent, they are of course important but secondary. The primary question should be: how effective is the Government’s agenda in averting climate change?
My noble friend may not accept that there is an existential threat, and others will argue this case better than I can, but my view is that we are approaching a number of tipping points that would adversely affect the world in which we live, with consequences for the air we breathe, global warming, rising sea levels, droughts, mass migration and the rest. So, forced to choose between my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lady May, my noble friend Lady May once again has my vote.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for securing this important debate and for his insightful introduction. Climate change is real and a living reality for many across the globe. Indeed, for some small island nations, it remains an existential threat and it impacts growth and prosperity. In welcoming my noble friend Lady May to her place, I note that she brings incredible insights and a deep sense of devotion to public service, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young. During her tenure as Prime Minister, she championed tackling climate change and was a powerful advocate of collective action on the world stage. To coin a phrase, we are all in it together.
My noble friend Lord Lilley talked of my noble friend’s decision to appoint him to this House. I assure my noble friend that, perhaps like others, we love hearing his voice. I agree with his call for transparency of costs for enabling those long-term decisions, both at home and internationally.
As far as appointments are concerned, I will take a moment to give my personal reflections in relation to my noble friend Lady May. The noble Lord, Lord Young, talked of her selection for Maidenhead. She left a vacancy in Merton and I followed in her shoes, minus the heels of course—although perhaps, standing at five feet six, I would have benefited greatly from them. Nevertheless, she was an advocate for localism, and it was an honour to follow her. Indeed, she introduced me to the Conservative Party and appointed me as Minister of State at the Foreign Office. That turned out to be a long-term decision.
When I was appointed to the Foreign Office, one of my early visits was to the Caribbean. I was at the Pacific Islands Forum in Australasia, in Fiji. Hurricanes hit the Caribbean, and there was a moment of trepidation. Very early on in my career at the Foreign Office, I needed to invoke that call to the boss, to alert the Prime Minister to what had happened in the Caribbean. My noble friend acted promptly and convened a COBRA meeting, and with others I was dispatched to the region. What I saw was nothing short of devastation—it was like a war scene. It instilled in me the need to tackle climate change collectively and the need for international action.
What I saw first hand was physical devastation and the economic impact on both independent nations as well as our overseas territories. In Antigua and Barbuda, the country’s entire GDP was wiped out by Mother Nature and the ravages of the hurricanes. It brought into focus the importance of climate finance, which I will focus on, and the need to update processes and dated bureaucratic procedures that hindered countries’ abilities, particularly those that had graduated to middle-income status. Through a single event, through no fault of their own, they saw their economic infrastructure wiped out. As I look towards the Minister, I hope the Government continue to advocate for reforms in these international structures. They need reform urgently. I hope the Government will champion the importance of small island developing states accessing funds. More pointedly, the issue of access must be addressed. Much work needs to be done on technical support for these countries.
As a country, we have already signed up to internationally agreed targets limiting our emissions, and we have delivered on these. But the UK has also stood up and committed to providing financial support to developing countries, in the form of international climate finance. In 2009, the UK, together with other developed countries, committed to providing $100 billion in climate finance annually by 2020, provided by both the public and private sectors. During the UN high-level week in 2019, I announced a commitment of £11.6 billion for the years 2021 to 2026 on behalf of the United Kingdom, in support of this international target. Yes, the UK was rightly recognised as an international leader on this important priority. Can the Minister please confirm that the Labour Government will continue to uphold our international commitments?
The previous Government committed to investing directly in both adaptation and mitigation. They committed to spend $3 billion on nature, which was a priority of the COP we hosted in Glasgow. The direct benefits are clear: when you travel around the globe, you see how climate change impacts and you see the results of taking action. When I visited Bangladesh, I saw that nature-based solutions, through the replanting of mangroves, have a major and powerful result, not just mitigating typhoons but saving lives. As my noble friend highlighted, such action saves livelihoods.
At COP 26, we introduced the Global Forest Finance Pledge, and I hope the Government will continue to champion this, particularly as CHOGM is convened this week with our Commonwealth family of nations. Therefore, I ask the Minister again: can he confirm that the Government remain committed to upholding existing commitments? I was somewhat puzzled—perhaps the Minister can clarify—by how the commitment that the previous Government made on climate finance can be squared with the Foreign Secretary’s recent statement that the ICF would be subject to a planned spending review.
The issue of the UK’s green finance strategy, where the private sector is being mobilised, is also an important priority. I hope the Government will continue to focus on the strong relationship and co-operation between Governments and the private sector, which we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my declared interests, particularly as the former chairman of the Climate Change Committee. I particularly welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend. By talking about one nation and handing on to the next generation something better than we have ourselves received, she sums up why I am a conservative. Only when the Conservative Party follows those views are we actually conservative.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for producing this debate. He is a very old friend, so he will not mind me reminding him a bit about his past. When Margaret Thatcher was off in the United Nations pleading for international action against climate change, he was telling his colleagues in the Cabinet that he did not really accept the arguments about climate change or global warming—
Lord Lilley (Con)
That is completely untrue. The noble Lord is making it up.
Lord Deben (Con)
I remember the conversation. The noble Lord said, “I’m a statistician, and the statistics don’t prove this”. But it is perfectly true that he now believes it is rock solid, although he does not accept that, if it is, we have to do everything about it because it threatens us all. His speech could be made in any parliament in the whole world, saying, “Climate change is very serious, but not for us, because we’ve got to do this, that and the other. It’s rather bad for our economy, so we won’t do it”. Every country could say that. His is the “After you, Claude” policy: when other people do it, then we do it. That seems to me to be dishonourable—you cannot put that forward. If you believe in climate change and see it as an existential threat, you have to act.
I am proud of a cross-party attitude; all parties have supported this, although my noble friend Lord Lilley did not support the Climate Change Act. We have to realise that there is a difference between accepting the facts and being prepared to act on them. Action means that we do it ourselves first because, if we do not, as the Bishops’ Benches would accept, there is no point in asking people to do as you say.
And the effect of Britain doing it has been remarkable. If I look back to my first days as chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I have to say that I did not expect that we would ever get to the decision in Paris. Nor would I have expected from Boris Johnson, whose leadership was not my favoured one, the remarkable steps forward which we had at Glasgow. The result was that nations throughout the world have signed up to net zero and have begun to ratchet up what they are doing. That is why we have to get back the leadership we lost by doing entirely unacceptable things such as putting off the date by which we were going to have compulsory electric or equivalent cars. That meant that business, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, did not in any way feel the conviction and the certainty that it needs.
Apart from being a Minister for 16 years, I have been a businessman all my life and I know perfectly well that the most important thing in business is to find out the certainties, and the certainties are clear: that climate change will get worse every year and the cost of not doing something about it gets worse every year. The Climate Change Committee has produced a detailed statement about how much it will cost: it will be something around 1% of our gross national product every year. But that is only if we do it—of course, it builds up. If you do not do it, it costs you more and more. The cost of inaction is huge and it is already true.
Because people—who shall be nameless—pressed Mr Cameron, now the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Prime Minister, he rowed back on what was called the “green rubbish”. What did he do? It meant that every family in Britain has had to spend at least £1,000 more because we have not moved fast enough into renewable energy. I do get fed up with people who cherry-pick the facts; the facts are quite simple. The basic cost of gas today is £83 per megawatt hour; onshore and solar have just been agreed at £68 per megawatt hour and offshore at £80 per megawatt hour, so already it is clearly lower, and that is with gas not at its highest price. Do we really want to be in the hands of the volatility of the gas price? Do we want to be in the hands of some of the nastiest regimes in the world, or do we want to have our own energy source at a lower price and at a cost we can afford? The figures are all there. The Climate Change Committee has done it year after year, but I have not noticed my noble friend Lord Lilley present at any of the presentations or discussions. So I merely say to him that he should read the documents again and accept that he is on one side and that science, the Church and the Climate Change Committee are on the other.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for securing today’s debate and for his strong support for economic rationality in this area over the years since he voted against the Climate Change Act in 2008.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my statement of interests in the register: I am a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It is one of the few organisations that tries to keep the debate alive on this issue, so it is very good that we have today’s debate.
Today’s debate is a very good sign; I think the net zero consensus is beginning to crumble. In my view, we are not in a climate emergency. Climate change is a challenge we can meet; it is not one that requires us to upend our entire economy and way of life.
This debate is supposed to be about the economy and I want to focus on that. For too long, many people have claimed that net zero is good for growth and prosperity, and we have heard that today. I am sorry, but I believe this is nonsense and I am going to show why.
One reason why I am confident that our current approach is harmful is that it requires many normally sensible people, and perhaps some who are not quite so sensible, to believe in a whole series of economic fallacies for the policy to work. I shall briefly set out some of them. The first is the broken window fallacy. We are supposed to believe the Skidmore report that net zero will make us richer. Of course, spending trillions of pounds on a new energy system has some economic spin-offs and it does get you an asset, just like repairing a broken window funds the glazier and gets you a window back—but your wealth is just the same. In fact, what we are doing today is creating a reduction in wealth: the new asset is worse than the old one. The replacement of the current grid with rickety and expensive renewables is not an improvement; it is a massive reduction in productive capacity—malinvestment of the worst kind. Just think of all the genuinely productive projects that could be funded with the trillions that we are going to spend over the years and how much real wealth could have been created.
The second fallacy is that it is all going to be all right on the night. This is a belief that one day we will just solve the problems—that we will solve the storage problem with hydrogen, hydro, batteries or whatever. It is the view that interconnectors will always work well, that they will never export when they are supposed to import, and that those to whom we are connected will never think their interests come first. I learned from the vaccines saga and France’s threats to Jersey in 2021 that we cannot rely even on our closest friends when the chips are down. This policy is making us deeply insecure.
The third fallacy is that of self-deception, most obviously on prices and costs. In the real world, renewables are simply not getting cheaper and some are eye-wateringly expensive. The existing CfD-funded offshore wind farms have cost over £150 per megawatt hour in current prices this financial year so far. The new projects awarded in AR6 will cost more than £80 per megawatt hour, when, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, the market price is around £60. And those figures for renewables ignore the subsidy; they ignore the need for back-up and storage. A child can see, surely, that it is not cheaper to build a renewables grid, plus all the back-up, than just to build effective back-up and forget about the renewables.
The fourth fallacy is that jobs are a benefit, not a cost. Net zero proponents paint this glowing picture of hundreds of thousands of new, green jobs. But, if the energy system requires many more people than now, how is that making the country more productive? If you believe that, you must think that we could make ourselves wealthier by sending everyone back into the fields to work the land. We want the fewest and most highly productive jobs possible, like those we already have in the oil and gas industry—jobs which this Government are gradually extinguishing.
The fifth fallacy is that of the infinite availability of resources. In this world, in the net zero world, there is always lots of capital waiting to be used; we always have enough workers; there are no linkages or timing problems for proper sequencing; foreigners are always willing to lend to the UK; and UK consumers are always happy to save instead of consuming. Massive projects, such as insulating every home in the UK or doubling the capacity of the energy grid, can be undertaken apparently without any resource constraints or knock-on effects in the wider economy. To put it charitably, that is not a realistic depiction of the world in which we live.
Finally, there is the industrial policy fallacy. It is the view that the Government know best and that they can pick the technologies, the subsidies and the targets to get us to net zero: the ineffective boilers and heat pumps, the expensive EVs, the windmills—the technology that was last cutting edge in this country under Henry II. I think we can be confident that any project pursued in this way is going to be a drag on the economy; all economic theory tells us so.
I believe in the long-standing Conservative principles—seemingly so uncertainly held in much of my party nowadays—of economic freedom, decentralised decision-taking, incentives for entrepreneurs, and economic experimentation. Yet the net-zero approach that we have chosen is requiring us to junk all that in favour of greater control and restrictions, with Soviet-style production targets—policies that we believe are wrong in any area, except when it comes to net zero. I urge my colleagues on these Benches who support net zero to reflect that, if you are a Conservative and your policy forces you to implement socialism, just maybe it is a bad policy.
The truth is that all this can have only one consequence for the economy, which is to make it less productive and slower growing, as it increasingly is. The only way out is to unwind, invest in productive energy—gas and nuclear, and lots of it—stop picking winners and roll back the subsidies, letting the market decide. I would have more sympathy with net-zero proponents if, as some have been today, they were honest about this. If they said, “This is going to cost you, but we have to do it anyway”, at least it would focus minds and we could have a real debate about whether the ends justify the means and not the fantasy debate that we are currently in, where everything is for the best and everything will turn out right. On net zero, we need a bit more Hayek and a bit less Candide.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for securing this debate, even if perhaps it has turned out somewhat differently from what he expected. It has been a rich and encouraging debate, but I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has been watching the same debate as the rest of us. We have seen not a crumbling but rather a strengthening of the wall of understanding and common sense, particularly among the majority opposition party on this side of the House.
I join others in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, to your Lordships’ House, and to publicly offer thanks for her notably restrained resignation list, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, noted, offering the Green Party the seat that came to bring me into your Lordships’ House. I hope that she might encourage further moves in that direction from her new position in your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, in introducing this, said that he wanted an honest and informed debate. I start by picking up a couple of the terms that he used, including “cheap energy”. Fossil fuel energy, as a number of noble Lords have outlined and as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, identified, has very considerable externalised costs. In fact, burning fossil fuels is costing us the earth. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, highlighted, looking at the risk of the ending of AMOC—the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, often referred to as part of the Gulf Stream—giving Britain the climate of Scandinavia would be a considerable cost and could not be called a result of cheap energy.
I pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, on the drop in territorial emissions in the UK. As the Climate Change Committee has highlighted, we should be counting our consumption emissions. When we look at those figures, those emissions are only 19% lower in 2021 than in 2001. They are the goods and services that we are using, and we are responsible for the emissions associated with them.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I think that the criteria that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has used to judge climate change action are interesting: jobs, growth and prosperity. I shall focus briefly on each of those. On growth, I am going to differ from most of the speakers thus far. We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. We are, whether we like it or not, in a post-growth world, and it is not just me saying that—I point to the fact that the IMF has just been saying in the past week that we cannot have expectations of growth in future like the ones that we have had in the past. The pie of our economy cannot get bigger. What we have to do is to stop forcing some people to rely on crumbs and slice that pie up fairly. Who is benefiting from growth in an economy where, in the UK now, we have 4.3 million children growing up in poverty?
The second point is jobs. Everyone is saying that we need to create jobs. I remind the House that in one debate this week we were looking at the new funded childcare places. We need 36,000 more workers to provide those childcare places. We are short of 50,000 nurses and 100,000 care workers—and look at the immigration shortage list, which has chemical and biological scientists, bricklayers, stonemasons, tilers and retrofitters. These are the activities of the economy that we desperately need. What we need to do is to stop having jobs that trash our climate and environment and ensure that, in a just transition, those skills, and the energy, time and talents of those workers, go towards doing what we actually need to be done. That is a just transition.
Finally, I focus on prosperity. One dictionary definition gives it as
“the condition of being successful or thriving”.
We are a society in poor and declining health, and what the noble Lord identified as “cheap energy” is a significant contributor to that ill health. There is air pollution, for example. We can look at recent mapping from the EXPANSE project at the University of Utrecht. There are only a few areas in the north of Scotland that have pollution levels at or below World Health Organization-recommended levels. Those levels of air pollution are contributing to heart and lung disease, COPD, lung cancer, dementia, lower birthrate babies and asthma. We are not a prosperous society, we are an ill society, and the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to that. Climate action is also action to improve health in our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, questioned the insulating of homes. Having a warm, comfortable and affordable-to-heat home—a healthy home—is surely a foundation of life that our economy should provide to every single person. Let us not forget that the cleanest, greenest and cheapest energy that you can possibly have is the energy that you do not need to use.
I briefly mention childhood obesity, poor diet and our broken food system, based on fossil fuels. Our five year-olds now are shorter than they were a few years ago. The economy is not working for our people and it is not working in its own terms, so we cannot afford not to have a climate agenda—one that needs to be far bolder and more effective than what we have now. We should be looking for zero carbon by the early 2030s, because of the climate emergency, the nature crisis and the planetary boundaries that we are exceeding—but also for health and well-being and the prosperity of our nation. We need to ensure that we have well-paid and secure jobs in every role that actually needs doing. We need a climate agenda and a just transition for a society living within the physical limits of this planet.
There has been, and will be, a lot of talk about technological innovation. Of course we need that, but we also need social innovation—such as a four-day working week as standard, with no loss of pay; universal basic income; and free education. These are the social innovations that we need for climate action and for a prosperous society.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lilley on initiating it. I too welcome my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead to these Benches and warmly congratulate her on her formidable maiden speech. We entered Parliament together in the other place in 1997, and I served under her leadership in the shadow team for environment, food and rural affairs, so I can vouch that she is well versed in the issues before us today.
Personally, I accept that climate change is real and that we are subject to increasing extreme weather events. I would argue, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad did, that we need a global approach to tackling it, and we need to find international solutions of not just one country acting on its own but to act together with the EU, the US and the BRICS countries, which we saw meeting this week—otherwise, progress will be slow, and it could serve potentially only to penalise our own industry and households. I welcome the reality check by the then Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak, who in September 2023 undertook a more pragmatic approach.
I would like to speak in particular to the impact of the climate agenda on rural affairs, and I have to say that it is not altogether a positive one. Let me take some examples from the recent Climate Change Committee progress report to Parliament. First, the ending of production of any cars other than electric vehicles by 2030 will be extremely challenging for rural areas. There is a lack of charging points in rural areas, and there is also a lack of range. Apparently, we have gone from charge anxiety to range anxiety. If a car can go only 200 miles maximum, without any heating, radio, windscreen wipers or air conditioning in the summer, we rural dwellers—in either summer or winter—will be lucky if we can go 100 or 150 miles without having to charge again.
Secondly, on the commitment to renewable energy, such energy is often generated on land in the north of England or Scotland, or offshore and brought in to coastal areas. Yet the energy created is transported across rural and coastal areas—away from the very communities that could do with that electricity more than some others—through ugly, intrusive pylons and fed into the national grid. There is a very strong argument for ensuring that, whether it is offshore or onshore wind, the energy generated serves communities close to where it is generated, which is what generally happens in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. As a result, those rural communities would be more inclined to support this type of rural energy going forward. I fear that if the Government persist with plans to criss-cross the country with even more overhead line transmission pylons, there will be a revolt. The earlier REVOLT—Rural England Versus Overhead Line Transmission—campaign, started by Professor O’Carroll in North Yorkshire, may be dormant but it will be revived if this persists.
Thirdly, the recommendations to ramp up tree planting and peatland restoration both sound like good ideas, but we should be aware that it takes 200 years to create a peat bog. Realistically, while we can bring about modest achievements such as the peat dams we created through the Slow the Flow project to prevent flooding in Pickering and North Yorkshire, it takes 200 years to create a peat bog from scratch. Tree planting in inappropriate areas can in fact be extremely damaging: it can create more floods, rather than prevent them. Also, I firmly believe that trees should not be planted on most fertile, productive farmland.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans set out, farmers have a key role to play in tackling climate change and achieving net zero. They have been the victims, particularly over the past 18 months, of the record rainfall taking large rafts of land out of production. My noble friend Lady May referred to 2023 being the hottest year on record; the last 18 months is the wettest period on record, particularly in England. Farmers would like to become more self-sufficient in energy production but, as I understand it, they are currently prevented from doing so by existing planning rules. The rules should be revisited to ensure that farmers can generate more of the energy they need, as other businesses are doing.
The rural economy provides the food we eat, and farmers are the powerhouse of rural communities. If we have learned anything from the current invasion and hostilities in Ukraine, it is that we need to boost our self-sufficiency in food, not least in fruit and vegetables, which is woeful: we are only 16% self-sufficient in fruit and vegetables. We also need to boost our food security. Food security and energy security are complementary and should go hand in hand.
The climate agenda should work just as well for rural areas as for urban ones. It should not undermine food production, jobs, growth and prosperity in rural communities, as it currently appears to do.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as listed in the register. My remarks today will not be about the expected extent of climate change; however fervently some may wish to introduce that, it is not the topic of this debate.
Let me quickly address the claims made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I read the Climate Scorpion report that he based his remarks on. He may wish to read it more carefully. The “tail” that the report refers to is not, as I took him to say, what is expected to happen in the end; rather, it is the highly unlikely worst case. It is our old friend the precautionary principle rearing its ugly head again; it is time we stopped basing policy on the precautionary principle.
I welcome my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and congratulate her on making her maiden speech in this debate. Net zero was introduced in the waning days of her premiership, and since that Bill was passed—four years and four more Prime Ministers later—there has been no impact assessment of it. How can that be? One might wonder to what degree the impact is seen as unimportant, because net zero is a religion rather than a logical decision. Let us hope that that is not it. Microsoft and Amazon, of course, did their impact assessments, decided that renewables were for the birds and are purchasing nuclear power stations instead. We need a critically evaluated choice in which net zero’s impacts, particularly its cost, receive far closer consideration.
As my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, who is not in his place, has pointed out, in 2019 the Climate Change Committee estimated net zero’s cost at £50 billion a year—more than was claimed earlier in this debate—and quickly raised it to £70 billion. The OBR opined that the overall cost would be £1.4 trillion, which is £56 billion a year from now until 2050. That was five years ago, and we know how under-costed government projects always are. Depending upon your assumptions, different estimates increase from that £1.4 trillion up to £8 trillion or £9 trillion. At those sorts of sums, exactitude is by the by: such amounts will beggar the country regardless.
The Chancellor recently expressed alarm over a £20 billion pound black hole, but here we are talking of speculative expenditure going into the thousands of billions of pounds. You would expect us to have a pretty high level of certainty, therefore, that net zero was going to work. Do we? Not so much. Let us consider just a few of the many different ways in which our net-zero plan could fail. If the speculative net-zero carbon models prove overly pessimistic, the entire cost will have been wasted. If the rest of the world fails to follow us—that, let us face it, is pretty much what is happening—we will beggar ourselves while making the merest pinprick in atmospheric carbon levels. If we overload our grid because we do not overcome the formidable technical challenges of bringing solar and wind power from source to point of need, we will have brownouts, blackouts and a dangerously shrinking economy. If the controversially optimistic forecasts of the decline in the cost of mandated green products and wind power, and even in the number of windless days by 2050, fail to eventuate, the cost of net zero will dramatically and unaffordably escalate.
If, God forbid, we end up in, or near to, a war, and belatedly realise that our lack of heavy industry, of steel, of hydrocarbon feedstocks, imperils this nation, then net zero will be abandoned—although most likely too late for us to win that war. If there is a Europe-wide energy crisis, it will uncover our folly in relying on the trio of, first, renewables, secondly, one large, not-yet-working nuclear station and, thirdly, imported energy that, due to the crisis, suddenly becomes unavailable. Then, calls for a proper energy security policy will quickly lead to us dumping net zero. Any one of these could be enough to do for net zero, yet several are already what the situation is, with others lurking in the background. Probability theory tells us, therefore, that 2050 net zero will, in the end, never come to pass. Like some religiously motivated children’s crusade, it will never arrive at its intended destination, but there will be plenty of misery along the road.
Until such time as it is actually abandoned, net zero’s exorbitant cost and its overweening regulation will frustrate much human happiness, crowd out many useful innovations and, whatever ridiculous claims are made, lead to lower economic growth. Economic growth in our country is entirely possible, whatever is said. It comes from three things: leaner government, lower taxes and less regulation. Net zero is the opposite of each of those three. From the Financial Times to academia, the view is the same about green jobs, but talk of green jobs is nonsense. With net zero, the economy will grow more slowly, jobs will be fewer, innovation will be in so many ways frustrated and our nation will become less wealthy.
To conclude, sooner or later the net-zero programme will come to be seen as having been a tragic cul-de-sac. The longer we take to conclude that, the worse it will be for our economy. We owe it to our country to end this misguided, ultimately catastrophic programme as soon as possible.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Lilley on securing this debate. As he said, it is very useful and important that we have the debate and, because I do not want to be confrontational, I can tell him that the other day I actually agreed with him about Drax power station. We should work together to make sure that that “sustainable renewable” is exposed properly. I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet and, tendentiously in this debate, as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, as my noble friend Lady May indicated.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady May on an excellent and inspirational speech. I have to warn her: she says she was told that this Chamber is different because people here speak only when they know what they are talking about. I am normally the exception to that rule, I have to say. I also have to say that this debate, in its good-natured Chamber way—as we do here, as opposed to at the other end—has been more confrontational than I have come across, I think, since I have been here. However, my noble friend was an excellent colleague. I came to the House of Commons a few months after her and left a few years before she did, but she was also my boss at No. 10 when I was the environment special adviser. As a couple of my noble friends here will not be pleased to hear, I helped to get the net-zero Act through. There were various other things that I think were a great success, including the Environment Act and what we did on plastic reduction. One of the reasons I mention waste plastic is that the important thing was to take the public with us and, by and large, we did, although Covid interrupted that a bit, with masks being thrown down and everything else.
The important thing about this debate is that I do not think I have heard anybody actually deny that there is a problem with the climate changing and the impact that that is having on the world and all the different aspects we have heard about. I think the problem is actually down to how much we want to contribute, or what not taking action will do for ourselves. A lot of these things are actually inconvenient for us, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said. Yes, it is inconvenient. I feel a little ashamed when my noble friend Lord Willetts mentions air travel, because I enjoy travelling around and I feel a bit of guilt about it.
I have seen some things happen as I have been around the world. As many noble Lords will know, I have a great interest in conservation and biodiversity around the world and I have seen the impact of climate change on biodiversity and on our natural world in stark relief. A few years ago, I was in Senegal. Our birds who come here to summer winter and feed in Senegal and the Sahel, and it is almost a desert now, so it is no wonder that they are disappearing and their numbers are going down. These are all things we have to consider.
I am talking about the impact around the world. My noble friend Lord Ahmad made reference to the small islands that are going to disappear and the things that can be done. Do we sit back in this country and say, “It is not going to affect us that much”? It is affecting us—we have seen that in the weather, the rainfall and what it is doing for farmers and everything else—but do we sit back and say, “Well, it is a bit inconvenient, but is it going to make a difference if we do something in this country?” It might not make a huge difference, except, as has been said, in giving an example to others. As we want to be good neighbours in our own homes and set a good example to others, whether it is just down our road, in our town or whatever, I think that is what we have to be doing in the world. We have to show that we can back up what we believe in.
I think we have to go out, and I encourage my noble friends who do not see eye to eye on this to have the debate, because we want to get people to understand what they are letting themselves in for. I can tell my noble friends that my children are intensely worried about what is happening, and I am worried about what world I am leaving my children. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, that is what I think. If I am going to stay on these Benches, which I aim to, it is that sort of Conservatism that I want to be part of.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and to echo what he said. I think it is the first time that young people have been mentioned in the Chamber. We all need to recognise where the public are on these issues, particularly people younger than ourselves—where not my children but my grandchildren are about their future—because much of what we are debating today involves the potential damage and potential prosperity not of our generation but of generations to come. I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet.
I am going to be disciplined and not follow many of the assertions that have been made in this debate with which I disagree; I will try to argue my own case, but I think it is a bit rich to be told that we, who are on the side of the argument that recognises the existential challenge of climate change, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, and the category in which that danger and threat exist, are the ones who are subject to the fallacy that it will be all right on the night. We are the ones who actually recognise that something has to be done.
If you accept the facts of the severity of climate change, they logically take you on to look at what needs to be done and, of course, what it costs. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is absolutely right—we are talking about big numbers. But the numbers are not nearly as big as they would be if we did not do anything. That point was made 15 years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, in his review, it was endorsed by the OBR and there is a publication today from the University of Cambridge talking about exactly those issues. There is a cost to inaction exactly as there is a cost to action.
Much of the debate has focused, from those on the other side—we are a divided House, in some ways, on this—on the idea that those of us who argue for action overestimate issues; we overestimate the dangers of climate change. If you overestimate the dangers of climate change, you do not have to do so much. I would simply refer them to every single scientific climate academy and meteorological organisation in the world to see the seriousness of what we face. I refer in particular to the proximity outlined recently by Professor Tim Lenton of the earth systems tipping points, such as the melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet or the melting of the carbon-rich permafrost. These could cause irreversible change and accelerate some of the most damaging impacts far beyond those we have already seen.
We should recognise that, alongside those apocalyptic tipping points, there are also positive social and economic ones, and we should not underestimate them. To quote Professor Lenton again,
“tipping points in favour of renewable energy and EVs”—
in some countries but not here, because we have not done it properly—
“are already underway that can help eliminate 37% of global emissions”.
His wider work on tipping points suggest that the global economy could move rapidly towards zero emissions by triggering a cascade of tipping points for zero-carbon solutions in sectors covering 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The cost of delay is serious. It is a cost because, rightly, we have to look at this country’s economic interests. It also means the cost of falling behind our rivals and those countries that have recognised what the future is: the States and those countries that have set strategic industrial targets and are seeing the benefits of that investment. For example, last year, clean energy represented 40% of China’s growth. We talk about China as the bad guy on emissions, but it is at the forefront of clean production and we should not go behind that.
The last thing we should not underestimate is the power of Government to unleash new economic opportunities by providing incentives and consistent policy frameworks that allow businesses to innovate and succeed, as my noble friend Lord Browne of Madingley said.
Nor should we underestimate how globally influential we can be in this area. As has been pointed out, we may only contribute to 1% of annual global emissions, but a third of global emissions worldwide come from countries with less than 1% of the total. Half of global emissions come from countries with less than 3% of the total. So our contribution does matter numerically, as does our leadership—our hard-won global standing—across business, science and technology.
I conclude by saying that I have always believed that this country’s contribution to fighting climate change will be measured not only in the quantity of the emissions we reduce but mainly in the quality of the leadership that we provide. I hope this Government will continue that leadership.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lilley for giving us the opportunity of this debate and it was a great privilege to listen to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead. I note that she had the prescience, having started her life at sea level in Eastbourne, where I live, to move up to the hills of Maidenhead, thereby ensuring that, whatever happens with global warming, she will be okay.
One advantage of this place is that we listen to people we disagree with and very often we learn from them. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and I disagreed with much of what he said, although I did agree with him on the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle and, indeed, actuaries have made a huge mess of our pensions system, resulting in a stock market with annual outflows rather than inflows, greatly weakening our economy. I very much hope this Government will do something about that. When I was the Lords spokesman for the Ministry of Agriculture and BSE hit, the first reaction of the precautionary principle people was, “We must kill every cow in the country”. Fortunately, we took wider considerations into account—so one does learn from people one finds oneself in opposition to.
We are dealing with a science-based question. Science at its best is a retailer of truthful, beautiful, digestible stories, based on clear metrics, evidence for what works, a real interest in getting at the gaps in the evidence and constant evaluation. I think we are in much that position when it comes to climate change. There is a huge amount of work going in to trying to understand how our climate works. It is a very public body of work. I personally would like to see more red-teaming. I bristle when I hear about scientific consensus. Science is not about consensus; it is about disagreement and challenge. By and large, we have done a pretty good job on that. Where I think we have failed is on net zero. We have not produced the stories, the understanding—what my noble friend Lord Randall called “taking the public with us”. When even the national grid does not know what is expected of it in five years’ time, we are not being open about what lies in front of us—we are not taking people with us.
If we are going to make the best possible and best co-ordinated decisions, we need to really understand where we think we are going to get our power from and what its characteristics, price and availability will be. We are not dealing with little bits here; we are dealing with a whole system and economy and we need to understand how all the bits will work together. And this is not a story which will remain static. We are a long way away from 2050. How we think we are going to get there will change every year, but we need to be telling that story openly and I really hope that that is something the Government will set their mind to.
To pick on three smaller, more particular issues, one of the characteristics of net zero is that carbon will become really valuable. We will not have access to the fossil sources that we have relied on. If we are to run a chemical industry, produce jet fuel, or whatever it is we do, we need to find carbon where it is concentrated. We really ought to make an audit of where those carbon sources are, because a lot of what we now regard as waste will actually be a really valuable resource in 25 years’ time. We ought to build the systems to make access to that resource possible.
Secondly, nuclear clearly has some very good characteristics when it comes to powering those parts of the economy that need guaranteed, continuous power—a data centre is the obvious example, which is why Google has gone in that direction. I really hope that the Government, as they are with housing, will take a pair of shears to the regulations, which grew up over decades of excessive anxiety about the safety of nuclear, and look at giving us sites, chasing multiple technologies for modular nuclear reactors, and dealing with idiocies such as the prohibition on burning the nuclear waste at Sellafield. Why do we have to keep it when some varieties of modern nuclear reactor will use it as fuel?
Thirdly, let us look generally at where the technological pinch points are. What are we finding difficult that ought to be possible because it is allowed by the basic laws of science, but we cannot quite get there? Battery technology is an obvious example, but there are many others. We should make sure we put money into research, because if we can get an early lead there, it will turn into big industries.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for bringing forward this debate. It is astounding that it has never been had in Parliament until now. I refer the House to my interests in land in Norfolk as set out in the register—land upon which nearly every form of renewable energy other than wind has been developed.
I started installing all these green forms of energy in the late 20th century, nearly three decades ago. I have loved the journey and as a result have a reasonable idea, from a practitioner’s point of view, of what works. The first source of renewable energy we took was evacuated solar tubes for pre-warming water in shower blocks on our holiday park. Interestingly, it was the only one that was not subsidised. We decided to install them on economic grounds. On the Holkham estate, we are on target—at least aiming for, but pretty confident—to be net zero by 2035 and carbon negative by 2040, thanks in large part to a large number of trees, hedgerows, regen ag, and all the things we are trying to do for the right reasons to achieve that.
I remember when the coalition Government came in after the last Labour Government had apologised that they had spent all the money. David Cameron’s coalition demanded every department look for savings. One such thing that happened was that the feed-in tariff for solar power halved. The next day, somewhat miraculously, the cost of solar panels halved too. While I agree that it is necessary to kick-start all novel green energies, my example demonstrates that government is not necessarily the nimblest of bodies to administrate them.
Our new Labour Government have made clear to us their commitment to make the United Kingdom’s electricity supply carbon free by 2030. Despite my overall support for the transition towards a decarbonised future, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the speed of implementation of these policies. To put it bluntly, in less than three months it will be 2025. From that point onwards, the Government will have five years to radically transform the entire energy supply sector of our economy to be completely carbon free by 2030. Once again, I reiterate that I am a supporter of the transition to a greener future. However, I am also a realist. To believe that this transformation can occur in a mere five years, without having a crippling impact on various facets of our economy, is bordering on delusion.
It is a fact that when renewables are used to replace fossil fuels, the price of electricity goes up. Examples of this can be seen across other developed economies. For instance, the German Energiewende policy, designed to phase out fossil fuels and nuclear energy supplies, drove up electricity prices in Germany by 50% between 2006 and 2017. However, Germany’s phenomenal economic revival following the Second World War was based, in the main, on an unlimited supply of cheap energy, particularly on cheap gas from Russia. Recently, Germany has invested more than any other country in wind and solar power, but the current UK Government are convinced that we can do the same in a mere five years without similar kinds of economic effects.
In California, the home of US renewable power supplies, progressive policies such as these have increased prices at a rate which is five times faster than the rest of the United States. I wonder whether the Government have considered such case studies when formulating their decarbonisation targets. Can our economy, which is already under significant strain, afford for such additional pressures within the next five years?
I welcome the Government’s plan to increase wind and solar energy across the UK, but I am very wary of the threats an overreliance on these renewable energies could pose. As many Members of this House understand, wind and solar power are intermittent. This means that the energy they can harness is dependent on the strength of the wind or the level of sunlight on any given day. For now, this is not an issue, as the United Kingdom, along with many other nations, rests on the safety of a baseload of fossil fuel-powered electricity and nuclear. If the Government implement their decarbonisation targets, this baseload of gas energy may cease to exist.
One could rebuff my concerns around wind and solar power’s intermittent nature by claiming that there are ways to store excess electricity created when demand is less on very sunny or windy days. One of these methods is through pumped-storage hydroelectricity, a mechanism that is already in use across four sites in the UK. Despite the efficiency of this energy storage system, it can be installed only in mountainous areas with reservoirs high up them. Thus, it cannot serve as a grand-scale solution to this issue.
Another potential solution is of course batteries. In theory, this would provide a low-carbon solution to fill in for the intermittency issues of those renewable energy sources. However, once again, we have bad news. Researchers from MIT have shown that, for batteries to replace fossil fuels as baseload energy, battery storage costs would need to fall by 90%. I do not see how these changes can be feasible in such a short space of time.
Perhaps the lack of alternatives to fossil fuels as a baseload is why National Grid executives have been warning of potential blackouts in the south-east of England by 2028. Shifting away from this baseload of fossil fuels and gas, while ensuring that there is enough energy to keep the country running, will certainly require massive spending. If the Government’s decarbonisation targets are met by 2030, I am sure that it will come at an unbelievable financial cost. Does our economy have the capacity for such spending? I am no economist, but I do not think it does—at least not without pushing members of the public into deeper economic plight.
Finally, the Government’s policy of decarbonisation through deindustrialisation will have a direct, detrimental impact on our economy. The closure of Ratcliffe-on-Soar just a month ago represented the closure of Britain’s final coal-fired power station. Similarly, plans were announced to shut down the Port Talbot coke-fuelled furnace, making 2,500 out of 4,000 workers unemployed at that steel-making plant. Actions such as these will no doubt be commonplace in the coming years if the Government continue to impose their policy to achieve net zero by 2030. Let us be clear: these actions will not move the dial on global carbon reduction.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lilley for securing this debate. The main impact of the Government’s climate agenda is to import pollution and to export jobs, growth and prosperity, and the two are directly linked.
Turning first to importing pollution, since 1990 our share of CO2 emissions embedded in imports has risen from just over 10% to nearly 50%. The very fact that we import half our emissions should give us pause for thought, but, unfortunately, we are moving in the opposite direction. The decision to cease all new oil and gas licences can only mean that, in future, we will need to import even more oil and gas to make up for our own self-induced shortfalls.
Whether we like it or not, fossil fuels are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Even the Government’s own assessment suggests that, by 2040, the demand for natural gas will decrease by only 4%. This simply means that any domestic reduction in emissions will be made possible only by offshoring the production, and of course the jobs, to other countries. Furthermore, the imported fuels will need to be liquefied—itself a polluting process, alongside the emissions caused by shipping them here—and then there is further pollution from processing them after they have landed here.
While Ministers may be able to stand up at international conferences and proudly proclaim that our domestic emissions have reduced, these same policies have in fact only contributed to increasing global emissions. One might say that, as we produce only 1% of the world’s emissions, it does not really matter and that the gesture is more important than the reality. However, it is a mighty counterproductive gesture with a direct, negative impact on our standard of living and quality of life.
Turning to jobs, growth and prosperity, as has been well publicised, the UK now has the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world, which is directly caused by artificially penalising industrial and domestic consumers with subsidies for renewable energy, carbon pricing and the extra infrastructure costs as a direct result of the policy. The OBR suggests that subsidies for renewables will add £12 billion to our bills for this year alone—and it will only get worse as we factor in future renewable subsidies and the £100 billion grid upgrade needed for decarbonisation.
To give an indication of the wishful thinking by net-zero advocates, in 2014 the current Secretary of State for Energy promised 1 million new green jobs. The outcome is somewhat less impressive. Since then, official government data shows an increase in employment in the low-carbon sector of just 40,000. Against this must be offset the manufacturing jobs we have already lost in other sectors. Moreover, there will surely be many more to come, not least in the steel and oil and gas sectors. We now have the worst of all worlds: high taxes to pay for job losses.
The other great beneficiary of all this wishful thinking is China. It is now the world leader in two seemingly contradictory energy policies: green energy, by securing the global supply and demand lines for lithium-ion batteries, solar panels and wind farm components; and brown energy, by building the equivalent of two coal-powered power stations a week. However, the Chinese famously take much a longer-term view of events than we do. They would agree that, due to recent advances in paleoclimate science, we know that over the last 400 million years the earth’s climate has been changing constantly and often dramatically. Relatively speaking, we are now in one of its cooler periods—the late Cenozoic ice age—meaning that we are at the tail-end of a 50-million-year cooling period.
On our own continent, even very recently we can see climate change in action. In Roman times, it was far warmer than it is now, followed by a brutal cold period in the Dark Ages. Then came the medieval warm period, when vines were growing even in Scotland. That was followed most recently by an especially cold period called the “little ice age”, the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. The statement we heard today that 2023 was the hottest year on record is quite simply not true—far from it.
This long-term view of the earth’s climate changes puts the whole net-zero delusion into a much greater perspective. It suggests that we are taxing and bankrupting ourselves domestically for absolutely minimal global benefit, if any. This whole worldview of climate change should be the subject of another debate, and a very fruitful one it would be too.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap and apologise to your Lordships for having failed to get my name down in time. I start by declaring my interests and say that I shall endeavour to be crisp.
I believe that there is a real challenge from climate change and that, where one is facing a challenge, you have to do something about it. For the last six years or so I chaired a local enterprise partnership at the other end of England, which was established to address problems, to do and to catalyse things being done. We were a small organisation; we had a small budget and pretty small capacity. At about the time I took over as chair, there was a resurgence in general political awareness and interest in all the issues related to climate change. Needless to say, I and the rest of my board were bombarded by advice, ranging from eminent scientists through to cranks, mountebanks and chancers—sometimes it was not clear which was which.
What should we do? We were an organisation to do things, not to talk about things: the opposite of your Lordships’ Chamber today, where we have had a lot of talk—not that that is a bad thing, because you have to think before you act. But what should we do? I advised the board and it agreed that, within the general parameters of the relevant regulations, we should focus on what we thought would be most effective and bring the biggest bang for the buck we could. We focused on business decarbonisation and clean energy generation. I said, “Don’t worry too much about what they think in Whitehall; we’ll just get on and do it”. I believe that was the right approach, because you have to have policies that work and are sensible not merely in theory but in practice. Just as an aside, I suggest that another look at the EPC regulations against such a background would be a good plan.
It is important that we all recognise that action is necessary, and it must be considered action. As I thought about it, it struck me that perhaps the most effective response of all to climate change was one of the earliest ones. When Noah was told that the world was going to be flooded, he did not sit and wait; he cut down gopher trees and built an ark, and thereby saved the world.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger.
I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, on her excellent and moving maiden speech. I was chief of staff to the Deputy Prime Minister when the noble Baroness was the Home Secretary. It is fair to say that the DPM office and the Home Office did not always agree on things, and in fact the noble Baroness was a cause of some suspicion of me among my fellow advisers. One time we were all having a drink when somebody posed the question, “Who’s your favourite Conservative Cabinet Minister?”, and to the consternation of many I said it was the noble Baroness. This was quite shocking to them; I think the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, was generally the more favoured Conservative Cabinet Minister. I said it because, despite the policy differences we often had with the Home Office, I was always a great admirer. It was not just because, like the noble Baroness, I am a child of a vicarage but because politics never appeared to her to be a game, as it did to some people. It always seemed that she was serious about government and its role in serving the public; she never shied away from difficult problems and was always willing to confront and adapt to inconvenient truths. I know I was not alone; my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who was a junior Minister in the Home Office, was also a huge admirer. It is great to have the noble Baroness in this House. On this occasion we will agree; we may disagree in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, whom I congratulate on getting this debate, opened by saying how important it was to have an open and honest debate around the figures, and I entirely agree. One needs to be honest about the costs of net zero. But as the noble Baronesses, Lady May and Lady Hayman, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and many other noble Lords said, we have to be honest about the costs of inaction as well. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, spoke about cheap energy, but he did not say anything about the actual costs of that carbon energy—the external costs, which the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Madingley and Lord Willetts, referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talked, from his actuarial background, about the scale of risk and how we are probably underestimating, rather than overestimating, it.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, complained recently about carbon pricing as if carbon emissions do not have a cost. They have a severe cost. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the noble Baroness, Lady May, referred to small island states. The cost to them is utterly existential.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, also talked about what happens when agriculture fails as a result of climate change. She spoke movingly about how wide ranging the impacts can be, including on modern slavery. In my work around malnutrition and hunger, we see how climate is driving hunger, malnutrition and conflict. The costs are huge, not only to the people who are directly impacted; the costs will also come home to us in terms of migration, et cetera.
Earlier this week, or perhaps at the end of last week, Concern Worldwide (UK) published a report on the climate impacts on nutrition. It is not just that crops are failing; climate heating is having an impact on their nutritional value as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, spoke about the series of misery that we were going to impose by acting on net zero. Let me tell him this. Some 38 years ago I worked in a rural school in Zimbabwe. I am still in touch with many of the pupils I taught then, who are now somewhat older. They report the impacts of climate change as increased extreme weather events and drying rivers; they are unable to fill their fish ponds anymore. This is causing misery for people now—misery that is replicated all across the world.
It is coming home to roost here as well, because rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns are altering vector breeding habits and pathogen development. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases recently organised a visit to Ethiopia, which I was lucky to attend. We visited the Gelan health centre on the outskirts of Addis Ababa with the Global Fund. As many noble Lords will know, Addis Ababa is high up and is traditionally a non-malarial area. Well, at that health clinic on the outskirts of Addis, they were seeing the first evidence of transmission of malaria in that area as warming happens.
These mosquito-borne diseases are spreading with climate. Dengue has seen a thirtyfold increase in the past 50 years. There are more than 5 million cases globally and transmission has started across Europe, with local transmission now in Spain, France and Italy. I recently visited south-west France. When I returned, I went to give blood. They asked me, “Have you been abroad?”, and I said, “Only to France”. They asked where. I told them, “Somewhere near Cognac”, and they got out their maps. They said, “I’m sorry, you can’t give blood until after the quarantine period. That is now a tropical virus area”. It is expected that dengue will be transmitted locally in London by 2060. Think about the costs of those sorts of things to our economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said that India, China and Africa do not give a damn what we do regarding climate. That is absolutely untrue. I was recently in South Africa, talking to the Portfolio Committee on Electricity and Energy. We had been saying that we were going to issue licences for more oil and gas and then announced that we were opening another coal mine. The committee said, “Why on earth should we do any of the things that you say we should on net zero when you’re doing this?” Example is contagious—nothing is more contagious. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in her excellent speech, the quality of the leadership we show is critical as well.
There are also huge economic opportunities from leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, spoke about our sustainable green finance capability in the UK. We have a real opportunity to develop that. There are opportunities with energy efficiency in our homes—the savings that we could make for people on their household bills and the jobs that could be created. Look at what happened to household energy between 2010 and 2020. Household energy costs fell. Why? Because consumption fell. Why? Because the green levies were funding insulation and reductions in consumption. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, if we had continued with that, we would have made massive savings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that it was quite rich for those on this side of the argument to be accused of saying that it will be all right on the night. I fully agree with her. The noble Lords, Lord Lilley, Lord Frost and Lord Moynihan, and others, like to pose as the hard-headed realists in the face of starry-eyed idealists like me and others, I suppose. However, they are the fantasists. Because they do not like some of the things that we will need to do, some of which will be difficult, they pretend that this does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, says that he does not believe in the climate emergency. Well, I am afraid science does. We need to act—and act now—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, the longer we wait, the more it will cost.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for tabling this debate. I also welcome my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead to her place in this House and congratulate her on a first-class and compelling maiden speech.
Speaking on behalf of the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition and having read the document, I begin by applauding the Government on their ambition in this area—the ambition to
“make Britain a clean energy superpower”.
This is something I think all sides of the House can agree on. I note that the energy mission is very specific and stated as being to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero. This has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Leicester. The practicality of this is an area that I should like to explore this afternoon.
To remind ourselves what we mean by net zero at 2050, we can say that today we power our economy by roughly 75% hydrocarbon and 25% renewable, and that our target by 2050 is to spin that on its head and make it 75% renewable and 25% hydrocarbon. We can all agree that it is a good target. What we are talking about today is how we get there and at what cost.
The first thing to say about net zero is that it does not mean zero hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbon is a very important part of our energy supply. We still have high-intensity industries in this country that we need to power. We have days when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. We have a baseload that we need to take care of. However, we have an opportunity to make our hydrocarbon the greenest in the world. The science and technology being deployed in the North Sea is extraordinary. There will be no flaring, there will be carbon capture and there will be the use of green hydrogen. The technology will allow us to have the greenest hydrocarbon fuels in the world, thereby not relying on bringing in dirty fuel from elsewhere.
We will surely end up with a balanced scorecard. Is that not the point of this? We will have 75% non-hydrocarbon, whether—pick a number—50% or 60% renewable and 15% or 25% nuclear. If we do this correctly, we will have a balanced scorecard, which will be to everybody’s benefit.
The philosophical question is: who are we to determine the mix? Should it be left to bottom-up forces to determine where the best solutions lie, as technologies emerge, or should it instead be imposed by top-down ideologies? My worry about the Government’s 2030 target is that it is artificially unrealistic and driven by ideology and politics rather than practical. If that is the case, what are the costs? Will this cost the British consumer on the journey that we feel sure we will achieve by 2050?
Why do I say that the Government’s ambitions are perhaps unrealistic? To take the calculation of leading analyst Cornwall Insight, if the renewables are principally solar, onshore and offshore wind, they will provide 44% of UK electricity by 2030. That is the date that the Government have in mind, but 67% is required to fully decarbonise the electricity system. These are two quite different numbers, and Cornwall Insight calculates that it would cost a whopping extra £48 billion, on top of the £18 billion already committed, to achieve that target by 2030. The British taxpayers will ultimately bear that cost, through a combination of higher consumer bills and higher taxes.
The first question I pose to the Minister is whether the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Treasury completed an impact assessment of this timetable and the 2030 target, including a sensitivity analysis that clearly takes account of energy pricing and capital cost volatility.
On energy transition, there was consensus in the House that we will go from 75% to 25% or the other way round. The worry is that we do not want to do this at the point of endangering jobs and prosperity. Take, for example, the impact on the North Sea oil and gas sector. This sector employs 220,000 people in the UK. These are highly technical and well-paid jobs, 93,000 of which are in Scotland. The windfall tax imposed by the previous Government, however reluctantly, at least had the merit of being temporary until 2025. It could be justified as preventing short-term profiteering after the Ukraine war. The current Government’s plan to increase that to 78% and extend it to 2029 will create a massive disincentive to investors in this sector, which remains important to our economy. This will be a barrier to growth. As one American investor said to me recently, “We now consider west Africa a more stable and appealing investment environment than the UK”.
Labour’s proposed ban on awarding any new North Sea oil and gas licences has already spooked producers. For example, the three owners of the Buchan field, 120 miles off the shore of Aberdeen, have already delayed by a year their planned start to oil production, until they have clarity on the Government’s intentions. Be aware that these gas licences are already in the pipeline. Approval was given many years ago and they are already baked into our net-zero plan for 2050. They are already baked into the green hydrocarbon fields, which will still allow us to have a quarter of our energy from that important source. Delays in this regard are not to the benefit of anyone, consumers or otherwise.
Just look at how the North Sea transition should work practically, rather than ideologically. The fact is that the biggest investors in renewables in the North Sea are the hydrocarbon companies, as they are reinvesting their profits in renewables. They hold the two key components for an orderly transition to net zero from oil, gas and renewables—capital and people.
I will give the House an example on capital. I had the privilege of sitting on the North Sea Transition Forum while I was a Scotland Office Minister. One of the investors in the North Sea said their target for capex in 2025 was going to be 50% in hydrocarbon, 50% in renewables to get a blended return on capital of 12.5%. Being a private equity guy, I asked, “What is your return on capital on renewables?”. After a short silence and a slight look at the floor, it emerged that return on capital is quite low, about 5%. If you do the maths at 50:50, you work out that the return on capital on hydrocarbon is 20% to get your blended 12.5%. That is market economics because wind and water are, on the face of it, relatively cheap to capture, and therefore they are not expensive things to generate and one has a lower return on capital, whereas hydrocarbon is more difficult, especially in the deeper fields in the North Sea, requires a lot more expense and therefore has a higher cost of capital. The point is that one is funding the other, and you cannot disconnect the two.
On the second thing around people, I had the privilege in that period of going to the offshore wind farm at Kincardine, off Aberdeenshire, which is the biggest in the UK. Fun fact: if you are doing media, take them on the boat to Kincardine wind farm. The journalist was so ill on the journey that he could not ask me any questions. What is notable about the sheer scale and size of these floating turbines is the technology and engineering required to power and maintain them. The skills that have been developed in the deep sea offshore oil industry are now being deployed to create our offshore wind farms overseas. That expertise is sought around the world. I did a couple of trade missions to Chile and Mozambique, two countries with large coastlines. UK expertise is required to help the world understand how to do offshore wind farms.
Hydrocarbon companies have the key components of capital and people. If we accelerate the transition just for ideological purposes—just to say at conferences that we have brought our target forward by five years—and along the way we reduce capital in the system and make skilled people redundant, I am afraid we will not get the transition we all want. There will be no transition at all; it certainly will not be a just transition. It will result in needless job losses and project cost inflation to the great detriment of British consumers and taxpayers. Offshore Energies UK thinks that trajectory of shutting down the North Sea too early will result in 42,000 job losses, 25% of this critical and well-paid sector. So my second question for the Minister is: have DESNZ and the Treasury done any impact assessment on the jobs and prosperity to come from this ideological early acceleration of the North Sea transition?
The issue—ideology versus being practical—is also driven by top-down targets imposed by Governments. Is that the right thing that we should be doing? If we look at a couple of examples, such as what is happening with electric vehicles at the moment, we have actually managed to reduce—oh, I am way over my time. I will leave that there.
In conclusion, my worry is that we need to be more practical in how we deliver the transition, and we also need to allow technologies to emerge. They will provide the answer to the question we are facing. We do not wish to become like a telecoms company in the 1990s installing infrastructure for phone boxes, landlines and fax machines. We need to be savvy and technologically aware.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for instituting a very interesting debate and to all noble Lords who have spoken in it. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Offord, to what I think is his first speaking outing in his new position. I thank him for his service as a Minister and readily acknowledge that on the Horizon sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses issue he was very fair in the information and responses he gave to the House.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady May, on what I can describe only as a truly excellent maiden speech, which included her insights into the threats that climate change can bring and the risk to vulnerable people. I commend her record in relation to modern slavery, which has been very much recognised in our debates on these issues over the last few years. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Young, in saying that her sensitivity to the House of Lords when it came to the question of the balance of membership and appointments was highly regarded around the House.
We have had a really interesting debate. We have heard again from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who extended the argument that he started in our King’s Speech debate. Essentially, as he said then, he accepts that the science of global warming is rock solid but he is sceptical that tackling climate change and accelerating the move to net zero will lower energy bills and generate economic growth. I get his argument, but I think he would recognise that he had a mixed response even from his own Benches. I certainly warmed to the noble Lords, Lord Randall, Lord Willetts and Lord Ahmad. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, a former chair of the Climate Change Committee, put the case for urgent action.
It is noticeable that the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Frost and Lord Strathcarron, and to a certain extent the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, came in firmly behind the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, while praising our ambitions, posed challenges over the 2030 target. I sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, suggested, that some of the political consensus on net zero may be breaking down. That would be a great pity. It would be a pity if the Conservative Party under its new leadership retreated on net zero. To pick up the point about the need to take the public with us and to paint them a picture of where we are trying to get to on net zero, a lack of political consensus would make it much harder to get that over to the public, whose support we need for what are often going to be very challenging policies. There is no point running away from that. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right: the last Prime Minister relaxing the electric vehicles target had a really damaging impact on the sector and public confidence. My worry is that the Conservative Party as a whole seems to be retreating from its ambitions. With due acknowledgement to St Augustine, the Conservatives seem to be saying, “Oh Lord, deliver us from climate change, but not just yet”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—whose leadership of Peers for the Planet I readily acknowledge and applaud—put it, the 2030 target is not a notional political game. The fact is that we cannot afford to slow down; we have to speed up. Despite the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on climate change we know that human activity has already resulted in warming of around 1.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. We are seeing the impact already. This is no longer a theoretical construct for the future; it is happening now, here and globally. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, in some developing countries the impact is having a huge consequence on individual vulnerable people already.
The paper circulated before this debate by Peers for the Planet and Exeter University quotes a number of people including Professor Penny Endersby, chief exec of the Met Office, who should know a thing or two about this. She says that if we do not limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we will see
“many more weather and climate extremes”,
resulting in
“loss of food, water and energy security, leading to increased global conflict”.
The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is that the spread of disease cannot be confined to those vulnerable developing countries. In the end, we will suffer the impact as well.
The comment by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about the threat to small islands was very well taken. I also noted his comment about climate finance and the need to support developing countries. I can confirm to him that we are resolutely committed to upholding previously agreed international commitments, such as the global forest finance pledge. He will of course understand that we are approaching crucial discussions at Baku in the next COP meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was a mite critical of the Committee on Climate Change. I thought that his noble friend answered that pretty robustly as well, but the Government respect the work of the committee. We rely on its independence to provide us with robust advice, which I believe it has done. The robustness of its research and evidence has been first rate. The committee was critical of the previous Government because of the inconsistent messages they gave on net zero, with the cancellations, delays and exemptions to certain practices undermining confidence. The committee has said to us that we are currently off track to hit the 2030 target of a 68% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 levels and that we have to move “fast”. It said:
“Action is needed across all sectors of the economy, with low-carbon technologies … the norm”.
I suppose that is one of my responses to the noble Lord, Lord Offord. That is why we have to move so quickly.
So what we have done? The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked how effective the Government’s approach is and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, discussed the power of government. In a sense, the philosophical question that the noble Lord posed was about whether this should be bottom up or led by the Government. I think that, on climate change, the challenge is so tough that government really have to take a lead.
This is what we have done in the last few weeks. We have got rid of the ban on onshore wind; consented a number of large solar farms; launched GB Energy to leverage in private sector investment; and reached a partnership deal between GB Energy and the Crown Estate to encourage yet more offshore wind development. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we have also signalled our support for nuclear power as the essential baseload of our electricity generation. We had a very successful auction round, which delivered a record number of new clean energy projects. We have announced funding for carbon capture utilisation and storage projects, which are very important for the industrial processes of the future. We have set up an office for clean energy jobs, because of the whole discussion about the skills agenda, and published an industrial strategy to support key growth-driven sectors, including clean energy.
Unlike some members of the party opposite, we actually believe in an industrial strategy. It is not a question so much of government picking winners as of trying to support, as much as we can, from the centre, those sectors that clearly have great potential to grow and to export. The central argument is that investing in clean energy at speed and scale can help tackle the climate crisis. We can create good-quality jobs, drive investment, protect bill payers in the long term and, crucially, ensure energy security.
On the question of why the UK should be taking the lead, my answer is: why on earth not? The noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, were so right. We have a strong vested interest in the world achieving net zero as soon as possible and we can have a pivotal role in persuading other countries to follow our example.
The question of costs and economic growth was focused on by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Lilley, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, referred to Dieter Helm’s review for the previous Government. I have now had a look at least at the summary of the report, in light of his King’s Speech remarks. What is noticeable is that the previous Government ducked it when they had the results of the review. They then conducted what they called a “listening exercise”, and we all know why Governments do listening exercises—because they have received a report they did not like. As far as I know, the previous Government are still listening, because it was never brought to a conclusion. I suspect that means that this is not a simple area of cost comparisons.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is critical of the use of levelised costs to get a fair comparison—he said that, too, in the King’s Speech debate—but it does attempt to compare the costs of different generating technologies over different timescales: essentially, over the lifetime of the generator.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, asked: can we afford the transition to net zero? An assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility in 2021 concluded, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, surmised, that the
“costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero”.
My noble friend Lord Davies was critical of an Answer I gave to a Written Question yesterday on AMOC. He is concerned that the risk assessment of the actuarial profession is not fully recognised. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also referred to this. I say to him that that Answer came after very considered advice, but of course I will take away his comments. I take his point about actuaries: who could doubt the importance of actuaries in forecasting the future? But even they do not always get it right.
There is the question of course of whether in our drive to net zero we are impacting our own industries and importing more from abroad. Of course, I do take that and I accept that we will never be a leading manufacturer in all renewable technologies. However, we can assemble, and we are now assembling, many of those imports, so a lot of the value comes to British companies and workers. We also have many opportunities to export our skills as well. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to our world-leading R&D capability, which is capable of export in many ways too.
There are areas of technology where we have a great opportunity to export. I cannot go into the details of, for instance, the assessment by Great British Nuclear of the small modular reactor technologies at the moment, but British companies are involved in development. It is just worth noting that Rolls-Royce has a contract with Czechia to produce a fleet of nuclear reactors in that country. There are many other opportunities as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, spoke about the issue of green jobs. We reckon that around 640,000 people are employed in green jobs in the UK. That is a rise of 20% even from 2020 to 2022, which I would have thought those in the party opposite would wish to acknowledge; it happened under their stewardship. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, suggested that we wanted the fewest, highly productive jobs, and I agree with him. But these jobs are often very high-quality jobs in a growing sector and are very well paid. We surely need to embrace that. One of the issues we face is that, in many of those sectors, there may now be a shortage of people coming forward. We need to work very hard to make sure we have enough people who can contribute in those sectors.
I have responsibility for the nuclear industry in my department. We have a target; we need 40,000 more people in that sector by 2030. The national nuclear skills council projects that, by the 2040s, we will need well over 100,000 people. That is a huge opportunity for really high-quality skilled jobs. They can be at apprentice level, graduate level or, indeed, PhD level. It is an industry which, like many other low-carbon industries, really has a future.
The noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Strathcarron, were critical of our approach to oil and gas, specifically oil and gas production in the North Sea. North Sea oil and gas production will be with us for many years to come and we will need oil and gas for many years, but as the noble Lord, Lord Offord, knows, the UK continental shelf is described as a super-mature basin. Since 2000, its production has gone down by about 7% to 8% per year on average. The key challenge for us is to maintain that field, because of its strategic importance, but to allow it to transition as we change the energy structure. I totally agree with the noble Lord about the people working there and their skills. He is right that many of them have transferred to the offshore wind sector. I believe they can transition to other skilled jobs as well.
I was asked a number of questions about the externality of carbon emissions. The UK prices emissions in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, but I will write to noble Lords with some of the details of that.
Are we confident about private sector investment? Yes—all the indicators we have show that many private sector companies want to invest in this new agenda.
Many other points were raised. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that I asked my officials for quick advice on using the ark, but answer came there none. I have already referred to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on nuclear. On his point about data centres and advanced nuclear reactors, we have recently seen some exciting developments in the US. It would be good to see similar developments here, and we clearly need a much more flexible siting policy to allow that to happen. We are working on that. I have met a number of companies that are very interested in investing in AMRs, linked to either data centres or industrial centres. They have told me that they do not need any government money, but we will see.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made some telling interventions on rural issues. I take their point about farmers, food security and the need to embrace them in this agenda. We worked with the NFU on that when I was a Defra Minister many years ago, and we clearly need to carry on doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in particular, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised electric vehicles. We had a debate on this last week, and the points raised there are being taken forward by the Department for Transport. If the noble Lord and the noble Baroness read Hansard, they will see that their points on issues in rural areas and on the differential in charging were very much picked up.
I of course understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the grid. No one really likes grid pylons but we have to do something about the grid network—we have to invest in it. I take her point about local incentives. I recently went to Biggleswade solar farm in Bedfordshire, where the company makes a contribution to local community projects each year—churches and things like that—which goes down well. We are looking at that issue.
This has been an excellent debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for his willingness to raise sometimes challenging issues. We believe we are delivering on our manifesto commitment. We need decisive action on both climate change and energy security. We will have a big positive impact on jobs and prosperity. We must press on and we will.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has made fantastic contributions to this excellent debate. I pay particular tribute to the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whom we have just heard. His response to everybody and everything that was said was one of the most fair-minded and constructive that I have heard, not least in fairly representing what I was trying to say—though I am not accusing him of agreeing with me.
I want also to congratulate my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead on an outstanding maiden speech. It was noteless; it was witty; it was compassionate. We are aware, obviously, of her other great legacy on modern slavery. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, reminded us of her concern for the just about managing in our own country, and she emphasised her concern for the poorest, who are the greatest victims of climate disasters—when you are hit by a flood, it does not matter to you whether they are more frequent than floods in the past; they are still a disaster. But the reason the poor are vulnerable is that they are poor, and the reason that they are poor is that they do not have the access to cheap energy that makes us rich. If we deprive them of access to cheap and affordable energy they will remain poorer for longer. Even if we in this country think that we can afford excessively high energy costs, we should not try to impose them on the poor and slow down their growth.
I next thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who offered my greatest support for what I had to say, since, because he could not refute a word that I had said, he chose to criticise things that I had not said. He criticised me for saying, allegedly, that we should not make any contribution on this front. What I actually said was:
“I accept that we must be prepared to make our proportionate contribution”.
He went on to say that I had said something in Cabinet under Mrs Thatcher, which is simply untrue. I remind him of the exchange we once had in John Major’s Cabinet, which was not about this but about statistics, when he was wrong.
The noble Lord did not respond to the points about why he needed to take costly legal action to prevent publication of the analysis that his committee had done on the cost of climate change avoidance in 2050. My general view is that when people do not want to publish facts it is because they think the facts are rather weak. I assume that is why he did not refer to them.
On the general issue of costs, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, almost nobody who was enthusiastic for doing more and spending more and who generally goes around saying that we can do that in a costless fashion commented on the costs I gave. None of them referred to the fact that we have the highest costs of electricity for our industry of any country. One can only assume again that they are embarrassed by the facts. Likewise, when it came to new industries, apart from small nuclear, which I mentioned and have advocated for a long time, nobody gave detail of how these industries are going to generate new prosperity when we have doubled the amount of onshore wind, trebled the amount of offshore wind and quadrupled the amount of solar or whatever it is, when that has not happened so far.
There were a couple of important arguments that it is important for me to address because they go to the heart of the issue. One was on the issue of external costs, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Browne. Theirs was the logical response to what I am putting forward, which is to say: “Yes, you’ve got to balance the costs of doing something against the damage that would be done if you don’t, and the logical way to do that is a carbon tax”. If we take the American Government’s estimates, for example, which say that the carbon tax should be $51 per tonne, which is about the equivalent to $10 per megawatt hour, it does not make any difference to the fact that renewables would still be uneconomic in this country.
Then came the most difficult issue, which people who take my position have to face up to, and that is the threat of existential crisis. If continuing to do nothing—I am not proposing that we do nothing—were likely to result in the extinction of the human race, or even its immiseration, almost no costs would be too great to avoid it. I accept that.
I put down a Question some while ago to the Government asking whether they knew of any peer-reviewed science, or science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—whose job it is to consider the science—which forecasts that, if we do nothing over the coming centuries, it will lead to the extinction of the human race or even its immiseration. They said that no, there was no such peer-reviewed science, so those who invoke it are invoking something that is not peer-reviewed science, although that does not mean to say that it is wrong. Some things can turn out to be right that have not yet got through the peer review process. But let us not pretend that we are dealing with a threat that scientists have declared to be existential—they have not.
We are left with the central core of the debate: should we have an honest discussion about the costs and benefits of pursuing the path of net zero? I am glad to say that the Church was on my side on that front—that we want an honest debate. We can do that only if the Government and bodies such as the CCC, the National Grid and the Royal Society have the honesty and integrity to admit that about their information. The Royal Society—or the author I cited—has admitted that his figures were underestimates. We can have that debate only if we have that information from those sources in an unbiased way rather than in a campaigning way. I am grateful to everybody for contributing to the beginning of that debate for the first time in Parliament.
Hospices: Funding
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review how the state funds hospices.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords contributing to this important and timely debate. Hospice care, which of course includes hospice-at-home care, began 60 years ago and is one of the UK’s greatest achievements. The first voluntary hospice in 1967 paved the way for the modern hospice movement, which spread across the UK and around the world. This movement has profoundly, and I hope permanently, changed how people are treated when they have an incurable condition.
Dame Cicely Saunders’s hands-on medical experience taught her the need for a dedicated place where end-of-life care could be provided. She pioneered and oversaw St Christopher’s Hospice in London where, I believe, my noble friend Lord McColl, the eminent surgeon and professor, who is in his seat today, also practised.
Voluntary sector beginnings are still very much in evidence, with many good partnerships between charities and the NHS alleviating much pressure on the latter and giving freedom to the former. A review of funding would find a highly variable model for hospices; some are run by the NHS, with large annual charitable grants from local friends of the hospice, and others are run by a charity that gets some funding from the NHS. A common hallmark is a holistic, bespoke and patient-centred approach that values their relationships.
Dame Cicely said:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life. We will do all that we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die”.
We should not forget that all receiving hospice care are on the edge of eternity, and dying peacefully also requires spiritual palliative care.
Why do people matter until the last moment of their lives, and why should we spend scarce resources to help them live until they die? It comes down to human dignity, a word that occurs five times in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and refers to the special value of human beings. However, the way it is used needs to be teased apart as it can be deployed to argue both for and against hastening death. Logically, hastening death cannot mean the same thing as helping a sufferer live until they die. The American medical ethicist Daniel Sulmasy identified three different basic meanings of dignity. For time and simplicity, I will focus on the two that can end up being used antithetically to each other in debates over whether end-of-life care should focus on hospice care or assisted dying. Many will say, “But it’s not either/or” and I will come to that. Sulmasy describes intrinsic dignity as the worth or value that a person has by virtue of being human. It is the basis of human rights, equal across all people and, as he says,
“does not admit of degrees”.
Attributed dignity, on the other hand, is a value that we confer on others or ourselves and very much admits of degrees. People can have varying amounts of it, as it depends on the esteem in which they are held in their or other people’s eyes. Importantly, attributed dignity would not have any ethical basis or exist at all without its root in intrinsic dignity.
When those who support assisted dying argue that dependence, loss of control and their self-perception of being a burden diminish that sufferer’s dignity, they are referring to attributed dignity. Opponents of assisted dying do not downplay that threatened loss of attributed dignity but give primacy to a sufferer’s intrinsic dignity. They uphold the moral obligation to bolster their humanity to the utmost, regardless of double incontinence, uncontrolled dribbling and the like. They reduce as much as possible the suffering, but not the sufferer.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia turn a somebody into a nobody. Those who morally justify eliminating a human on the grounds of concern about their attributed dignity undermine the foundation of human rights—namely, respect for the intrinsic dignity and worth of human beings. This is the basis for palliative care and why hospices were set up in the first place. The philosophy of palliative and hospice care over 60 years rests on a sound and logical understanding of the relationship between attributed and intrinsic dignity. It is precisely because the dying’s sense of self-worth and significance can be so ruthlessly challenged when the end of life draws near that their intrinsic dignity needs to be just as, if not even more, ruthlessly reinforced.
Hospice and palliative care professionals’ central concern is to improve, sustain or slow down the loss of quality in a dying person’s life, and that quality is multi-dimensional. When they sense that they are experiencing unconditional love, perhaps for the first time in their lives, that quality might be priceless despite severe pain. In 2023, however, Quebec passed provincial law mandating that medical assistance in dying be available in all hospices. Not only is this one of many measures that bulldozed medics’ conscientious objections, but it is a warning that, down the line, hospices could lose any state funding that they receive if they are not willing to evolve into a completely different service.
Given the financial pressures on the hospice movement, and of course the wider NHS—I am sure that many speakers will articulate that very clearly—we really could be looking at a brave new world where choice for ordinary people to end their own lives today becomes necessity for them tomorrow. Poorer people and those from ethnic minorities already have far less access to hospices than wealthy celebrities and other elites. Yet, if these elites change the law, they will still have choices but might inadvertently narrow them down even further for the less well-off, if hospices and other palliative care begin to wither on the vine. This has happened in jurisdictions such as Canada that have introduced and widened access to assisted dying.
Earlier this year, a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hospice and End of Life Care found that many hospices and the essential support they provide to dying people, their families and the wider health system are already in funding famine. The Health and Care Act 2022 legally requires integrated care boards—ICBs—to commission sufficient palliative and end-of life care for their population. However, the report found that the funding that hospices receive from ICBs still varies significantly across the country, and hospices describe it as “stubbornly insufficient” and “flat”, while costs rise. Where hospices had seen a change in their funding following the change in law, this had been for the worse, with some reporting a deterioration in funding from commissioners.
Notwithstanding the high value that many hospices place on the independence that flows from being mainly or partly charitably funded, will the Minister explain what her Government will do to ensure that ICBs uphold the Health and Care Act in this important regard? Further, what progress are they making to implement recommendations of the APPG report, particularly the development of
“a national plan to ensure the right funding flows to hospices”,
requiring a review of the state’s own role and responsibilities?
I will finish with an observation from a hospice matron with 20 years’ experience in end-of-life care. She has found that a decision about how someone wants their life to end taken when they were still well, or not too ill, can change when faced with the nearness of death. Paradoxically, the human spirit, she says, often wants to fight on. At present, and most thankfully, hospices facilitate that choice to fight. Will this Government commit to sustaining that choice, and improving how it is delivered, as long as it is within their power to do so?
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate and for his excellent speech reminding us of the philosophical basis of hospices. My remarks are focused more on the practical.
In the past six months, I have visited two friends who were in hospices as their lives came to an end. Both were being cared for in the way we would all like in similar circumstances—with skill and compassion and with support for them and their families. However, in both cases the hospices were operating only at half-pace. Each had 50% of its beds unoccupied for lack of money. It was also a source of regret to the staff that they had not only had to close beds but to curtail the outreach services which are so vital to patients and their families—proof, if any were needed, of the crisis in funding faced by hospices. Emergency funding is needed now to supplement the extraordinary fundraising effort volunteers and support groups put in, but this is a short-term solution. In no other area of health would we tolerate such dependence on charitable activity.
Hospices need to be incorporated into the NHS and dying needs to be seen as as much a part of life as being born. This does not negate in any way the voluntary principle on which hospices were founded—I had the privilege of meeting Dame Cicely Saunders and talking to her in the early days of the movement—but builds on it, harnessing that support and good will and enabling anyone who is need of a hospice place, or indeed hospice services in their own home, to access them. I hope that the assisted dying debate, as it proceeds, will highlight the need for more and better palliative care. Of course, hospices are not the only places providing such care, but many of them have expertise and experience from which the whole of the NHS could learn, and I hope that this learning will be encouraged by the Government. That expertise goes beyond the specialist medical care to manage pain and other symptoms over the short stays or those of longer duration with which we are familiar. It also includes research and innovation to improve palliative care services wherever they are provided.
We should not forget hospices’ important links with their local community, for which they are famed. They mobilise volunteers and voluntary efforts so that local communities are familiar with their services and able to access them, for the benefit of patients and their families when their own time comes. Many a bereaved person has been helped to recover from their grief by, in turn, becoming interested and involved in volunteering at a hospice—a two-way street, indeed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and I declare all my interests in relation to hospices and palliative care, especially in Wales.
In 2008, the Welsh Government Health Minister Edwina Hart commissioned a strategy for palliative care. That report recommended that there must be fair access to specialist palliative care as a core service, available at all times, wherever the patient is, with patient information. I had the privilege of being asked to lead this work, and I had a budget of just over £2 per head of population. Together with my colleague, Dr Andy Fowell—who, tragically, died recently in a cycling accident—we created a funding formula to plug gaps and move specialist medical staff on to NHS contracts to ensure that they could integrate with oncology, surgery, anaesthesia, emergency departments, and so on. We stipulated a minimum number of actual or virtual beds for a population, and minimum staffing levels of specialist care in the community and in-hospital support teams. We set quality standards for rapid response to referrals, stimulated research and ensured education and training. I pay tribute to my colleague Dr Robert Twycross, who died just a few days ago. He was at Oxford and he was one of the great pioneers in research and education. The strategy has driven patient-centred care that meets the needs of every person and their family, especially when children are facing bereavement.
With encouragement, my wonderful colleagues moved on to seven-day pooled rotas to cover nights, weekends and bank holidays. As a colleague said, “We got rid of frantic Fridays and mad Mondays”. Our specialist nurses realised how many crises at nights and weekends could be intercepted when working a weekend or a bank holiday. Work with pharmacists and paramedics is improving access to just-in-case medication and care. For many years, through the Marie Curie Hospice, we have run a 24-hour all-Wales helpline for any health or care professional to get advice on a difficult situation.
In Wales, we created a floor—a minimum—but, of course, it is not enough and we still have workforce gaps, although Welsh Ministers have been unfailingly supportive of hospices and palliative care teams in Wales, despite competing demands, financing that becomes difficult and provision that is especially hard in remote and rural areas.
Research has repeatedly shown that good care costs less than bad care. No one should be told that there is nothing more that can be done. Seeking help and advice from colleagues, and being humble enough to questioningly review a situation, can find solutions to make each day better, accepting the inevitability of death for us all. Will the Government look at the Welsh data to comprehensively review the whole model of such services in England, to ensure that people’s needs are better met and hospices can once again flourish?
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing this debate. I declare my interests as outlined in register, particularly that I am patron of Hospiscare in Exeter.
I suspect there has never been a more important moment in time to discuss the funding of the hospice sector, which is facing extreme challenges. It is also important to remember that hospices deliver excellent care to a significant number of people who are dying well. However, according to Hospice UK, the sector is facing the worst financial crisis in more than 20 years.
The state provides on average only a third of hospice funding. A large proportion is found by fundraising. Those who live in affluent areas are more likely to financially support their hospices than those in deprived areas. That will have a direct impact on not only access but quality of care to those in the deprived areas.
It also entrenches the worsening inequalities in health, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, not just between regions but also within them. In addition, the funding given to ICBs for palliative and end-of-life care is highly variable, and sometimes disproportionate for the demographics of their population. In the absence of any long-term plan, I echo the request of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and ask the Minister what support the Government are giving to ICBs as they make their commissioning decisions in this area.
As already indicated by the contributions made, noble Lords are aware of the introduction of the Private Member’s Bill in the other place which seeks to change the law for those who are terminally ill. How can we consider this if we do not give enough funding to hospices, palliative care and palliative care research, so that people dying receive the best care—the care that they need to make life worth living and, in the words of Dame Cicely Saunders, to live life until they die?
I hope that we are not prioritising the care of those who need it based on their contribution to our economy. This is contrary to how God values each one of us, contrary to the principles on which the NHS is founded, and contrary to human dignity. How the Government choose to prioritise palliative care matters very much. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s plan to secure a sustainable future for hospices, palliative care and palliative care research.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Farmer on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, whose close association with and support for the hospice in Devon I know of and is widely appreciated. I declare my interest as listed in the register as vice-president of Hospice UK, which I had the privilege of chairing for eight years.
The dire situation—the crisis—in which so many hospices find themselves today has been described by others during this short debate, coupled with the need for an immediate infusion of money to ease their plight. There is a crisis now, and more money is needed now. However, encouraged by the recent admission of the Secretary of State, in the context of the debate on assisted dying, that palliative care in our country is inadequate, I want to make a proposal which has the potential to transform this regrettable state of affairs. I start with some uncontroversial propositions. Most hospitals, which see their role as being the curing of patients, are not very good at palliative care. Far too many people die in hospital; they do not want to die in hospital, and they need not die in hospital. They would have a far better death if they were in a hospice, or at home cared for by a hospice.
When I was chair of Hospice UK, we worked up a detailed plan which involved identifying those patients in hospital who were unlikely to be cured and arranging for them to be discharged to a hospice or to their home, where they could be looked after by a hospice. We estimated that up to 50,000 people a year could be helped in this way: helped to have the end-of-life care they deserve and the dignified death to which we all aspire. It would, of course, need an infusion of resource from the NHS, but it would save the NHS much more than it would cost. It costs much less to look after someone in a hospice than it does in a hospital, and it would free up all those hospital beds; it would be a real win-win.
I gather that the implementation of the plan was scuppered by the pandemic, but that Hospice UK is considering working it up again and putting it to the Department of Health. I urge it to do so, and I urge the Secretary of State, now that he has recognised the problem, to grab this proposal with both hands; it would make a real difference.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for allowing us to shine a light on our hospices. They deserve all the help we can give them in return for all the help they give us and our families.
My son, Daniel, died earlier this year under the palliative care of the doyenne of British hospices, St Christopher’s, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I told Daniel’s story in the current edition of the House magazine and in a note to all Members of Parliament. Daniel also features in an award-winning ITV documentary, “A Time to Die”—as does the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—which most people regard as very fair. St Christopher’s created a wonderful atmosphere of warmth, compassion and love at a very difficult time, and my family and friends and I will long cherish it. Daniel quipped near the end of his life, “I am being looked after better now than I ever was when I was ill”. That was not a knock at the local hospital—for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Howard, gave, hospitals are so hard pressed—but hospices have a standard of care that few hospitals can match.
Many hospices are, like hospitals, under acute financial stress and desperately need more help, and I hope that the Minister is listening carefully to our plea. We all know that there are many demands on the public purse and that the Government face, like the female blackbird, many hungry mouths clamouring to be fed, but every effort should be made to stop hospices falling down the long list of health priorities. Regardless of our views on assisted dying—an issue we will probably come to early next year—we must make the end-of-life experience as good as it can be, and hospices do just that.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for sharing his story so well.
How many times do noble Lords hear guests of the Palace of Westminster being told that no one can die here as it is a royal palace; people always legally die across the river at St Thomas’ Hospital. However, if you live in, or in the vicinity of, the Palace of Westminster and need end-of-life care, you are more likely than not to receive it from my local hospice, Royal Trinity Hospice in Clapham. The NHS contributes only 25% to 30% of its funding per year, but over half the people needing end-of-life care in the catchment area of south-west and central London use Royal Trinity Hospice. What is clearly an NHS service should be properly funded by the taxpayer. Whether in the vicinity of a palace or in social housing in the most deprived area of the country, there should be a national minimum standard of provision, as outlined in the excellent APPG report on hospice funding.
I also agree that ICBs should be made to look at a multiyear contractual term, as I often wonder how much charitable time, energy and money are spent bidding for money from the ICB. We know that the demographics show that there will be an increase in demand for hospice care over the coming years, so the sector should be free to plan to deliver more, not to fill in more bidding forms.
I am sure that no one would want the hospice movement to be solely government funded, as vital flexibilities and community relationships are built due to the inclusion of the charitable model of funding, raising about £1 billion a year. In fact, this is the perfect time to have this debate, as we are days away from the Budget. Although it focuses mainly on tax and spend, it is also normally the place where changes are outlined to any of the benefits for charitable giving. Legacies are a large proportion of hospice charitable funding, including around £2 million a year for Royal Trinity Hospice in Clapham. Many of these people will already be payers of inheritance tax, and if you leave 10% or more of the net value of your estate to charity, you can reduce the rate you pay from 40% to 36%.
Why are there not the same benefits for other estates that are smaller and that do not pay inheritance tax, and for whom the gift is often a greater sacrifice? If the policy is to look at income, capital and wealth on a more equal level, why is there no gift aid on small legacies? Also, why do you get more tax allowance if you are a higher-rate taxpayer and claim gift aid, but no benefit if you are a standard-rate taxpayer? I know the Minister cannot give detailed answers to those questions, but I hope she will agree with this focus: that if there is more wealth to tax, surely, we should also incentivise people further to give that wealth away.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate. I have experienced the amazing work and care offered to many people at the end of their lives. I have been patron of and fundraiser for St Leonard’s Hospice in York, and as Archbishop of York I supported in numerous ways Martin House Children’s Hospice, founded by the Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed, supported by the generosity of thousands of people who raised the money.
Aisha, the mother of our two foster children, George and Davina, died of breast cancer and was superbly cared for by St Christopher’s Hospice. My mother, Ruth, spent three weeks in Royal Trinity Hospice, where she lost her battle against throat cancer. Her peaceful death inspired our little children.
Hospices are homes providing the best end-of-life care. As charities, they depend on constant fundraising and people’s generosity. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, invites His Majesty’s Government to put hospices on a sure income footing and foundation. I invite His Majesty’s Government to apply to the funding of hospices the lesson of the RA Butler 1944 Education Act, which was replicated in Scotland in 1945 and in Northern Ireland in 1947. It repealed all previous education legislation, belatedly raised the school leaving age to 15 and made secondary education free and universal. The terms “voluntary aided” and “voluntary controlled” appeared in the Butler Act. Before this was enacted, the voluntary schools provided by churches were largely funded from the income of historic trusts or from the giving of the parishioners. In voluntary-aided schools, the church is responsible for only 10% of the cost of the upkeep of the building; the rest is provided for by the state.
Could His Majesty Government reimagine the funding of hospices in a similar way to the funding of voluntary-aided schools, not the voluntary-controlled schools, which are entirely funded by the state? Hospices need not be funded entirely by the state. A mixed funding model could work well, provided that government remains the last person standing in terms of funding. Hospices could become voluntary-aided hospices.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I echo yet again the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for initiating the debate and for the very thoughtful speech with which he introduced it. I declare an interest as the joint chair of the All-Party Group on Together for Short Lives, which is a charity devoted particularly to babies that are born with what are seen as incurable diseases. If a baby is born in that situation, it is a great shock to the parents because they are not generally expecting it, and when the baby is born there is a huge traumatic effect. We are to have a debate on assisted dying, but we have noticed that for little babies there is already assisted dying, because the consultants can ask for medicines to be withdrawn. From time to time, there are very sad court cases where hospitals go to court to get permission to withdraw medicine against the wishes of the parents. I would like that to be looked at more thoroughly in terms of whether we have even yet got it right. We got some minor changes under the last Government together with my friend and colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but there is still a lot to be done in this area.
In so far as the funding of hospices goes, I would like the Government to look at the system outlined in Wales and see whether we can get some sort of agreement on a system and a way of going forward in this country. The fact of the matter is that the charitable raising of funds for hospices is a popular way of raising money—we have one in our area that is well subscribed to—because people like giving, but we must not let everything rest on charity. The points made by my noble friend Lord Farmer about dignity, including intrinsic dignity, and ethics were extremely important; I hope that they will be borne in mind.
Finally, I ask the Government to have a look at the way in which integrated care boards disburse their funding because the variety in disbursement is greater than should be acceptable, even in a partially devolved system.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, there has truly been a depositum of wisdom in this short debate, illustrating an area of concern that we all share in and indicating a degree of urgency by which we should all be impressed. I offer the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, my true thanks for his opening remarks and daring to set up this debate in a philosophical way; he has given us a framework within which we can test our ideas out.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley reminded us of the practical applications of good hospice care and the plight of hospices at this present moment. In a sense, I have less to contribute to a debate such as this than the experts who have already spoken, except that I do come across hospices. My noble friend and I have, I think, visited the same people—Members of this House—in hospices.
I am shocked to see from the briefings that we are in this situation of financial difficulty in an area of life where the good being done is so obvious that it is hard to understand why people do not back it. In the charitable sector, endless efforts go on in little shops, on the streets and so on, but what about the one-third and two-thirds?
Similarly, the supreme irony of the fact that we are soon to debate assisted dying—I make no comments about that debate now; there will be time for that—is that it is being put forward as wanting to offer options to people at the end of their lives. Hospice care is an option at the end of people’s lives. It is tried and tested, with proven in-person experience from the offering of one testimony after another. Is it not ironic that we cannot see the two together? We must stiffen our resolve, influence all we can and stand up for investing in hospices as a responsible way of dealing with people at the end of their lives. We must then let the other debate happen, with that already a commitment on our part.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for initiating this important debate. For most of my professional life, I have been associated with hospices such as St Christopher’s, the Mildmay in the East End of London, the Mildmay in Uganda and the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice in Surrey. I have learned a lot working in these places.
I remember, for instance, a lady of 28 with an inoperable cancer of the throat. She was in pain and a lot of respiratory distress and needed relief from these symptoms. I explained to her that I could put a needle into her vein and titrate her with analgesics until all her symptoms had gone. She agreed to this. I gave her a surprisingly large dose of heroin, which not only did not kill her but relieved all her symptoms and gave her three weeks of symptom-free life. During that time, she was able with a clear mind to say goodbye to her friends and to tidy up all those loose ends. Some people accused me of hypocrisy, saying, “You’re really killing them and just saying that you’re relieving their pain”. Well, anyone who thinks they know what is in my mind has delusions of grandeur.
Cicely Saunders and I were contemporaries as medical students. Her work on relieving symptoms in hospices was very important indeed. She established without any doubt that the right way was to keep a constant level of analgesia in the blood rather than give patients doses only when they had the pain. If you do this, you require less of the analgesics overall and so the patients are more awake and able to enjoy life. That was a very important contribution. The present laws against euthanasia and assisted dying are like a huge dam preventing great enthusiasm for euthanasia and assisted dying. That dam can sometimes develop a crack for those who want to legalise euthanasia. Once you have a little crack in the dam, the whole thing can give way. Cicely Saunders’s work was an extremely important aspect of this.
As far as the funding of hospices is concerned—
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
Can the noble Lord wind up, please? His three minutes are over.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
There is an urgent need for more funding, as has been said many times, and a partnership between government, charities and local authorities is required.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for instigating a vital, enriching and at times personal debate about the outstanding work, compassion and care that the hospice movement provides and the perilous state of the funding platform that it sits on. Wonderful examples of hospice and palliative care within the sector have been given. I add my thanks to the staff and volunteers who provide the services, including those at the wonderful St Luke’s hospice in Sheffield, a place where warmth, compassion and outstanding care are given to those at the end of life and the loved ones around them. Indeed, it is a microcosm of the hospice sector. In the last few years, it has been
“‘routinely’ budgeting for annual deficits”,
to quote its chief executive. The ICB funding accounts for just 26% of its £12 million annual budget. The examples of St Luke’s and others outlined in this debate show that unless short and medium-term action is taken by government on funding for hospices, services in some areas will be in serious decline or could collapse.
I say to the Minister that two things could happen, possibly in the short term, regardless of the budget. The first is that when NHS pay increases are made, they should be automatically applied to the in-year contracting values that the hospices receive, so that those extra costs can be absorbed without having to cut services. The other issue is that there should be parity of funding per person who uses a hospice and palliative care, regardless of the setting. It should be an equal base, whether it is in the independent hospice sector or in an NHS setting.
In the medium term, we need to introduce a fair funding deal for hospices and to include palliative and end-of-life care services in the priorities and planning guidance for the NHS. Will the Minister look at that and ask NHS England to implement it?
Investing in hospice care not only enhances quality of life for people who are receiving the care but supports families during incredibly challenging times. To ensure equitable access to comprehensive palliative and hospice care, we must ensure that the Government adopt fair and equitable funding for all who provide services.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for balloting this QSD.
As we have heard, the modern hospice movement was pioneered by Dame Cicely Saunders at St Christopher’s Hospice, who told her patients:
“You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your life and we will do all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die”.
Every year, hospices in the UK assist nearly a quarter of a million people who live with a progressive or terminal illness and then support them more closely as their lives draw to a close. We must support these hospices.
Let me share some concerning statistics with your Lordships. More than two in five deaths occur in hospital, with 41% of that group dying alone. While it is impossible to quantify the monetary value of giving people the opportunity to die with dignity, hospices can play an incredibly important role in both providing excellent end-of-life care and, at the same time, freeing up expensive hospital beds in a material saving for the NHS.
The Minister for Care repeated just this month that the Government are determined to shift more healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, including to hospices. However, currently the amount spent on children’s hospice care, for example, varies widely—from £28 per child in South Yorkshire last year to £511 per child in Norfolk and Waveney. Can the Minister explain how these disparities are occurring and how she will address them?
Last year we committed to extending the £25 million children’s hospice grant. However, in a response to a Written Question on 31 July, the Government stated that they
“are currently considering the future of this important funding stream beyond 2024/25”.
Can the Minister please give us a cast-iron assurance that this vital funding stream will be carried forward?
Currently, around a third of hospice income comes from the state and the rest is made up from charitable donations and fundraising. Do the Government intend to move to a model in which the state delivers the majority of funding for hospices? If so, will the Government seek greater control of hospice provision across the country? With increased government funding, Ministers may seek corresponding increases in control over services, so can the Minister confirm that the Government will protect the independence of our hospices, which they value so greatly?
Investing in co-ordinated community palliative care services such as hospices, to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions and provide superlative end-of-life care, should be a top priority for this Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful and constructive approach that noble Lords have taken to this important issue and for a number of considered proposals, which I will share with my colleague, Minister Stephen Kinnock, who is responsible as the Minister for Care. I know he will be interested.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, not just on securing this debate but on the way he set out his thoughts, which enabled the debate to be so constructive and sensitive to the issues at hand. I share the thanks given by a number of noble Lords, and take this opportunity to thank all those working or volunteering—as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley highlighted—in the palliative and end-of-life care sector, including in hospices, for the invaluable support, care and compassion that they provide to people and their loved ones when they need it most.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the contribution of Dame Cicely Saunders. She was indeed—and can be regarded very much as—a pioneer. Many people in this Chamber and outside have also played their part, and I thank them too.
Approximately 600,000 people die each year in the UK and that figure is set to increase as we have an ever-ageing population. That will mean an increase in the number of people who need palliative and end-of-life care. As we have heard today, palliative care can help in the hardest of times. It is care that makes a real difference. It can make something that seems quite unbearable a bit more bearable. It can give dignity. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, state his definition of dignity. For me, dignity is crucial at all times and never more so than at the end of one’s life. It also makes it more manageable for not just the person being cared for but their loved ones too.
As a Government, we want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care, from diagnosis through to the end of life. While the majority of palliative and end-of-life care is provided by NHS staff and services, we recognise the vital part played by voluntary sector organisations. Many noble Lords know that it is difficult to quantify how much palliative and end-of-life care is being provided at national or local integrated care board level, because care is provided across multiple settings, including in primary care, community care and hospitals, as well as in hospices. It is delivered by a wide range of specialist and generalist health and care workers, who provide care for a wide range of needs. These include, but are not always exclusive to, palliative care.
I recognise that there are more than 200 charitable hospices supporting more than 300,000 people in the UK with life-limiting conditions every year. As noble Lords have observed, most hospices are charitable, independent organisations that receive some statutory funding for providing NHS services. On the point about funding, in England integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning palliative and end-of-life care services to meet the reasonable needs of their local populations. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and other noble Lords, ICBs are responsible to NHS England, which has published statutory guidance on palliative and end-of-life care to support commissioners with this duty. It includes specific reference to ensuring that there is sufficient provision of specialist palliative care services and hospice beds, and future sustainability.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, raised the issue of variation by ICB area. It is important to note that this is in part—I emphasise “in part”—dependent on what is already available in terms of services, along with local needs. Noble Lords will recall the Health and Care Act 2022, which was a key moment. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, being very involved in getting palliative care services added to the list of services an ICB must commission in response to the needs of its local population.
In addition to the guidance and service specifications, NHS England has commissioned the development of a care dashboard. The relevance of that is that it brings together all the relevant local data into one place and it will help commissioners to understand the needs of their local population and give them the ability to filter the available information—for example, by deprivation or ethnicity. That is meant to enable ICBs to put plans in place to track and address the improvement in health inequalities.
I will refer to the highly sensitive area of assisted dying, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord McColl, and other noble Lords. I reconfirm to your Lordships’ House that, if the will of Parliament is that the law on assisting dying should change, this Government will work to ensure that it is implemented in the way that Parliament intended and is legally effective. I add that, irrespective of whether the law changes on this matter, we will and must continue to work towards providing high-quality, compassionate palliative and end-of-life care for every person who needs it.
I shall briefly look to the future and say to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who raised the matter of research, that through the National Institute for Health and Care Research the department is investing £3 million in a new policy research unit in palliative and end-of-life care. The unit was launched at the beginning of this year and it will build evidence in this area. To respond to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, it will have a specific focus on inequalities, which I very much welcome.
Noble Lords will be aware that this Government have committed to developing a 10-year plan to deliver an NHS that is fit for the future. We will be considering a whole range of policies, including those that impact people with palliative and end-of-life care needs. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that one of the three shifts that the plan will deliver is around the Government’s determination to shift more healthcare out of hospitals and into the community. The noble Lord referred to a plan by Hospice UK and said it was looking to update it. We will certainly be pleased to hear from Hospice UK on that matter. Palliative and end-of-life care services, including hospices, will play a very big part in that shift from hospitals to the community.
I turn to some of the additional points that noble Lords have made. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who has made such a big contribution in this area, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who has been a strong advocate, particularly in respect of children’s hospices, that we will indeed be delighted to look at the Welsh experience. Just this week I had a meeting with the Welsh Minister, so I will be following up on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, asked whether there will be a move to implement the recommendations in the APPG report that would ensure that funding flows to hospices. As I have said, we are determined to move more towards community healthcare and we will certainly work with hospice providers to understand their views as part of this work.
I am sure that we were all very moved to hear my noble friend Lord Monks share his experience of the sad loss of his son Daniel; my sincere condolences to my noble friend and to his family and friends. I heard what he and so many other noble Lords had to say about the quality of care received in hospices, and I too will pay tribute.
I will of course take up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on gift aid with my colleagues in the Treasury.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and to other noble Lords that my colleague the Minister of State for Care has recently had meetings with NHS England to look at a way forward in the whole area of providing services. I know that he also met the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. We are particularly anxious to reduce inequalities and the work going forward will look at that.
I will review the debate and if there are particular questions that I have not answered, I will of course do so. I will also address the comments and suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I thank all noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for leading us in this debate.
Special Needs Schools
(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest
That this House takes note of the contribution that special needs schools and specialist education colleges make to the education sector.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. It is a privilege to lead this debate on a subject that concerns me both personally and professionally. Team Domenica, the charity that I started in my daughter’s name, is, among other things, a specialist further education institution which provides training for students with learning disabilities, with the aim of transforming their lives through paid employment.
The 130 specialist further education colleges typically cater for people with more complex disabilities, whose needs cannot be met in a mainstream setting. However, there is no definition of such needs. The needs of my daughter, Domenica, as a young woman with Down’s syndrome would not necessarily be described as complex, but she is one of a large cohort for whom a mainstream setting cannot be reasonably adjusted.
Large general further education colleges, typically with over 3,500 students, are not always the best environments for these individuals. These colleges, incorporated under the 1992 education Act, were reclassified by the Office for National Statistics in 2022 as public sector bodies, and as such are out of scope of the pernicious new VAT policy, a tax on learning that we have never known in this country. However, specialist further education colleges are being treated as private schools, although all the students have an EHC plan and are therefore publicly funded. Yet these colleges will still be liable for VAT if they have pupils aged 16. As I have stated previously in your Lordships’ House, I hope that this is just an oversight and one that can be remedied as soon as possible.
Several of our candidates at Team Domenica have come from mainstream settings. One of them said: “At Team Domenica, I am treated fairly with respect—more like an adult. I used to fret a lot at the last place. I don’t feel that here”. One of our parents wrote: “When my daughter started with you she needed one-to-one support, but now she is a very much more independent young lady. She has learnt to fail without feeling like a failure, so if she doesn’t meet a target she tries again and again and again, and eventually she does reach the target. It has been an incredible journey”.
These specialist colleges, which offer a holistic approach, are such an important part of the education system but are all too frequently seen as an expensive adjunct. The alternative for this disfranchised group is a world of isolation. Institutions such as ours give them a chance to emerge from that bleak prospect.
Some of the larger general further education colleges cater for more than 3,000 students with special educational needs. They do a wonderful job. However, they are coming under increasing pressure to take students whose needs they cannot meet, which is a misuse of the duty to admit. Students are being placed against the advice of these colleges, as there are behaviours that the colleges know they will not be able to deal with. These decisions are bad all round. They are bad for the college but, of course, they are particularly bad for the young people involved.
The Government tend to have a focus on the general further education colleges, often to the exclusion of other types of provision. This can be frustrating. We see this in the apprenticeship sector, where around 70% of the provision comes from private training providers yet they are frequently overlooked in policy discussions. I emphasise the role that specialist independent institutions play, and point out that general further education colleges cannot, as they themselves admit, meet all the needs. Of course we need both: an inclusive mainstream and a thriving specialist sector.
I suggest that specialist colleges not only contribute to the education sector but play a critical role in the skills agenda, particularly in supporting people into employment. One area of concern is apprenticeship access. SEN students who are capable of and keen to pursue apprenticeships can be disadvantaged by their requirement to achieve a level 1 in maths and English. These subjects used to be embedded in the programme but are now stand-alone qualifications.
People with learning disabilities can do the practical aspects of training, but for many the academic side is completely beyond them; abstract is not what they do. The result is that some students are unable to pursue this apprenticeship route even though they excel in their practical skills. Why can we not just value the skills that they have and that businesses need, and let them develop at their own pace, making their own unique contribution? The system is setting people up to fail and undermining their hard-won self-confidence. I also see this in the jewellery business, where I have made my career. Apprentices for silversmithing and jewellery making are very hard to come by without adding these unnecessary qualifications. Superb craftsmanship is its own language, which requires no translation and certainly not an English exam.
The Government have announced some flexibility for people with special educational needs, allowing an exemption if they can demonstrate an evidenced judgment of reaching entry level 3. This is a positive step, but I am concerned that the process still remains too unwieldy, complex and costly, which will continue to disadvantage these students and add unnecessary burdens on the college—believe me, we have enough already.
The tribunal system is not working. Some 96% of parents who are turned down for an EHCP by the local authority win their tribunals, but this comes at a huge financial and emotional cost. Unfortunately, the process is protracted and some parents cave in under the pressure; they do not even get to tribunal or, if they do, it is too late for the start of the academic year. This, therefore, is a year’s savings for the local authority, but it is all too frequently a year without education for that young person.
In the academic year 2022-23, just 136 of the nearly 8,000 appeals that went to a hearing upheld decisions by councils. A study by Pro Bono Economics estimated that councils wasted £46.2 million on tribunals in 2021-22. An inevitable consequence of VAT on fees will be a significant rise in tribunal cases, as parents struggle to find the right setting for their learning disabled children. It will be the sharp elbowed who have the best chance. Yet again, it will be the most vulnerable, the isolated and those parents who struggle to fill in the forms who will be forgotten and fall off the radar.
The Government should commit to an independent review of the VAT policy after six months. There has not been a full consultation on the plans or on their impact on SEND provision. Last year, the Department for Education had to pay the courts more than £13 million so it could deliver these SEND tribunals—double the figure the year before, and it will undoubtedly rise much further as a result of the impending education tax.
The system is broken and unnecessarily adversarial. Kate Foale, SEND spokesman for the County Councils Network, said:
“There desperately needs to be action at a governmental level to ensure local authorities and schools have the funding required to meet the needs of all children and young people”.
Councils are already struggling to fund SEND provision. The Local Government Association and the County Councils Network published a report in July, noting that SEND costs will increase to £12 billion by 2025, having doubled over the past decade. They say that this puts council finances on a “cliff edge”.
We are in a divide-and-rule situation whereby local authorities with a statutory duty to fund are at odds with the providers, and the providers end up fighting on all fronts. I have first-hand experience of this, and it wastes an enormous amount of time and energy. We need to work together. I know the Minister is fully aware of how important this is, and I thank her for her intervention on our behalf last month.
The current high-needs funding system came into place in the academic year 2013-14, which is when it was decided that local authorities should both undertake the assessments and provide the funding, thus becoming poacher and gamekeeper—a clear conflict of interest. Before that, assessment and funding decisions were handled separately. The Department for Education maintains that bringing them together was necessary because of spiralling costs, with needs being identified without any thought of the money involved. But it has not published any data demonstrating that the separation of these two processes, rather than increased need, was causing the spiralling costs. It also has not commented on the fact that, despite bringing the two together, costs have spiralled anyway. What it has done is made it much harder for families to get an assessment, because the councils know that, once they have assessed, they have a statutory duty to provide.
The Secretary of State for Education told parents that the SEND system is “fundamentally broken”. She also said she is “serious” about reform and “determined to do it”. She added that she would like to do this on a “cross-party basis” and
“listen to parents and staff”.
I stand here in that spirit of co-operation, determined that, above all else, the interests of learning-disabled people be accorded the highest priority.
When I look at the lives of our many candidates, post-college and in paid work, I see the difference it has made—how much it means to them and to their families, and how much it impacts their well-being and sense of self-worth. That makes me even more determined to fight on their behalf. I will continue to raise my voice in your Lordships’ House on behalf of people with learning disabilities.
One of our candidates died last month, in his early 20s. He was part of our story, and we became part of his. His father told us that he would be buried in his work uniform because it meant the world to him that he had found a job and a life beyond his family, in the community, where we all belong and where his life, lived to the limit of its capacity, touched so many, fulfilling his potential. What more could one possibly want for any of our children or anybody with a learning disability?
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on bringing this topic to our attention and on her speech. I was lucky enough to hear her maiden speech some weeks ago, when she addressed this issue. There is no better advocate for not just speaking about this issue but actually doing something about it, which is quite an important extra. I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss this today. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I hope the Government may provide time, during the department’s consideration of the future of SEN policy, for us to have further debates and make further contributions.
The noble Baroness talked a lot about specialist colleges. They are important, because she is absolutely right that the alternative to that is staying at home. It is not a poor or inadequate school that gets you out of the house. We have let down younger adults with disabilities for many years. It is as though we assume that life stops when they reach the end of compulsory schooling, so I appreciate that point.
However, I want to start on two more positive points. There has been a transformation in special schools over the past 20 to 30 years. It is worth making note of that because it shows that progress can be made. In my lifetime, the law described this group of people as ineducable; that is what it said in the Education Act. Now, when we go to special schools or specialist colleges, we see young boys and girls and young men and women doing what anybody in any school does: working hard, hoping for better things, playing with their friends, sharing things with their teachers and family, and wanting to get on and be part of society. We have made improvements. What has changed most of all is our understanding of what can be achieved. It is society; it is education; it is politicians; it is all of us who have put the lid on the achievements of this group in the past. At least now when we see some excellent special schools and specialist colleges, we see that there can be change, but there is a lot more to be done as well.
There is a second area where I want to point out good things that I have always taken from this sector. When you go into a special school, you try to work out what is different from a mainstream school. To me, it is something like this: the teachers are very well trained in their specialism; they know what they are talking about and are practised in delivering that. When you look around the staff, you see that it is not just teachers but physiotherapists, play leaders and assistants; it is people with a range of professional skills trying to meet the needs of the child. They invariably have close links with parents. Special schools are interesting in that social class does not matter; social class does not choose the children who attend, so you often get socially mixed schools. Each child has a programme tailored to meet their needs, and there are partnerships beyond the school. Teachers who know their subject and can deliver it, working with a range of other professionals so that a range of needs can be met; precious and close links with parents; and working with a community that wants to provide support—that it is a definition of what we should have in every school, special or mainstream.
When I was a Minister in the education department, a lot of the work we did on classroom assistance, extra administrative help for schools and using the school as a location for people with other skills was modelled on the best of special schools, so they have a lot to teach all the other schools in mainstream education.
However, there is no doubt that these are troubled times for the whole SEN sector, and there will be opportunities to discuss that. There are a number of policy challenges in respect of special schools which I ask the Minister to reflect on. First, I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Labour Party conference about level 2 apprenticeships—that will help this group—but for all the good that goes on in special schools, the assessment and qualifications framework in which they are asked to work does not meet their needs. I chair the Public Services Committee, which has recently produced a report on the transition from education to work for young people with disabilities. The story is one of doing well in schools and being blocked from thereon in. Part of that is expectations, but a lot of it is the qualifications for which they are encouraged to study not being fit for purpose in moving them on to the next stage of their lives.
I have two more points to make. I have met a lot of people with special needs children who think we ought not to have special schools at all and that the inclusion debate ought to be such that every child’s needs can be met in mainstream community schools. It is not a view I take, but we should acknowledge that that debate across the sector about where all children with special needs are taught is a live one, and we have to work it out. To my mind, the easy decisions are that those with needs that cannot be met in mainstream schools should be in special schools and that if they can be included in mainstream schools and their parents want it, every effort ought to be made to remove any barriers that may exist, and that may be something as little as physical obstacles.
It is the ones in between who are at the borders, where there is no agreement on whether special schools or mainstream schools would be appropriate. That is where the debate is difficult—it is about the numbers of people with EHC plans who are trying to get to special schools, when the authorities think that their needs might be met in mainstream education; that is where the difficulties lie, and where we let down a lot of children. What I am absolutely sure about is that no one should have to want a special school because of a poor mainstream school that they are trying to turn their back on. It should be because the child needs the special school, not because we have no mainstream schools that are catering as well as they can for special needs children.
We have not got this right, and it is not easy. If you look across the 24,000 schools making up our school system, we have a very small number of special schools. Most of them are mainstream schools. We have never been sure what the role of the special schools should be in the whole education system—but all the talent, all the highly qualified teachers and all the experience are in the special schools. What we have always tried to do is to find a way of using their expertise across all schools to benefit all children with special needs. Of all the solutions that we have come up with over the years, whether it be collocating special schools on the same campus as mainstream schools, having units in mainstream schools without specialism or having teachers who move from one school to another, I have seen excellent examples. But nowhere do I see a cohesive and coherent plan about how the offer from special schools sits easily in the whole education system so that we can meet the needs of those who have needs that can be met in special schools and those who do not, as well as the many in between who just want the best of both.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on an excellent introductory speech, on acquiring this debate and on championing the issues of special educational needs and disability so effectively, before and since she came into this House. It is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, who was Secretary of State for Education in 2001-02. You can hear the wisdom and experience that flows from her in her speech, and it is an honour to follow that. I also thank Ashmount special school in Leicestershire for the helpful information that it gave me ahead of this debate.
I will come at the contribution that special needs schools and specialist education colleges make to education by referring to another often overlooked part of the system: the parents. Across the school system, school-level factors account for just 20% of the variation in pupils’ attainment, and pupil-level factors, including the home and the community children come from, account for the balance. Half of that 80% is determined by family factors, particularly what parents do. So working hand in glove with parents wherever possible can make or break whether children fulfil their potential and flourish while at school. This is particularly the case when children have special needs.
The closer one is to a family with a special needs child, the more one realises how profoundly every member is affected, especially where those needs are at a high enough level to make them eligible for a place at a special school. Parents’ and siblings’ own needs can be considered by special schools in a far more developed and bespoke way than mainstream settings permit. Far from cosseting them, this whole-family support is indispensable if special needs children are to attend, engage and meet appropriately ambitious educational expectations. To quote one special needs teacher:
“You know it’s going to pay off if you are supportive to the parents because working together is so important for this child’s emotional and behavioural regulation which make their education possible”.
Many schools also take steps to help parents build a support network with each other. The House of Lords Library briefing identified frequent contact with parents or carers and close tracking of children’s progress as one of the important benefits of attending special education. That contact often starts before a child has had their first day at school. Early home visits help to identify the whole family’s needs and particularly their psychological state.
When children start at special school, there is awareness that parents are on a grief curve, which needs to be respected and accommodated. This includes trauma, emotion and stress about things that might seem insignificant but are highly significant to them. First, many had to fight to get the child into special school in the first place and disagree with professionals, which is rarely easy. It is an early priority to relieve anxiety and assure them that they no longer need to convince anyone that their child cannot be in mainstream. Secondly, they are often experts in their child’s needs, including their medical needs, and fear something being missed in case it means the difference, quite literally, between life and death. Many special needs children have had life-threatening conditions, requiring long and complex operations. Parents have handed their children over to anaesthetists and surgeons, unsure whether they will survive. As many conditions are ongoing, sending a special needs child to school is far from straightforward.
Easing families’ burdens can include helping parents fill in the complex paperwork for school transportation, where needed, and for disability living allowance. Such extra cash is essential as it is very hard for both parents to work when care needs are so high, but forms can seem overwhelming when time is cut short by myriad health appointments and associated administration. It is not unusual for profoundly disabled children to have two hospital appointments a week, which might be in different cities.
A child’s education, health and care plan routinely requires special schools to work with multiple professionals, such as speech and language and occupational therapists, social workers and medical consultants. They write letters to GPs on the family’s behalf and make referrals to child and adolescent mental health services. Many special needs children are doubly incontinent, for genuine medical reasons, and teachers literally get their hands dirty providing personal care. Some schools allow parents to use a child’s direct payments to fund a staff member to give respite care on a Saturday afternoon or after school. Teachers’ deep involvement in health and social care means that they are, in effect, triple-hatting in a way that a mainstream teacher would find impossible in a much larger class size where they are required to be driven by data and development deadlines. Ministers have said that they will improve mainstream inclusivity and pick up special needs earlier, but do the Government agree that we will always need special schools?
To reiterate, parents are vital to the education sector. Teachers with experience across both settings refer to a significant lack of understanding in mainstream about what life is like for parents. Will the Minister confirm that this will also be an area for improvement?
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I too strongly welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on her eloquent speech. I will focus on the general situation facing specialist colleges in a rather broader sense—including but not confined to those that we think of as special needs—which cater to small, specialist groups of students of various different kinds. I want to urge the Minister to ensure that this population and this type of institution receive more targeted and coherent attention and support at national level than has been the case.
Of course, much of this debate will focus on the large and important group of children and young people with learning difficulties for whom the mainstream curriculum is unsuitable or who struggle to cope with formal settings. We know that there is a real crisis here, especially in catering to those with complex multiple needs.
However, there is also an important and diverse group of students for whom the issue is not that they struggle and will probably always struggle with the mainstream curriculum or the classroom environment, but rather that they belong to a rather small group with special, distinctive requirements, which is widely spread across the country, so in any given area there will be only a few of them. This means that we need specialist institutions with wide and national catchment areas.
We actually do quite well at school level, albeit largely because of a legacy of charitable and privately established institutions. Central government has then done a pretty good job of recognising and incorporating these into the national schools system. I grew up near one of the most famous, the Mary Hare School for the deaf, which sends pupils on to a range of extremely demanding academic courses at university level. We have music schools, such as the Menuhin School and Chetham’s School, where more than 90% of students get financial assistance, including through the DfE’s music and dance scheme.
Where things are not going so well is at college level. Education does not end with school—less and less so. We need to recognise areas of specialisation that cannot be offered in each and every locality or even region, but which are none the less vital. We cannot just rely here on our inheritance of a few well-established institutions, such as the Royal National College for the Blind or, indeed, the wonderful sounding college that the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, helped to establish. We need to think more coherently and creatively about what sort of specialist colleges we need for this older age group and how they should be funded and run.
Noble Lords may know the sad story of the specialist national colleges. This was actually a very good idea, trying to create national institutions with specific areas of expertise. But, although lots of money was put into capital, there was no coherent thinking about how they would recruit and be funded. I remember visiting one early on and being horrified that it was expected to operate, recruit and fund itself as though it was just another local FE college with a particular, small catchment area. Not surprisingly, most of the national colleges have now closed.
We do not make clear provision for scarce and valued crafts and trades with small workforces. Training in some, such as musical instrument making or clockmaking, have clung on by being turned into fully fledged residential honours degrees in a couple of institutions, but the lack of national planning is evident. College-based courses have closed. In other countries, we would have apprenticeships, with specialist colleges providing the off-the-job training, and there is no mechanism somehow, in our central government, for thinking about and providing these.
Another group which suffers from being small and low-profile is our rural population. Agricultural and land-based colleges, which have to offer residential accommodation, are often struggling. There was supposed to be a proper review of these colleges a few years back. If it happened, it certainly never saw the light of day outside DfE. Specialist adult colleges survive in London; outside, there is just Northern clinging on by its fingertips. We have a construction skills crisis and only one of our specialist construction colleges is left standing. All this has relevance because it points up that, at college level, there is no real mechanism for thinking about specialist groups, of which one of the most important is young people with learning difficulties and physical challenges. But they are not the only ones and their colleges are not catered for, because we have no proper national mechanism for thinking about such specialist provision. I urge the Minister to ensure that, within her department, more focused attention is paid to looking at what national provision is needed for post-school college opportunities.
I also want to raise a very specific issue, because I think it speaks to the current absence of dedicated attention. Many specialised colleges are not standard public sector institutions, and many rightly offer qualifications ranging right through to levels 4, 5 and 6, which is higher education. At present, there seems to be real confusion over how the new VAT requirements for private school fees will apply to higher-level qualifications in institutions that also offer lower-level ones. This issue has been raised with me and other noble Lords, with respect to the dance and drama awards, but the lack of clarity speaks to this general point I am trying to make.
Our higher education sector also has a multiplicity of institutions and, as far as I know, there has been no discussion of introducing VAT on fees in higher education, which would, of course, feed through to student loans. My sense is that the lack of clarity on what is happening in specialist institutions—which would have a knock-on effect—comes from the fact that nobody is in a position to demand and get clear guidance. Can the Minister ensure that the Government clarify this particular challenge?
I also have a much more ambitious request. For what we normally think of as the special needs population, but also for the other small, spread-out, critical, specialist and often needy groups, we need to think far more coherently about specialist college provision across the country as a whole.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Baroness Monckton, for securing this debate and offer my admiration for her commitment and eloquence in this field.
I formerly served as the chair of the National Society, as the lead bishop for education. In that capacity, I was given a very wide view of the brilliant provision that is made where specialist schools and colleges exist. I can point to such a school in north Wiltshire where teachers were so dedicated they were prepared to face a 150-mile round trip every day to serve in that special place.
I am also the bishop for the L’Arche community in the UK. With the Church of England, L’Arche, as part of its vision, seeks to educate people to live well together in a community. That seems to me something that is—or should be—a special part of any school, not least our special schools.
Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, I want to see an integrated ecology of special and mainstream schools. When I was Bishop of Ely, we won a bid with the DfE to have a single campus with a free school in partnership with a special school on the same site. I appreciate that there were expense issues in relation to that, but it seems to be an excellent model of an integrated approach.
I understand that the Minister in the other place talked this morning about wanting to have most children with special needs in mainstream schools so they can be with their friends. Of course, if you had an integrated campus, you would not only have friends but perhaps siblings meeting in the same setting as well.
We cannot get away from the fact that, at the moment, 150,000 young people across England attend specialist schools and colleges, but there are 1.9 million children and young people who have special educational needs—a figure identified in January 2024. The special schools we have, doing a marvellous job under huge pressure, are systematically underfunded and underresourced. In its report published today, the National Audit Office calculates that the demand for education and healthcare plans has increased by 140% since 2015. There are simply not enough places and this needs to be addressed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, eloquently described. Individualised and complex support cannot be provided in blanket terms in mainstream schools. Nor can mainstream schools provide what I have witnessed broadly: the key importance of college places for people with a disability up to the age of 25, and all that has already been said about how important that is for accessing employment and, as part of the vision for education that the Church of England sustains, how we exercise a proper understanding of the rare dignity of all people, not least those living with disability.
The deficit in special needs education in mainstream schools is also very clear. I recently opened a new building at one of our 142 Church schools in the diocese of Lincoln: St John’s, Spalding. The school is experiencing a serious rise in the number of children with profound SEND needs. Clare Robinson, the head teacher, emphasised to me the impossible position that her staff face when SEND funding is entirely insufficient to cover the cost to employ the requisite personnel with training and expertise. This is also where specialist schools come into play, as they can actually send out experts to support mainstream schools in the delivery of special education in those other places. Clare and her colleagues have gone to extraordinary lengths to support their students. For instance, this has involved making a new multi-purpose area to serve as both a kids’ club and a space for interventions with SEND pupils. I saw this for myself, and it is a marvellous development, but the measure merely scratches the surface of what is needed because the school can cater for only its youngest students in this way.
I plead that the Government make sure that special schools not only continue and grow but continue to offer the specialist medical care, occupational and physical therapy, small class sizes, and all the activities and bespoke support which provide and ensure consistency of care for children and mitigated stresses for families.
As I said, the Church is committed to educating for dignity and respect. Given that Church schools are in such demand, I hope that it is possible for the Government to consider the Church being allowed to engage in developing special schools, not least because of falling school rolls and the reallocation of Church school buildings, which could become Church-based specialist schools. This, I hope, would help to improve the access for children in any kind of need.
I submit that denying children and young people with special needs the access to the specialist support they need is in fact a fundamental issue and affects everyone’s human rights. I am delighted that the Government are determined to continue to expand their work in this area, and I look forward to full developments brought to us very closely in the near future.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, for organising this important debate. She is clearly such a passionate and moving advocate for her cause. In fact, a very dear friend—my best friend—who is a parent of two children with special educational needs has just messaged me to say that, watching the noble Baroness’s opening comments, she feels tearful that this is being debated in such a serious, sensitive and meaningful way.
The debate is also very timely. As has just been mentioned, the National Audit Office has just published a report which says that the special educational needs system is simply not delivering for children and their families, and very importantly, nor is it
“preventing local authorities from facing significant financial risks”.
I begin by paying tribute to the many excellent specialist schools and colleges across the country and their staff. They do such vital work for children and young people of all ages and backgrounds, many of whom have complex needs. As we have just heard so eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, they provide a safe, compassionate, respectful, and—we forget this word—fun environment for the individual to develop and learn. They are often a lifeline for parents and families. Many also have a real focus on practical, vocational skills, to help equip a young adult for future life, to get into the workplace and get a job. That is so important.
When we have these discussions about children and young people with special educational needs, we often talk about them as though they are a different species from a different planet. I say this as a journalist, and I think my profession can be very guilty of this. We often use negative, hostile language, calling them a “problem” or a “ticking time bomb”—but they are human beings, just like anyone else, and they are someone’s precious and much-loved child or grandchild.
We should also want every child to have the best chance to make the most of themselves. Not only is it the right thing to do but it is the right thing for wider society. We want people to find suitable and sustainable work and to make a contribution. On a very basic human level, we want people to be able to build a good life.
Many children and young people just cannot access all these specialist facilities. That is why, like many others, I will move the debate on to what is happening in mainstream education. Many children with special educational needs who end up in a specialist institution will have often started out in mainstream education, so that part of the jigsaw cannot be ignored.
There are around 1.9 million children who have special educational needs, although this figure is probably much higher in real life. Whether you like that figure or not, we have to accept that there is real demand for special educational needs and that we all have a stake in improving the situation, because the current system is not working.
It is also unhelpful is to make comments such as those made by one of the contenders vying to be the next leader of the Opposition, who endorsed a pamphlet that argued:
“If you have a neurodiversity diagnosis”
and if
“you are a child, you may well get better treatment or equipment at school”.
I am afraid that idea is woefully out of touch with the lived reality and experience that so many parents face. Most parents in this situation are absolutely exhausted; they have been ground down and are tearing their hair out, trying to navigate and battle their way through this punishing, broken system. As we have heard, trying to get an education, health and care plan can become a full-time job. I know so many friends who are parents—most of whom are mums—who have had to stop working to battle away on behalf of their children. That is a loss of income for that family, a loss of a job for that parent and a loss for the economy. What about the parents who do not have the time, stomach or ability to take on the system? Do their kids simply get left behind? That cannot be right.
Having spoken to some parents and excellent teachers in preparation for this debate, I have a few ideas that they have put forward and that I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider. So many people have said that transport is absolutely critical. It sounds like a small thing, but it makes all the difference; it is something that can really help to get children to school. Yesterday in this Chamber, we discussed absenteeism and we all agreed, across the House, that it is so important to get children into school.
Teaching assistants also came up in my conversations. Again, they can make a massive difference to support teachers and pupils in schools. Perhaps now is the time to start treating teaching assistants with greater status and make the role more like a graduate job—giving them greater respect and maybe paying them a bit more—so that they can specialise in special educational needs, such as speech and language therapy.
We also need more resources in mainstream schools. Some very good work has been done on secondary schools, but we must also focus on primary schools. Early detection and intervention are vital, particularly at key stages 1 and 2, to help with identification, which will help children and their parents.
We also know that better mental health provision is important here and that waiting lists have soared post Covid. Getting mental health services into schools, and making them hubs, is important. This new Government are keen to do that, and I am sure that we will all welcome it.
The fiscal climate is incredibly difficult right now and we are of course waiting for the much-anticipated Budget, but we simply cannot afford not to fix the system. It is not all about throwing more money at the issue; it is about how it is used. As one excellent SEN teacher told me, money alone will not fix this; having the right people in place is what will make a difference. This is an important debate, and I hope that there will be agreement across the House that the hallmark of a good society is the welfare and education of all our children.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, special educational needs, or SEN, and special education needs and disabilities, or SEND, cover a wide variety of needs, including dyslexia and autism.
Two out of four of our children are dyslexic. When our younger son Josh was in kindergarten, it was spotted by a teacher. His next school gave up on him by the age of seven, and he went to a specialist school across the river, Fairley House, where they tried, and then he went on to Bruern Abbey at the age of nine, a boarding school near Oxford, which specialises in dyslexia and dyspraxia. He entered that school barely able to read or write and was innumerate—he could not even hold his pencil. He left four years later, coming top of the school in his common entrance, and scraped into what is—whether you like it or not—one of the best schools in the world, Eton. At that school, where they mark you out of the whole year, he came 262 out of 262 in his exams in his first couple of years: bottom of the school. With special-needs, one-to-one help at that school and everything else it offered, he left Eton with three A*s in his A-levels, entered the London School of Economics and has just graduated with a first-class degree in international history.
Why was that possible? First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, it was because of early detection: that teacher who spotted it when he was in kindergarten; and, secondly, intensive help, which was provided to him at Fairley House, at Bruern Abbey and at Eton. What are the Government doing to encourage those two things? For early detection, we should train every teacher in this country to be able to spot dyslexia or dyspraxia and to provide the special needs.
I qualified as a chartered accountant with Ernst & Young—EY—here in London, which produced a report in conjunction with Made by Dyslexia called The Value of Dyslexia: Dyslexic Capability and Organisations of the Future. There are a couple of quotes in there. Steve Hatch of Facebook said:
“Dyslexic thinkers are often able to see connections that others may miss, and create narratives that can simplify complex products or tasks”.
There is another quote from Jonnie Goodwin, whom I know:
“Dyslexia should not be viewed as a disadvantage, but a strength”.
The report summarises the top dyslexic strengths and trending competencies in all industries that they are exceptional at: active learning, originality, spatial abilities, idea generation and reasoning abilities, creativity, social influence, innovation, and leadership. I have seen this at first hand.
I am privileged to know one of my heroes, Dame Stephanie Shirley—we call her Steve. She is the biggest benefactor of autism in the world and has set up a school in memory of her son, who was severely autistic: the Prior’s Court school. When I asked her what her school does that helps autistic children, she noted: specialised education, which can
“help mainstream schools to support autistic learners”;
inclusive expertise:
“Special schools often act as centres of excellence”;
holistic support:
“Integrate education with mental and physical therapies, reducing call on public health services”;
vocational training; advocacy for student rights:
“Raise awareness of rights and needs”;
assistive technology:
“Specialist school pilot of the use of assistive technology”;
parental involvement:
“Support the child within the family”;
and structured environment:
“What is essential in special education is good practice generally”.
She is 90 years old and is still going strong.
By the end of 2023-24, there were 1.6 million children in England with SEN—the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, gave a figure of 1.9 million—and of these, around 434,000 had an education, health and care plan, with autism being one of the most common situations.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, for leading this debate and for her excellent opening speech. In special education settings, if you have smaller classes, specialised staff, tailored equipment and focus on life skills training, 90% of parents whose children attend special schools feel that their children are well supported compared with only 59% of parents with children in mainstream schools. We need more special schools. The Government have spent £2.6 billion on SEND provision; I point out to the Minister that we surely need to spend more on this. In addition, by May 2023, two-thirds of special schools were operating at or above capacity, leading to further strain on the sector.
This debate is very timely. On 21 October, just a few days ago, the Financial Times ran an article headed “The funding crisis threatening England’s special needs education”, which said:
“The Department for Education said it was focused on ‘fixing the foundations’ of local government, providing long-term stability through multiyear funding settlements and ending the need for councils to spend time and money bidding for pots of government cash. However, with the number of children with EHC plans in England rising to more than 434,000 over the past eight years, surging Send deficits leave many councils with near-impossible choices to meet their obligations”.
Do the Government recognise this?
The article went on to say:
“Sam Freedman, a former government education policy adviser, said the rapid rise in EHC plans reflected a decade of cuts to other Send support in mainstream schools, such as specialist teachers and occupational therapists. This had led to a ‘vicious cycle’ in educational funding as parents turned to EHC plans to get support. ‘The lack of early-years intervention and a lack of other kinds of provision means that the only way for parents to obtain help and funding is by obtaining a statement, which means more money is sucked into plans, so there is less money for everything else,’ he added.
Demand has far outstripped the capacity of state-funded special schools, forcing councils to pay for much more expensive privately run alternatives … The Department for Education said children with Send had been ‘let down’ by the system and it was determined to tackle the issues with better inclusivity and expertise within mainstream schools. … Freedman said any solution must involve giving parents other options than seeking a Send plan for their child, although he admitted this would be challenging at a time of fiscal belt-tightening”.
Surely the Government realise that the solution is more funding overall for government schools, including special needs schools.
Just yesterday, my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister about the proposals for VAT on independent schools’ fees. Of course, this issue affects all private schools specialising in special needs as well. I quote the noble Lord’s letter, with his permission:
“It is true that from December 2018 to December 2023 there has been a 20.4% increase in independent school fees but this is over a six-year period during which the average yearly increase in fees was 3.4%. Similarly, since 2005 there has been an increase in independent school fees of 77.2% but the average yearly increase from December 2005 to December 2023 has been 4.06%. It is, therefore, complete nonsense to conclude that this provides the evidence of the ability of independent school parents, having coped with these small yearly increases in fees, often being matched by increases in their wages … It will cause great damage to the Government, which you lead, to have launched a policy which provides no benefit to the state sector and much suffering by pupils and their parents of ordinary working people whose only ‘sin’ has been, at their considerable cost, seeking to provide for their children a better education”.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register, including as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank my noble friend Lady Monckton for this debate on the important contribution that specialist schools and colleges make to SEND education.
I want to focus a bit more on the broader landscape and the valued role that they play as part of the SEND system. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the SEND system is failing. It is failing children, parents, schools and local government. We have a system that is hugely expensive, is complex, is adversarial and delivers poor outcomes.
I say “system”, but I am not sure that it is a system. That is the problem. Although there are many good parts—noble Lords have mentioned some great special schools, individuals who work hard to deliver great outcomes and parents who do their best to support their children—it does not operate as a system. It is not coherent. Not all parts are working together co-operatively and coherently to achieve the best outcomes for children.
The facts speak for themselves. Since 2014, we have seen the number of children with EHCPs more than double. The national high needs block funding for SEND has increased from around £5 billion to nearly £10 billion. Councils are spending an additional amount of nearly £1 billion on top of that. School transport costs have ballooned. The cumulative high needs deficit has risen from £300 million five years ago to more than £3 billion now.
Despite investment in special schools, it has not kept pace with demand. One noble Lord said that there had been an increase in demand of 140%. We have seen a 51% increase in placements in state-funded special schools and a 164% increase in non-maintained special schools over the last 10 years. This leaves those special schools under huge pressure.
Despite the increasing numbers and a significant increase in investment, there have not been improved outcomes. If anything, it has got worse. Young people with SEN with achievement at level 2 at 19 are declining faster than the mainstream average. Other indicators such as employment have not improved, despite some great examples in certain places, as my noble friend Lady Monckton mentioned.
In a survey by Isos of people working in the system, 97% said that the system is not working well in supporting children and young people with SEN to achieve good outcomes. The system is broken. We have moved to an exclusive rather than an inclusive system, with more pupils attending specialist schools, which is appropriate for some but not necessarily for everyone, often some distance from where they live, increasing numbers of specialist payments and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, pointed out, an alarming increase in the number having home education with specialist, bespoke packages.
It is a system based on legal frameworks that has driven a complete lack of trust. Schools find themselves lacking resources and specialist support for SEN pupils, and hence are incentivised to get an EHCP to get more resources or to offload a high-resource pupil. Parents seeking support for their child find that it is not available and can be achieved only through an EHCP. The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, mentioned the difficulties of navigating this complex process. Local authorities have responsibility but neither the resources nor the levers to support SEN pupils, leading to rationing. There is a lack of capacity in mental health support, educational psychiatrists, speech and language therapists, specialist SENCOs and so on to deliver what is needed. The legal framework is vague and open to interpretation. It encourages an adversarial and legal-based approach, with prescriptive plans delivered through legal argument rather than being focused on children.
The system is opaque and hard to navigate for parents. The pushing of pupils to special schools means that there is a shortage of capacity for those who most need it, and the financial costs are simply unsustainable. In short, it is a system with perverse incentives that has led to a vicious circle, encouraging a legal-based, specialist approach. It sucks resources away from much-needed mainstream support and support to enable those needing more specialist support to receive it, as my noble friend Lady Monckton pointed out.
It can be done differently. It happens in some parts of the country and there are many good examples in Europe, so it is not impossible. We know how to fix this system. We need a system where inclusion is the norm, where parents and schools do not need an EHCP to get the support they need, where local authorities have not just the responsibility but the resources and levers to deliver, and where there is clear understanding for all parties of what support to expect and the confidence that it will be delivered. We need a system that does not require resorting to legal process and with a clear focus on delivering improved outcomes.
This will not be easy, not because it is technically or financially difficult—as I said earlier, successful models exist—but because there has been a complete breakdown of trust in the current system from all parties, which understandably are very protective of what they have. This mould needs to be broken, and it needs to be done on a cross-party basis.
Fortunately, there are good proposals on the table as to what can be done, as outlined in some of the proposals from the previous Government’s SEND review and the recently published Isos report commissioned by the LGA and CCN. What do we need? The Government should set out a new national ambition based on two core principles—promoting inclusion in education and preparing young people for adult life. We need a clear framework that describes levels and types of needs, including reform of the statutory framework so that it is clear what support should be available for each level of need, whether that is mainstream or in special schools. We need a clear framework for how partners will work together, aligning responsibilities with delivery and aligning transition points, and including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln pointed out, linking specialist schools to mainstream so that there is mutual support.
We should be ambitious for our children. All plans should seek to improve outcomes and support the transition to adulthood. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, early identification is important and we need to get it right. We need to move away from a legalistic, tribunal-based system, which does not help anyone.
While it requires upfront investment to build capacity in mainstream schools and additional specialist support—such as for speech and language, with educational psychologists and in specialist schools and colleges—the savings from reducing higher-cost placements and transport, legal and other costs would more than compensate, while delivering better outcomes and sustainability. This will enable special needs schools and colleges to fulfil their important role as part of a positively functioning system. The Government’s proposals to require all schools to co-operate with local authorities on SEND admission, SEND inclusion and mental health support are a positive first step, but we need to go much further.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House once again of my declared interests. I am president of the British Dyslexia Association and chairman of Microlink PC, an assistive tech company that had an interest in education historically.
This has been a much wider-ranging debate than I was expecting. I felt that the original thrust from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, was on a more specialist and important part of this thing—the areas of special educational needs and preparation for adult life—but we have ranged widely here and on to territory that we covered in my Question this morning. But there is a degree of consensus, which happily the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, put his finger on.
I believe in the cock-up school of history. The idea of having a nice, special, personal entitlement to deal with the problem has fed the lawyers and no one else. It has meant that the government system has, in effect, become dependent on the private sector to fulfil some of its needs. We have a big problem here.
One of the things that will help—I do not think I disagree with anybody here—is early recognition, particularly of mainstream conditions. The consensus is that in most cases they can be dealt with in the normal classroom, or at least within supported units in the school. Dyslexia undoubtedly fits that, if you allow it to.
The first thing to say is something on which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, have crossed swords—although I felt that she probably had a sword in her own back at the time. It is the fact that you must have flexibility to allow somebody to succeed. Those with dyslexia learn differently. We always tend to go to our own little area first, and this is very true of the dyslexic. I hope, for instance, that at some point in the future the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, announces that the Government have removed the requirement to teach English in only one way. Systematic synthetic phonics overloads the short-term memory, which means that many dyslexics and other groups do not find it a friendly process and many cannot learn by it.
We equip teachers to give specialist support in different ways because, if you have failed once with some teaching process by which the majority pass, it means that you are not absorbing in that way. Giving a child more help in that line will just undermine them further.
We have ways of dealing with that, such as with technology. I bet that in all noble Lords’ pockets is a device that you can press a button and dictate to. True, the AI does not quite match up to my vocabulary on all occasions yet, but it is getting there. That is available on computers, but we need to make sure it is better available. That means a slight reordering of the classroom, but we can do it at university—indeed, it is a legal requirement—so why do we not bring those bits of knowledge together?
It has been said that the system is not joined up. I have spoken about this on so many occasions that many of the veterans of this Chamber will probably be able to start quoting me back, but the fact of the matter is that we have to be flexible to allow this to happen. This requires different uses of resources and capacity within the school system to spot and implement change for most of the most commonly occurring conditions at certain levels. If we get that right, these people stand a chance of getting the skills to progress through to training and other activities.
I talk about dyslexia too much because I know about it. I also know that I do not know that much about the other groups. We need a lot of expertise—more than can be provided by one person. Relying on the SENCO has to be a thing of the past. SENCOs might co-ordinate a group of experts but they will need more people, more resource, more knowledge and the authority to tell that teacher in, for instance, a maths class that bad short-term memory means that someone with dyslexia will not remember equations and formulae. That means they can understand a concept but will not be able to implement it in classroom tests. Do most maths and physics teachers know that? No, not because they are essentially evil but because they have not been trained.
I will now get away from my particular hobby-horse and go back to where the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, brought us in. Other groups will have different requirements. If you have major problems with life skills or learning difficulties or autism, you have other requirements and might need better support. That is one thing that was built into the education and health care plan; I did not think I would ever say a good word about it, but support until 25 is a good idea as you will need it later. How will the Government make sure that we continue to give that support and prepare people to be able to function as independent adults in later life?
There is one thing that we often forget when we talk about this. It is that the people we are talking about are going to grow up. Let us hope that they will grow up and be able to function as individuals with technology, approach and flexibility, and are told how to ask for help. Even if an institution is prepared to help, being told how to ask for it is essential. We have to make sure that people are prepared. People learn at different levels and at different rates. How have they got this going forward?
A group that will talk to you about this is the parents. They live with a little nagging doubt, which can grow to a huge fear on their shoulder, about what will happen to their child as an adult when they are not there. Think about it: they will not be able to function, to go forward, or to have normal lives. Unless we interact with that fear to support them, we will let down everybody involved. This sector is still driven by tiger parents. I hope the Minister will be able to announce reforms and changes that will start to stop that, but at the moment it is. We have so many parents who are worried about the future of their child, and whose entire lives become driven around supporting their child. I hope the Minister will be able to start this process. I do not expect all the answers today, but she could start the process of engaging with it, because it has been known. None of this should come as a surprise to anybody who has been around this for any length of time.
We have to make sure we have a process whereby there is support in the education system and in training people to ask for help. Dyslexic people will not ask for a spelling check or a place to quietly go and process something, because they think that means weakness. I had two interns, and both had the disabled students’ allowance, for different reasons. Only once they saw the work that I was doing here were they prepared to admit that they had that help, and a slight change in working processes went through. I thought I had “dyslexic and disabled-friendly” stamped in the middle of my forehead, but they were still frightened of mentioning it. Just think about that.
How do we approach this issue? How do we go forward? How does the Department for Education encourage the other bits of society to become more user friendly? How do we stop saying, “Oh, that’s a problem that is dealt with in only one place”? This is a big topic, but remembering that education lasts a lifetime, and that the Department for Education is only the first step down that path, will be a real step forward. I hope we hear about those first steps today.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest on securing this important debate, on the truly dignified way in which she made her remarks and on combining such practical examples with deep expertise and understanding of this topic.
This has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate. We have heard from across the House that every one of your Lordships wants an education system that helps all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities to thrive, fulfil their potential and lead fulfilling lives, whether they are in special schools or mainstream education. We recognise the important role played by our special colleges, which support young people with special educational needs both academically and in order to make the transition to more independent living, to reduce isolation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, pointed out, and indeed to remove stigma, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
We have heard this afternoon that, as we knew before we came into the Chamber, this sector faces many challenges. Perhaps the most immediate that we heard in the debate, from all noble Lords, is the rising demand for specialist provision and the pressures that places on funding. It was in recognition of that growing need that the last Conservative Government increased the high-needs budget to £10.5 billion in 2024-25, which was a 60% increase on the figure in 2019-20. To help to increase capacity, £2.6 billion is being invested from 2022 to 2025 to fund new specialist places and improve existing provision. When complete, that investment in special schools will provide an additional 60,000 places.
As we all know, though, the level of need continues to outstrip that, with real consequences for parents who are looking for a place for their children, and for their children. It was the lack of consistent support and outcomes that led to the development of the SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan that we published last year, which was designed to ensure high-quality early support for every child regardless of where they live. At its core was an attempt to deal with the feeling that too many parents are having to battle with the system to get help, that too many parents have lost trust in the system, that we are not offering them the confidence that their children can realise their potential and, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson said, that the system needs to be on a financially sustainable footing.
There are two key areas within that, so that children can get the right support in the right place and at the right time. One is about having a national system with national standards to deliver consistent, clear and early support. The second is about moves to improve the timeliness and quality of education, health and care plans by adopting a standardised and digitised template to deal with some of the burden and stress that parents face, as we have heard, when they try to make those applications. It would be reassuring if the Minister could just comment on whether the Government plan to continue with those two initiatives, particularly given the level of consultation that underpinned those decisions.
The pressures that we are seeing on special schools, many of which we know are operating over capacity, also make the Government’s proposal to impose VAT on independent schools from 1 January 2025 even more misguided. We know that around 100,000 children and young people without an EHCP receive specialist SEND support in independent schools. Putting VAT on their fees risks disrupting their education, particularly as it is being in brought part-way through the school year.
As the Minister knows, on these Benches we think the Government should drop this policy in its entirety or, at the very least, delay it. But I suggest the Government should look at a particular area: the position of the 130 specialist FE colleges that provide training for young people with complex needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and my noble friend Lady Monckton pointed out, all of their students are publicly funded through the high needs system. If these colleges are required to charge VAT, the purchasing local authority would simply reclaim it, resulting in no actual financial benefit to the public purse but considerable bureaucracy. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider reviewing that.
We know that our special schools and colleges perform a crucial role but it is also the case that the relationship between special school and mainstream provision is important, as we heard in particular from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. We are concerned that the demand pressures that have built up in recent years, which were also highlighted in the National Audit Office report today, are leading to other impacts, including a worrying increase in the number of home-educated children with special educational needs. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who is not in his place, and the Minister have plans for legislation in this area. I look forward very much to those debates.
We support the principle of assuring that all children receive a suitable education. More broadly, we look forward to hearing more from the Government in the coming months about how they will improve their use of data in this area, as also recommended in the NAO report, in predicting changes in demand for special educational needs and disability provision, and how they will build on some of the excellent work which officials had already started, to ensure that expansions in capacity are done in the right place.
There is one topic which I think has not come up in your Lordships’ debate this afternoon, which is alternative provision. The previous Government intentionally brought together our strategies for children with special educational needs and disabilities with those in alternative provision, given the very high incidence of special educational needs among those children. In fact, my first visit as a Minister was to a school near Bristol for children who had been excluded from other schools. Some were as young as five and it was clear that they needed many things from the system, but two stayed with me.
First, for very young children, it seems obvious that they need a clear route to return to mainstream education. All children should have access to integrated care teams so that all their wider needs can be met and again, where possible, they can return to mainstream. My understanding is that there were some encouraging results from the DfE’s specialist task force pilot—only the DfE could come up with that name—where there was a multiagency response for those children. I would encourage the Minister to consider continuing with that.
To conclude, there is unity in this House about the desire to ensure that the SEND system works better and provides the support and outcomes that children and people with special educational needs and disabilities deserve. I think we are also in agreement that this is one of the hardest areas of policy to get right—although I was encouraged by my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s remarks in this regard. I would like to reassure the Minister that, in opposition, we will work constructively with the Government to try to get this right for children and their families.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as others have, I will start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, for securing this debate on the contribution of special schools and colleges. The noble Baroness and I did our maiden speeches on the same day and she has continued to be, as she was then, an enormously important advocate both for the project that she leads and for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
I am also grateful for the excellent contributions today from across the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there has been a breadth of discussion. There has also been an understandable use of personal experience and an emphasis on the experiences of individual children. As my noble friend Lady Hazarika said, this is about how we ensure that every child gets the best possible start in life and the best possible opportunities to achieve their potential in life. That is why we said in our manifesto that we were committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity, so that every child, regardless of their background, their family circumstances or their needs, is supported to achieve and thrive.
Sadly, that is not happening in our special educational needs and disability system at the moment. We have inherited a system in crisis. As others have identified, it is a crisis of provision and a crisis of confidence. Outcomes for children and young people are often poor in a system which can be adversarial for parents and carers to navigate. This was reinforced this morning with the publication of the National Audit Office’s report referenced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. The NAO report on the SEND system exposes the full extent of the failure. It reveals a system that has been neglected to the point of crisis and, consequently, has failed children and families with special educational needs on every measure.
I also identified that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, in a broad speech, concluded that the one answer was more money. Of course it is important that this area receives the resources it needs, but one of the most worrying things about the National Audit Office report was that it identified that, although the annual budget has risen by 58% in a decade, this has not led to better outcomes for children with special educational needs. Money is not enough in this case. I think that is because—as I the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, very ably spelled out—we have a whole range of pressures and a whole system that is broken. Therefore, we need to take a systemic and radical approach to the way in which we think about special educational needs and disabilities.
It is both a cause and an effect that, in recent years, we have seen a significant surge in demand for SEN support in education, health and care plans, and in special school placements. The number of children and young people with EHCPs has increased markedly, from 330,000 in 2021-22 to 400,000 by 2023-24. That rise is particularly pronounced among specific need types. Over this period, the number of children and young people with autism recorded as their primary need grew by 27.9%. Similarly, those with speech, language and communication needs have seen an increase of 36.4%, and those with social, emotional and mental health needs have risen by 25.4%. Those sharp increases highlight the growing pressures on the SEND system. As noble Lords identified, they also demonstrate the need for not only an education-wide response but a government-wide response, where the contribution of health, for example, will also be important.
The Government’s ambition is that all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, or in alternative provision, receive the right support to succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. That is why we are committed to taking a community-wide approach, improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream settings, as well as ensuring that specialist settings cater to those with the most complex needs.
My noble friend Lady Hazarika talked about the experience of many families and children in mainstream schools, where their failure to get the support necessary drives them into this battle for an education, health and care plan. Today, we have published independently commissioned insight that suggests that, if the system were extensively improved, using early intervention and better resourcing in mainstream schools, that could lead to tens of thousands more children and young people having their needs met without an EHCP, and having their needs met in a mainstream setting rather than a specialist placement. That is what is at stake here. We are determined to rebuild families’ confidence in a system that so many rely on. There will be no more short-termism when it comes to the life chances of some of our most vulnerable children. We understand how urgently we need to address this, but the reform that families are crying out for will take time.
I say to my noble friend Lady Morris that that will obviously mean that there will need to be a further opportunity for debate—in this House, yes, but also across the country, with the families, the children and those who are supporting them also having the opportunity to take part. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is absolutely determined to engage widely as we do this.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, made an important contribution when he talked about the role of parents—the significance of the support they provide to their children, the crucial relationship they need with the schools and, of course, their contribution to the debate. Their voices and concerns must be heard as we take forward systemic reform in this area.
We also understand that people are impatient and we have already taken several steps to deliver on this vision. We have restructured the Department for Education, with much more focus on support for children and young people with SEND as part of our schools provision. The part of the department that does the core work on SEND and alternative provision has moved into the schools group, so it sits under the Schools Minister and the schools director-general. It is being considered as a central component of that wider schools work, including school standards, curriculum and assessment, and the operation of the education system as a whole.
We have begun the work to address the serious workforce challenge facing the school system. We are recruiting an additional 6,500 teachers while providing support to areas facing specific recruitment challenges. We are investing over £21 million this year to train 400 additional educational psychologists, ensuring better support and education for our young people.
The noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Addington, and others rightly emphasised the need for early intervention and identification. We are similarly determined, therefore, that the early years sector receives the support it needs to grow and to develop further skills. In September, the department published a new, free online training module and SEND assessment guidance and resources for early educators aimed at supporting children with developmental differences and with special educational needs and disabilities. In the new core schools budget grant in July, we provided special and alternative-provision schools with more than £140 million of extra funding to help with the extra cost of this year’s teachers’ pay award and the outcome of the pay increase negotiations for support staff. This is important to support the recruitment, retention and development of dedicated specialist and support staff, ensuring that they continue to play that crucial role in providing high-quality education and care for pupils with SEND. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, special schools and colleges employ a high proportion of such support staff. They play a critical role in the education of the children and young people with the most complex needs, building that team around the child that is so crucial.
We also know how vital it is that all our children have strong speech and language skills. That is why this Government will roll out early language interventions to make sure that all our children get support at the earliest possible point, including continuing the support for the 11,100 schools registered for the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme, because it is important that we make a difference when our children are young.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about the contribution of technology support for pupils with SEND, with rapid improvements in the accessibility features built into standard devices. Schools now have more access to assistive technology than ever before, and evidence shows that when used effectively it is a key component of high-quality teaching for pupils with SEND. The Government are committed to helping teachers use technology to support their students with SEND, and we are embedding evidence-based practice, broadening the effective use of assistive technology through research, training, and guidance.
My noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly talked about the importance of the curriculum and assessment in how we support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. In launching the independent curriculum and assessment review chaired by Professor Becky Francis, we have been clear that the review will look closely at the barriers to progress and how we can achieve good outcomes specifically for those with special educational needs and disabilities. Last month, the review launched a call for evidence which will give stakeholders in the SEND sector an opportunity to have their say on the curriculum and assessment system, including what currently works well and where things could be improved.
Several noble Lords talked about the importance of preparing children and young people for adulthood, and that has to be at the heart of the SEND system. We know that, with the right support, the vast majority of young people with SEND are capable of sustained paid employment and living full lives, and they should be supported to achieve that outcome. To help with this, we are supporting schools and colleges to work in line with the Gatsby benchmarks to address individual needs and to raise career aspirations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, raised the issue of how we can ensure that young people with SEND are able to access apprenticeships. I strongly agree with her about that. We have already expanded the flexibility of English and maths requirements for apprentices with learning difficulties or disabilities, allowing those without an EHCP but facing barriers to achieving level 2 qualifications to complete entry level 3 instead. We are also investing £18 million to March next year to double the number of supported internships, and we are testing this model with young people to support even more young people to achieve, thrive and transition into employment. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point about further flexibility in the apprenticeships programme, and I shall certainly reflect carefully on that.
In thinking about further education, it is of course the case that lots of general further education colleges are doing very good work in the area of special educational needs. But, for young people whose needs cannot be met in general further education colleges, specialist post-16 institutions play an integral role in providing that specialist further education provision. In 2024-25 there were 118 of those institutions for students receiving high-needs funding. It is also worth saying that young people with SEND who choose to progress to university should also continue to access high-quality support. As of the most recent data, almost one-fifth of English higher education students had a disability. Under the Equality Act, all HE providers have a responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for their disabled students, and the Office for Students requires registered HE providers to take all reasonable steps to ensure that students are supported. In their access and participation plans, providers must also outline how they will improve opportunity for underrepresented groups, including disabled students, to access, succeed in and progress from higher education.
Ultimately, we want more children and young people to receive the support they need to thrive in their local mainstream setting, reducing the need for them to travel a long way to access a specialist placement and, as several noble Lords have said, enabling them to learn alongside their friends. Many mainstream settings are already going above and beyond to deliver specialist provision locally, including through resourced provision and SEN units. But there will also always be a place in the system for special schools and colleges for children with the most complex needs.
As we have heard today, special schools and specialist post-16 colleges make an invaluable contribution to the education of nearly 200,000 learners, supporting them to achieve and thrive. Their staff work tirelessly to support children and young people and I take this opportunity to thank them for their dedication. I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Morris about how the range of staff and the skills that exist in specialist schools and colleges can inform teachers in all our schools. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln said, that role of staff and where possible that collocation can enable everybody to benefit. Specialist staff across schools and colleges play a fundamental role in educating children and young people with SEND and supporting their preparation for adulthood.
We have also seen some really positive partnerships between specialist and mainstream colleges that enhance the educational experience for children and young people with SEND. For example, Orchard Hill College and Crawley College have collaborated to support learners with complex health needs, enabling them to access mainstream courses with tailored care plans. Similarly, Newfriars College and Newcastle and Staffordshire Colleges Group are working together to create new supported internships and work placement opportunities, open to students from both settings. Those are the types of partnerships that enable the very best specialist, understanding staff and provision to be shared for all to use.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, talked about other specialist colleges and I take her point about the need for us to have a view about how more broadly specialist colleges need to be organised and contribute to the system. I shall certainly take that point away and take up the challenge to look at that provision.
Several noble Lords once again took the opportunity to raise the issue of VAT on independent school fees. I reiterate, as I have said on every single occasion, that local authority funding already supports the vast majority of pupils with EHCPs who attend independent schools, and they will not be impacted by the introduction of VAT for private schools. Next week, in the Budget, the tax information and impact note will include the impact on special educational needs. I assure noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, that the Treasury has been considering how VAT might apply to post-16 institutions; the Government will publish the results of that consultation soon.
For too long, the education system has not met the needs of all children and young people, including those with special educational needs and disability. Educational outcomes for children and young people are too poor, after years of councils and parents being pitted against each other. Special schools and specialist colleges, such as Team Domenica, make an enormous contribution to the education and care of thousands of children and young people, helping them to learn, achieve and prepare for adulthood.
We will work to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need in a mainstream setting if that is the right place for them, and that there will always be a place in specialist settings for children and young people with the most complex needs. That is central to improving the life chances of children and young people across the country, and I look forward to working with noble Lords to make that vision a reality.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for pointing out that special schools have improved—when you are mired in it, it is a very difficult thing to remember—and that we have come a long way since we used the term “ineducable”. That is very important. She also pointed out that the assessment framework—the exams taken—needs to focus much more on the purpose of getting people into work. That needs to be looked at.
I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for saying that parents should never be forgotten. Parents are absolutely key; if you do not have parents on board, it is very difficult to do what is necessary for the young people. They really need to be on side, and to be looked after. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, they are absolutely exhausted most of the time—I speak as one; it really is very tiring a lot of the time.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for what was the most important phrase of the debate: the rare dignity of all people. That is what it is. I think too of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about social mobility. When you are with somebody with a learning disability, they do not care who you are, they do not know who you are, and they do not care what you earn or where you come from. It makes you strip off mask after mask, until you are there in a proper shared humanity—that is what it means.
I am not going to go on—I have never done this before—but I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am very grateful.