Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13 November 2024

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Facial Recognition: Police Use

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sir John Whittingdale to move the motion, I would like to inform Members that the parliamentary digital communication team will be conducting secondary filming during this debate.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered police use of live facial recognition technology.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the police’s use of live facial recognition technology. I have to say that this debate is somewhat overdue.

Any fan of Hollywood movies would think that the use of facial recognition technology is widespread, as in “The Bourne Ultimatum” and “Spooks”, and that it is commonplace for MI5 and the CIA to tap into CCTV cameras across London. I do not believe that is correct— I hope it is not—but police forces are using facial recognition technology more and more. It was first used in 2017, and it is now commonly used by the Metropolitan police, South Wales police and now my own police force in Essex, which purchased two vans in August and use it regularly.

On 4 October, I accompanied police officers on a deployment in Chelmsford High Street, who were hugely helpful in explaining to me exactly how they use the technology and, importantly, what controls are in place. They told me that they had a watch list of 639 individuals who had been approved by the superintendent and were wanted for questioning in relation to offences such as violence against the person. They included people with outstanding warrants, suspects linked to county lines, suspected shoplifters in that particular part of the county, and those with a sexual harm prevention order.

In the course of the 30 minutes or so that I spent with those officers, they recorded 1,500 faces of people who passed by. The officers assured me that those images were matched against the watch list to see whether they registered a positive, and if they did not they were deleted in less than half a second. During the time I was there, there were approximately 10 positives, which led to a conversation: a police officer would go and have a polite exchange to find out why the person had registered positive, and they were checked against the Police National Computer or Athena. That morning, that led to two arrests.

The chief constable of Essex has written to me and colleagues to emphasise the effectiveness of the technology and its importance to that force. He told me that they had so far had 25 deployments across Essex, resulting in 26 arrests and 26 other positive disposals. He said:

“This cutting-edge technology has enabled us to keep the public safe, and can save time and effort of our front-line, allowing them to do other work to protect and support the community.”

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. There are suggestions that this technology disproportionately misidentifies black people and people from other communities. Does he agree that the Government must give us more assurances and ensure that more black people are not criminalised? We know that black communities are over-policed and underserved.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I certainly agree that more assurances need to be given. That is actually one of the purposes behind requesting this debate. The hon. Lady is right that concerns have been expressed—

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), but it goes deeper than that. There are at least three conditions that ought to apply, and I would be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) whether Essex met them. First, these things always ought to be under judicial oversight; it should not simply be a police decision. Secondly, as he said, only the records of presumed guilty or actively sought people should be kept and, thirdly, that innocent people’s records should be destroyed straightaway. That should not be left to a guideline; it should be under legislative control and properly treated in that way.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem at the moment is that we do not even have national guidelines. There is a complete absence, which I will come to later. I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I would like to add some context to the question of racial bias. There were allegations of racial bias a few years ago. The system was tested by the national physical laboratory about two years ago and, at the settings used by the police, no racial bias was found. That was one of the conditions set in the Bridges litigation about four years ago, and I hope that gives my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members some reassurance on the question of racial bias. It has been tested by the national physical laboratory.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As I understand it, the number of false positives recorded depends to some extent on the threshold at which the technology is set.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

The report by the national physical laboratory said that it had to be set at 0.6 for it to have fewer misidentifications, but there is no such thing as no misidentifications or people not being wrongly identified. It is also easy for a police service to lower that number. Because we have no judicial oversight, it is very problematic.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Lady is completely right. I think the police are generally being responsible in its use and setting the threshold as recommended, but that is another example where there is no requirement on them to do so, and they could lower it. Regarding deployment in Essex, the chief constable told me there was just one false positive.

I attended a meeting with Baroness Chakrabarti, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, where Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife community worker, spoke to us. He had been held by the police for 30 minutes and forced to provide all sorts of identity documents, as a result of a false positive. On the extent to which it is occurring and whether racial bias is involved, there is some evidence that that is the case. That makes it all the more important that we provide assurances.

We have heard from several campaign organisations that are concerned about the use. They vary in the extent to which they believe it is a legitimate technology. Big Brother Watch has described live facial recognition technology as

“constant generalised surveillance”

and has said that it is

“indiscriminately subjecting members of the public to mass identity checks”

which undermines the presumption of innocence.

Liberty has gone further, saying:

“Creating law to govern police and private company use…will not solve the human rights concerns or the tech’s inbuilt discrimination…The only solution is to ban it.”

I do not agree with that, because I think there is clear evidence that it has a real benefit in helping the police apprehend people who are wanted for serious offences, but one of my major concerns is the lack of any clarity in law about how it should be used.

I am grateful to the Library, which has provided advice on that point. It says:

“There is no dedicated legislation in the UK on the use of facial recognition technologies.”

Instead, its use is governed by common law and by an interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although that Act does not mention live facial recognition technology, and some case law, such as the Bridges case. Even in the Bridges case, the Court of Appeal found that

“The current policies do not sufficiently set out the terms on which discretionary powers can be exercised by the police and for that reason do not have the necessary quality of law.”

[David Davis]

On precisely that point, some police forces in the UK take the view that GDPR has reach in this area. Does my right hon. Friend have a view on that?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend has anticipated my next point extremely effectively. I was Minister at the time of the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which did not cover live facial recognition technology. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is the shadow Home Secretary, was the Minister for Policing and he made a speech about how valuable live facial recognition technology was. I therefore sought advice about how that fitted in with GDPR.

The advice that came back following consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office was that there is no blanket approval by the ICO for the use of LFR technology. Essentially, it should be judged on a case-by-case basis, but the ICO had expectations that data protection and privacy should be respected. It went on to say that the use of LFR can be highly intrusive and future uses of the technology may require updates, but that the ICO is monitoring it closely. That is only partially reassuring. Essentially, the ICO recognises that breaches of data protection could be possible, and is monitoring it, but there is no clear guideline to assist the police or anybody else with precisely how it should be used.

I am grateful to legal consultants Handley Gill, who wrote to me yesterday and who are involved in advising a number of people about the legality of the technology. They said that

“it is undesirable for individual Chief Officers and PCCs to have to engage in the wide ranging review and preparation of the necessary documentation, and that a move toward a common national approach (and choice of technology provider) would secure efficiencies and also enable closer monitoring…to ensure their efficacy and lawfulness.”

Although we are no longer bound by European Union law, the EU has brought in much more stringent controls than exist here.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Scotland’s chief constable said in September that it would be “an abdication” of her duty not to assess whether this AI tool could be used and that the force was “very much alive” to it, describing it as a crucial tool to “take violent perpetrators” off the streets. In my view, it is an exercise in balancing the need to tackle crime and keep people safe with the impact the tool may have on human rights and civil liberties. I believe the right hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce stringent restrictions on the use of such surveillance. If so, what are they, and is he seeking to follow similar European states’ legislation akin to the EU Artificial Intelligence Act?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The EU’s AIA lays down very strong controls—it almost goes too far—in that it restricts the categories of individual who can be sought under the watch list to quite a small number. The House of Commons Library points out that

“the AIA 2024 prohibits the use of ‘real-time remote biometric identification systems’ (such as LFR) in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement, unless such use is ‘strictly necessary’ for one of the following objectives”.

The list it provides includes the search for specific victims of abduction or trafficking; missing persons; the prevention of a substantial and imminent threat to life; the prevention of a genuine threat of a terrorist attack; or the localisation of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence.

In Europe, the controls are strong, but in this country it is left largely to police officers to interpret the law and be reasonably confident. However, legal challenges are under way. Shaun Thompson, whom I met, is seeking judicial review of the police’s actions and the campaign organisations are also looking at legal challenges. There is a real need for clarity. Certainly, the sergeant of Essex police who is in charge of deployment told me that, in his view, it would be really helpful for the police to have clear guidelines. They would then not have to make those difficult decisions and could potentially satisfy a court that the use was proportionate and justified.

As far as I am aware, this matter has not been debated by Parliament before, and it should have been because there is a real need to seek clarity in the law. This may sound like science fiction, but ultimately there is a risk that it becomes possible for every CCTV camera in the country to be linked up, and there could be a watchlist of not 600 but millions of people. Concerns have been expressed by organisations such as Big Brother Watch—in this particular instance, that organisation could be well named—and I do not think any Member would wish to go down that route. I think most people recognise that there is some value in the technology, but there is a need for clarity. I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary and particularly the Minister for Policing for coming to contribute, and I look forward to what they have to say.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and it seems that everybody does.

09:46

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) —or I could say my right hon. Friend, if he does not mind—for securing this debate. I have spoken to the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and there is an awareness that we need a lot of careful and considerate thinking on this issue. Obviously, a new Government have just come in and this is not a new issue, as the right hon. Member for Maldon said—LFR was first used in 2017, so there is a lot of clearing up that has to be done.

Live facial recognition changes one of the cornerstones of our democracy: an individual is innocent until proven guilty. With this technology, if the machine says an individual is guilty because they have been identified using live facial recognition, they then have to prove their innocence. That is a huge change in our democracy that nobody has consented to. We have not consented to it in this place, and as we police by consent as a society, that should really worry us all.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am looking forward to this debate and to concluding it for the Opposition later.

On the question of changing the burden of proof or undermining the concept that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the technology absolutely does not change that. What it does is give the police a reason to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person wanted for a criminal offence. It certainly does not provide evidence on which a conviction might be secured. In fact, it is no different from the police stopping someone because they are suspicious of them, and it is a lot more accurate than stop and search, about which I am sure the hon. Lady has views. It is simply a tool to enable the police to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person who is wanted. It certainly does not undermine the very important principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

[Dawn Butler]

The shadow Minister has hit on an important point regarding reasonable suspicion. What is reasonable suspicion? How have the police got to that point? If he is then going to make reference to watchlists, who is put on a watchlist? We know, for instance, that the Met police has hundreds of thousands of people on its system who should not be there. We know that the watchlist can consist of people it considers to be vulnerable, such as those with mental health issues. Anybody in this room could be put on a watchlist, so I am afraid the shadow Minister has not quite nailed the point he was trying to make.

[David Davis]

I am very much on the hon. Lady’s side of that argument, partly because we are a country where it is not normal to stop people and ask for their identity cards, which is why we have had a few battles over that in the past. Also, the technology is prone to slippage. Way back when—probably when the hon. Lady was still at school—we introduced automatic number plate recognition to monitor IRA terrorists coming from Liverpool to London. That was its exact purpose, but thereafter it got used for a dozen other things, without any legislative change or any approval by Parliament.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I ask Members to keep interventions as interventions?

[Dawn Butler]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain. Yes, it is really important that we talk about this openly. That is what we are supposed to do in this place, right? Anybody can be put on the watchlist. Seven police forces are currently using LFR. One that I know of—I am not sure about the others—the Metropolitan Police Service, is in special measures. I do not think it should be given any additional powers while it is in special measures.

The thing is that we know very little about the software or what is in the black box that is developed by these systems. What we can look at is the outcome, and we know that the outcome does not identify very well black women’s faces, especially, and black and Asian people. There is a lower identification threshold for those people, so that is a concern.

It is also really interesting that even when LFR is set at 0.6, a police super-spotter is more accurate. We have specialist police officers who spot people very quickly, and they are more accurate than this system, so it becomes the case that a police service will try to prove that the system it has bought is value for money. We can imagine a police officer not getting many hits with LFR at 0.6 and lowering that to 0.5 so that they can get more hits, which in turn means that more people are misidentified, so there should be regulation around this issue.

Taking away somebody’s liberty is one of the most serious things we can do in society, so we need to think very carefully if we are going to introduce something that accelerates that. It is good that for the first time we are having the debate on this issue. As the right hon. Member for Maldon said, the EU permits LFR only where there is prior judicial authorisation and in cases in which the police need to locate a missing person, for instance. That is something we need to consider.

I want to say this: I like technology. I am very much into our civil liberties. We need to protect our digital rights as human beings and individuals. I love technology— I used to be a coder—but we should not rush to do things because people get excited. There are really four people in the debate on this issue. It reminds me of four of my mates when we go out clubbing. Bear with me. We have the person who will stay at home because they are not bothered—they do not care—and we have the people who do not care about this issue: “It is going to happen; let it happen.” We have the person who will come, but they are a bit moany. They do not really like the music, but they will come anyway because they do not want to miss out.

We then have the person who is completely drunk on it all: “Give it to me. I’ll take everything.” There are people who just love anything to do with technology and will say, “Look, let’s just throw it all in the mix and it’ll all be fine.” And there is me. I am the person who likes the music and the food, but I need to keep sober to make sure everyone gets home safely. In this debate about AI, we need to be sober to make sure that everybody gets home safely and that when we roll out AI, we do so in a way that is fair and compassionate and in line with our values as British citizens.

09:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate on live facial recognition technology, and I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for leading it.

I have to make a confession to the House: I am not technically minded. I can just about use my phone for text messages; I cannot do much else with it. When it comes to TikTok, Facebook, X and all those other things, I am not even sure what they all are. The fact is that my staff do all that, so anything that people see on there from me is because of them. I okay it, but they put it out.

But even if I am not technically minded, I understand the necessity to have technological advances in place and that they can also be used to benefit our police and criminal justice system. I am fully in support of advancements where there is necessity and reason for them, but the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) was right to identify some problems with the system. So my contribution will be in favour of facial recognition technology, but also focused on the need to have a system that does not infringe on human rights.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that our concern for the wider population and individual safety has to be paramount? Allied with that are the necessary safeguards that have to be built in so that safety does not rule out and infringe on the personal liberties of people who have not done anything wrong and are unlikely to do so.

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with my hon. Friend and that point is the thrust of my contribution.

It was incredibly helpful to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Maldon, and about how he was able to join police forces to see how live facial recognition works. I understand that was the 13th use of the technology by Essex police, with it having been deployed previously in Harlow, Southend and Clacton. Essentially, the equipment works by scanning the faces of all individuals seen by a camera and comparing them to a predetermined watchlist.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, safety is paramount—that is the critical reason for using the technology. I speak on human rights issues all the time, as many present will know. I want to make sure that when we have technology in place, human rights are not abused or disenfranchised, and that people do not feel threatened. Innocent people should never feel threatened, of course, but there are those who have concerns. The technology has already proven itself and led to a number of arrests of people wanted for serious offences such as sexual abuse, domestic violence, aggravated burglary and shoplifting.

I will make a quick comment about the Police Service of Northern Ireland and what we are doing back home. A freedom of information request was submitted to the PSNI in late 2022, and it was concluded that live facial recognition is not currently used in Northern Ireland. I was aware of what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) said when he intervened earlier, because Northen Ireland is in the same place on this. The FOI concluded that it is the intention of the PSNI to explore fully the potential of facial recognition technology, and that a working group was to be established in late 2022, in conjunction with PSNI stakeholders. The principle of why the technology is necessary is already in place, but we need to have the safeguards as well.

Last week I was in a Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on the importance of funding for local policing. There are clear examples across the United Kingdom that show that live facial recognition works and is extremely beneficial to the prevention of crime and for convictions. Perhaps, then, it is something that could be funded through the Barnett consequential. The Government will tell us that they have set funds aside, and we thank them for the extra money for Northern Ireland, but if it can help the police forces, that needs to be looked at.

Numerous concerns have been raised about the use of LFR by our police forces. Surveys have revealed that the British public are mainly concerned with policy infringements, surveillance, consent and the unethical use of facial recognition by the police. The hon. Member for Brent East said that clearly in her contribution, as have others. Police officers shared concerns that there could potentially be impacts on the legal and human rights of citizens.

I will always speak out on human rights abuses where they are highlighted and where infringements take place. It is good to see the Minister in her place; we all have an incredible respect for her and I look forward to her contribution. I seek to hear from her how human rights can be assured and carefully covered. The invasion of liberty and privacy are of major concern. If the technology is to be widely used across police forces, there must be assurances on public safety.

Concerns about false positives have been raised. I do not pretend to understand the technology, but others have explained that if it is turned down from 0.6 to 0.5, it offers a wider spectrum of people. That can cause such damage to people and their reputations, and reputation is everything for many people. Should this be trialled in the likes of Northern Ireland or Scotland, we must have assurances that the algorithms are correct and that they identify people correctly. I support the technology with that proviso.

10:00

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain, for your merciful chairpersonship. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for introducing this crucial debate.

Like many others, I have many concerns about live facial recognition technology, some of which have already been raised, but I will focus my remarks on the room for error and the potential impact that this technology will have on already dwindling public trust in police, particularly among black, Asian and ethnic minority citizens. I will raise points similar to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and Brent East (Dawn Butler).

Live facial recognition technology compares live CCTV images with those already on the police database and other images taken from open source, publicly available image sites. This is a deeply flawed plan that could result in serious mix-ups. A simple mislabelling on an image database could lead to the wrong person being stopped and a potentially traumatic experience with the police.

I can illustrate my point with a short anecdote; this happened to me a mere few months after I was elected to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) was speaking in the Chamber. BBC Parliament miscaptioned her as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East and, when they spotted this, both Members took to Twitter to point out the mistake. In their haste to cover the story, the Evening Standard incorrectly used a picture of me instead of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea—I hope everybody is following this—and in its apology to all three of us, it suggested that Getty Images, where they had taken the image from, had labelled most of the pictures of me, since I had been elected, with the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. Since then, to avoid embarrassment, it seems that most publications now use pictures of me looking like a constipated walrus, but they have said that their reason for this is that they can be sure it is me and they want to avoid any further embarrassment.

Although problematic, that is a far more trivial example of what can happen when images are mislabelled, but if humans can make these errors, the technologies they create obviously can. If online sources are going to be used as part of the image database, it is almost inevitable that images will be mislabelled and that innocent people will be subject to needless run-ins with the police.

Questions around the numerical similarity score used to determine matches also ought to be raised. We already know that facial recognition data has racial bias: it is deeply flawed when attempting to identify people with darker skin tones, just as Getty Images is, and the Metropolitan police’s own testing of its facial recognition algorithm identified disproportionately higher inaccuracy rates when attempting to identify people of colour and women.

People of colour are already disproportionately stopped and searched at higher rates, and the use of potentially flawed technology will serve only to increase the rate at which ethnic minorities are stopped, searched and possibly even incorrectly detained, further dampening trust in the police among these communities. We know that that needs to be resolved. To any Member who thinks that I am exaggerating the potential for misidentification, I say this: in 2023, Big Brother Watch found that over 89% of UK police facial recognition alerts wrongly identified members of the public as people of interest. In that case, what benefits does this technology bring? It has been used in the borough of Lambeth, including in my own constituency, on a number of occasions, but as far as I am aware it has not produced a substantial number of results. Our constituents are effectively being placed under constant surveillance. The notion of their presumed innocence, which sits at the heart of our justice system, has been undermined, and this “cutting-edge” technology has not produced substantial results.

With some 6 million CCTV cameras in the UK, which all have the potential to be converted into facial recognition cameras, we are veering dangerously close to becoming a police state with levels of surveillance that would be deemed acceptable only in the most authoritarian of dictatorships. I believe that our liberty and our security can co-exist. It is not a matter of “those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear”; it is a matter of the basic principles of freedom and privacy. Those basic principles begin to draw into question what such surveillance is really here for. Is it here to keep us safe or to monitor us 24/7?

Most Members would undoubtedly, I hope, protest at the idea of police randomly stopping members of the public to check their fingerprints or other DNA against databases just for a possible match. Why should we look at this intrusive automated biometric software any differently?

10:05

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this debate and agree with him wholeheartedly that this issue should be considered further in the main Chamber.

It is said that technology is a very useful servant but can be a very dangerous master. Many colleagues have already made a robust case for the use of this technology and undeniably it can be very useful. However, I am extremely concerned and believe that we must proceed with caution. In Leicester, some people already want to use the technology, but we must ensure that there is watertight legislation before we proceed any further.

Among my main concerns is the accuracy of the technology. We must ask whether it is fit for purpose. A spokesperson from StopWatch, a UK coalition of academics, lawyers and activists, has said that

“there is very little evidence on the efficacy of LFR deployments”.

In fact, in the first six months of this year, when this technology was deployed, StopWatch found that on average it stopped one person nearly every hour, or every 55 minutes, and that a person was arrested every two hours because of it. The data showed that, as the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, over 80% of those arrests were unnecessary. The right hon. Member for Maldon said that the police have polite conversations with people, but polite conversations have a different meaning for different people.

Secondly, there is equality and non-discrimination. We already know that a black person is four times more likely to be stopped by this technology, as we are now. The technology has been shown to exacerbate any racial profiling. In fact, it has been demonstrated that it disproportionately misidentifies women, people of colour and even disabled people. That is a real concern.

Thirdly, as the majority of colleagues have already mentioned, the technology is an attack on our civil liberties. Earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Russia after claims that it had used LFR technology to locate and arrest a protester on the Moscow metro system. That is extremely frightening. Similarly, China has been accused of perfecting a version of facial technology that can single out and track Uyghurs—members of the repressed Muslim community in China.

We must acknowledge these concerns and ensure that, like the EU, we have in place stringent legislation, like the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act 2024, before this technology becomes widely used and turns into our master.

10:08

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank every Member here for coming to this debate and I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing it in the first place.

I have worked on this issue for many years. In my previous job, I attended and observed the first deployments of live facial recognition by the Metropolitan police, which is many years ago now. Since then, the gap between its increasing use and the lack of a legislative basis has grown wider and wider. In that time, many thousands of people have had their personal data captured and used by the police when there was absolutely no reason for that. Many people have been misidentified, but the accuracy issue is not my main concern.

The unlegislated use of the technology is incredibly worrying. In my previous job on the London Assembly, I asked the Met and the Mayor of London many questions about that. I asked for watchlist transparency, but I did not get it. I heard the initial promises—“Oh, it will be very transparently used, we will communicate it, and no one will have to walk past it without knowing.” All those reassurances just faded away, because there is no real scrutiny or legislation. We need to debate the subject from first principles. As other Members have pointed out, we have had proper debates about identity cards and fingerprint and DNA data, but not about this extremely intrusive technology. It is more concerning than other technologies because it can be used on us without our knowledge. It really does engage our human rights in profound ways.

For all those reasons, the use of facial recognition by the police has been challenged by the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Biometrics Commissioner, London Assembly members, of whom I was one, Senedd Members and Members of Parliament here. The only detailed scrutiny of the technology has resulted in calls for a halt to its use; I am thinking of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has also called for primary legislation. That is the absolutely key question. The EU has had the debate and looked at the issue in detail, with the result that over there what is used so much by the UK police is restricted to only the most serious cases of genuine public safety. That absolutely needs to happen here.

The legislation needs to look not just at police use of the technology, but private use. I have seen its use by private companies in the privately owned public space in King’s Cross. Data from there has been shared with the police; the police initially denied knowing anything about it and then later apologised for that denial. If private companies are collecting data and sharing it with the police, that needs to be scrutinised. If private companies are using the technology, that needs to be legislated for as well.

[Dawn Butler]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful speech. Is she aware of the Big Brother Watch campaign to try to stop large shops from capturing people’s faces and saying that they are shoplifters? They then get stopped in other places, but they are not aware of that process.

[Siân Berry]

Yes, I am aware of Big Brother Watch’s excellent campaigning on this issue. It has identified a serious breach of human rights. There is the potential for a serious injustice if people are denied access to their local shops based on a suspicion that has put them on a watchlist that may or may not be accurate. There is no oversight. We need to debate these things and legislate for them.

I tabled a written question to the Minister about putting regulation and legislation behind the police use of live facial recognition. The answer stated that the technology is governed by data protection and equality and human rights legislation, and supplemented by specific police guidance. I do not believe that police guidance is sufficient, given the enormous risks to human rights. We need a debate on primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will announce that that process will start soon and that this unlawful grey area will not be invading our privacy for much longer. This issue is urgent.

10:13

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

I appreciate that we are having this debate, because it is surprising that we have got to where we are without legislation and firm frameworks in place. I really like the phrase “first principles”, and one of the first principles of the police is “without fear or favour”. That is an exceptional phrase that, if perfectly implemented, we would all benefit from, although of course we recognise that in the real world there is no such thing as perfect.

I am grateful that concerns have been raised about how the technology we are discussing impacts the assumption of innocence—we should all be very careful about that—although I also appreciate the point that it does not impact innocence but provides the opportunity for a human to check. If done properly, that is no bad thing, but we are right to discuss the issue in serious terms in our legislature because there is a danger of an unofficial assumption of guilt. Let us take the example of local shopping centres, which we heard about earlier. If an issue has not been escalated to the police or courts, but some local security officers have seen the same images on cameras and that information has gone round by radio, a gentleman or a lady out with their children doing the weekly shop may suddenly not be able to get in and do what they need to do. That is the kind of pervasive and damaging thing that could easily slip under the radar; we should all be mindful of that.

I want to touch briefly on transparency. This is clearly a developing technology and we would be wrong not to look at its benefits, but we must be mindful of the harm it could do along the way. If people find that they are getting an unfair crack of the whip—that is probably an inappropriate term—and are suffering as a result of this technology, we need to nip that in the bud, and be very direct and open about the failures so that we can make adjustments.

[Dawn Butler]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that black men are eight times more likely to be stopped and search by the police than their white counterparts, and 35 times more likely under section 60? This technology accelerates the discrimination that is already in the system.

[James McMurdock]

Absolutely. Let me put it like this: if any of us were to turn up at a social event and unexpectedly find a large swarm of police, that would give us a moment’s pause for thought. We need to be careful to ensure that this technology is not a more pervasive version of that example. It must not be constantly in existence, attached to every CCTV camera, without us even being aware of it.

To go back to transparency, we have to be open and frank about any issues with how the technology is being implemented, so that we can fix them. I agree that there absolutely could be issues, and we definitely want to be on the right path.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this technology could further alienate minority communities —as happened with the Muslim community, which felt unfairly targeted by the Prevent strategy—and could cause further division and mistrust of the police?

[James McMurdock]

This is all about the first principle of “without fear or favour”. If there are any examples of where that is failing, regardless of whether it relates to local behaviour or the broader introduction of a new technology, we need to be open, transparent and mindful. We live in a world in which not everything is done perfectly, but there are some communities with problems that are perhaps not being tackled in the most beneficial way. I do not want to get too deeply into these issues, because I am not an expert and I recognise that they are extremely sensitive, but I think we can tackle them transparently.

The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) used the excellent analogy of a night out. I completely agree; I was thinking, “Yeah, I’m up for it, but let’s just make sure we can all get home safe”, but the more we discuss the issue, the more I think the appropriate camp to be in is, “I could be tempted out, but let’s make sure we like the destination.” I will leave it there. I thank hon. Members for their time.

10:18

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate.

I have researched this subject and listened to hon. Members’ contributions, and it has been frankly shocking to learn that LFR has been in use since 2017 without any specific legislation in place to control its use and protect our civil liberties. That is seven years too many without legislation. Although I agree that the use of real-time facial recognition in the United Kingdom promises enhanced security and efficiency, it also raises significant legal and moral concerns, and there are severe adverse consequences for our society.

As a former software test manager, I am extremely concerned that private companies that profit from their technology are allowed to self-regulate and to confirm the efficacy of the products that they sell, and that the police are guided by those companies in how to use the tools and rely on the companies’ reports of their efficacy to take legal action against innocent civilians.

The technology operates by capturing and analysing highly sensitive and personal biometric data. As has been mentioned, the legal framework for its use is complex and at times insufficient. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation provide some safeguards, requiring data processing to be fair, necessary and proportionate. However, the lack of specific legislation for facial recognition technology leaves huge room for misuse and overreach.

The deployment of this technology without explicit consent undermines several of our fundamental rights, some of which have been mentioned. The first is the right to privacy: constant surveillance and the collection of biometric data without explicit consent infringe an individual’s privacy rights. This is particularly concerning when the technology is used in public spaces without people’s knowledge. The second right is the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression. The use of facial recognition can deter individuals from participating in protests or public gatherings due to the fear of being monitored or identified. This undermines the fundamental right to assemble and express opinions freely.

The third right is the right to non-discrimination. As has been mentioned, facial recognition systems have been shown to have higher error rates for people of colour, women and younger individuals. This bias can lead to disproportionate targeting and wrongful arrests, exacerbating existing inequalities and discrimination. The final right is the right to data protection. The collection, storage and processing of biometric data must comply with data protection laws. Inadequate safeguards can lead to unauthorised access and misuse of personal data.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) cited examples of how this technology is used in Russia and China, and we know that it is used extensively in Israel as part of its apartheid regime and occupation of the Palestinian people. Violations highlight the need for strict regulation and oversight to ensure that the deployment of facial recognition technology does not infringe fundamental human rights. The technology subjects individuals to constant surveillance, often without their knowledge, eroding trust in public institutions. The ethical principle of autonomy is compromised when people are unaware that their biometric data is being collected and analysed.

Let me cite some examples of the technology’s inefficacy and unreliability. In 2020, the Court of Appeal found that South Wales police’s use of facial recognition technology was unlawful, and that the force had breached privacy rights and failed to adequately assess the risks to individual freedoms. The technology’s accuracy is not infallible: misidentifications can lead to miscarriages of justice, where innocent individuals are wrongly accused or detained.

The disproportionate impact of FR technology on black people and people of colour is particularly concerning. Research has consistently shown that these systems are more likely to misidentify individuals from those groups. For example, a National Institute of Standards and Technology study—I do not know how old it is—found that FR algorithms were up to 100 times more likely to misidentify black and Asian faces than white faces. This disparity not only undermines the technology’s reliability, but perpetuates systemic racism. In practice, this means that black people and people of colour are more likely to be subjected to unwanted surveillance and scrutiny, which can lead to a range of negative outcomes.

There are other examples of miscarriages of justice and misuse. In one instance, the Metropolitan police used FR technology at the Notting Hill carnival, leading to the wrongful identification and harassment of innocent individuals. These and the other examples cited by hon. Members underscore the potential for significant harm when this technology is deployed without adequate safeguards.

In conclusion, although facial recognition technology offers potential benefits, its deployment must be carefully regulated to prevent misuse and protect individual rights. The legal framework needs to be strengthened to ensure that the use of technology is transparent, accountable and subject to rigorous oversight. We must also address the inherent bias in these systems to prevent further entrenchment of racial inequalities. As we navigate the complexities of integrating new technologies into our society, let us prioritise the protection of our fundamental rights and ensure that advancements serve to enhance rather than undermine our collective wellbeing.

10:26

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It is difficult to follow the comprehensive presentation of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), but I would like to come at this debate from a different perspective—as a criminal barrister by profession. In trials that I have conducted, we have had difficulty with experts when identifying suspects charged in very serious cases. Two experts in relevant IT facial recognition software find it difficult to come to the same conclusion. One expert in a trial will say, “This is highly likely fitting of this particular defendant—confidence level maybe 50% or 60%.” Another expert in the same trial will counterargue and say, “Well, there are dissimilarities between the face and the image that we have been able to capture.” Ultimately, it is a matter for the jury as to whether they accept one expert’s opinion over another. As a result, at present, we have counterarguments between experts over facial recognition technology.

What concerns me is the idea of allowing the state, in essence, to deploy this kind of technology in high streets, for example. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) has already raised the issue of the disproportionate rate of stop and search—by multiple times; I think the rate was nine times higher for black males. What impact will facial recognition live transmission data have in the city of Birmingham? It is going to have an enormous impact. Members have raised the difficulties with the percentage error of recognitions, and the distrust that we have in Birmingham is a challenge already, particularly with young men and the police. What will this technology achieve? Will young men start wearing more face coverings in city centres? How will this technology be used, even if it is legislated for properly? For example, will the police have to notify the public, “We are using this facial recognition technology in the Bullring today between the hours of 10 am and 10 pm?” It does not seem to serve any real purpose.

We have a very effective police force in the west midlands, and it uses CCTV, which we have all over. If hon. Members go to any street in Birmingham, they will find tens or hundreds of houses with CCTV, and the police have used that to great effect; after a crime is committed, they track back and they prosecute. We have had so many successful prosecutions in very serious crimes, such as murder and violent crime, but the deployment of this technology will create enormous problems and divisions. As I said, there are already problems with how minority communities feel when they are stopped and searched. I think the right hon. Member for Maldon said that in the trial about 10 people were stopped, with one to two—as little as 10%—being identified. As the technology develops further, that percentage may increase, but at present I do not see how it will assist at all. Criminals know very well how to avoid detection, and face coverings will become the norm. Other than surveillance, this technology achieves very little. I do not see how it will assist in detection.

The hon. Member for Brent East drew some simple parallels. What would the public think about being stopped on a busy high street and asked to come to a police van to give their fingerprints and DNA? They would be outraged, and rightly so. It would almost legitimise police officers approaching people, in particular young men. We know that not just black people, but people of colour, women and children will be subject to the technology, and we know that there are errors. The right to privacy and the freedoms that we have are far greater than this technology, and I do not see how it will assist in deterrence, because people will simply use face coverings and all sorts of other things.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I see no other Back Benchers who wish to contribute, so I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

10:32

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate. It is shocking that this might be the first proper debate we have had in this place on this topic.

We have discussed whether live facial recognition technology is a legitimate tool and, if so, under what circumstances and controls it should be used. It is clear from the debate that there are many doubts, and we should probably be thinking about halting the use of the technology until we have cleared them up.

I will start with the concern about discrimination, which was articulated well by the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). It is clear that black people and people from other communities are likely to be disproportionately misidentified by this technology.

[James McMurdock]

I want us to be careful that we are not making assumptions that may not be right. I am not taking a firm position, but there have been a number of comments, from several parts of the Chamber, about racial disparity. It would be remiss of me to let those things be said without making the point that I am not 100% sure that they are all accurate. For example—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise, but could the hon. Member please explain briefly what his intervention is?

[James McMurdock]

Of course. The topic of racial disparity is one we should all treat extremely seriously—possibly one of the most serious things we can do to benefit our society is to discuss this and get it right—but can we please not make any leading assumptions? We live in a fair and good society. If someone listened to this debate in isolation, they might get an impression that I do not believe would be strictly fair.

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the evidence is quite clear in this area. Somebody might watch this debate and have doubts, but the research is quite clear.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), just about every time that somebody has stated that there are issues of racial discrimination with this technology, they have cited sources that people can look at. For the benefit of both the public and the hon. Member, it is important to note that these are not just assumptions; they are based on data and evidence. There is further evidence we could give, such as my personal experience and the experiences of others, but those specific points were made with evidence.

[Bobby Dean]

I agree with the hon. Member that some evidence has been cited in the Chamber today, but there is other evidence that we can look at. Let us not forget that the technology exacerbates the known problem—particularly with the Met police in London, where I live—that black communities feel over-policed and underserved. That has built up over time, and the use of this technology could exacerbate that problem further.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) made a comment about how polite conversations do not always register as polite conversations. That is because of the persistence of those conversations over time. A repeated polite conversation starts to become an aggressive conversation to the person on the receiving end, if it is that persistent. There was also discussion about the findings of the national physical laboratory, but it is clear that those findings are disputed—[Interruption.] Well, it is clear that they are disputed; they have been disputed in the Chamber today. Until we get to the bottom of that, we need to think carefully about the controls that we have in relation to discrimination.

I want to talk about the general principle of privacy. As a liberal, I feel a general depression about how we have come to devalue privacy in society, and how we trade it away far too readily for other societal aims. We often hear the claim, “If you’re not doing anything wrong then there’s nothing to worry about,” as if the only value of privacy were to hide things that someone might be doing wrong. That is not the case. Privacy delivers so much more than that. It delivers personal wellbeing and gives people control over their own data. It allows us to have freedom of association and dignity. We need to think very carefully before we so readily trade away the principle of privacy in pursuit of other goals in society.

The opportunity for slippage has been discussed at length. One would think that such technology would come with strict controls, but it is clear that at the moment we have the opposite; in fact, Big Brother Watch has described it as a “legal vacuum”. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about the creeping expansion of its use in London. I have seen that myself; what started off being limited to large-scale events, such as football matches, has turned into routine trials on high streets, such as mine in Sutton.

We have also seen expansion in the photos that are used. The technology started off using only photographs of people known to the police, for good reason, but it has been expanded to potentially including everyone who has a passport or driving licence photo. What started being strictly about warrant breakers and sex offenders could expand to be about pretty much anything the Government of the day want. If we think about the clampdown on protest under the previous Government, that potentially has a chilling impact on the right to freedom of association.

With all of those doubts, it is clear that we need proper parliamentary consideration of the issue. The Lib Dems ask the Minister to immediately halt the roll-out of live facial recognition technology until we get it right. It should be down to this place to determine the correct controls and whether there is a legitimate use of the technology at all, given all the concerns about discrimination and privacy. Privacy is a fundamental civil liberty. We have undervalued it far too much in recent times. This is an opportunity to protect it, and we should take it.

10:39

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate and on the characteristically thoughtful manner in which he approached his speech.

I think this is the first time that I have appeared opposite the new Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—the job that I was doing until a few months ago—so let me congratulate her on her appointment. Although I will of course hold the Government to account, I will do everything I can to constructively support her in making a great success of the job, and I really do wish her well in the role.

I want to start by reminding colleagues of the way that live facial recognition works. It is different from retrospective facial recognition, which we have not debated today and, in the interests of time, I do not propose to go into. As some Members have already said, live facial recognition starts with a watchlist of people who are wanted by the police. It is not the case that anyone can get on that watchlist, which generally comprises people who are wanted for criminal offences—often very serious offences—people who have failed to attend court, and people who are registered sex offenders, where the police want to check that they are complying with their conditions. As people walk down a high street, they are scanned, typically by a CCTV camera on a mobile van, and then compared to the watchlist. The vast majority of people are not on the watchlist, as we would expect, and their image is immediately and automatically deleted. Where a person is on the watchlist, the police will stop them and ask if they have any form of identification.

To be very clear, no one gets convicted on the basis of that facial recognition match, so it is not overturning the presumption of innocence, and if it turns out that the person stopped is not the person on the watchlist, obviously they can continue on their way. However, if they are the person on the watchlist, a normal criminal investigation will follow, with the normal standards of evidence.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On the point about the automatic deletion of data, there are many examples, but the one I can remember is Google incognito browsing mode. That was meant to be very private—only you saw where you went—but Google was found to be storing that data, and it has been legally challenged and prosecuted for breaching the GDPR or other privacy laws. Companies may say that things are immediately deleted, but it is not always true.

[Chris Philp]

That is a good point; we must ensure that the operating procedures are adhered to, and I will come on to that a little later. However, to be absolutely clear, if someone is identified as a match, a normal criminal investigation is conducted to normal criminal standards. Nobody is convicted on the basis of this evidence alone—or, indeed, on the basis of this evidence at all.

Let me come to the question about racial disparity. When this technology was first introduced, about seven years ago, there were reports—accurate reports—that there was racial bias in the way that the algorithm operated. The algorithm has been developed a great deal since those days, and it has been tested definitively by the national physical laboratory, the nation’s premier testing laboratory. NPL testing is the gold standard of testing and this technology has been tested relatively recently. For the benefit of Members, I will read out what the results of that testing were:

“The NPL study found that, when used at the settings maintained by the Met”—

that is the 0.6 setting that the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) referred to earlier—

“there was no statistically significant difference in the facial recognition technology’s accuracy across”

different demographic groups. In other words, the technology as it is being used today—not five years ago, when there were issues—has been certified by the NPL and it has been found that there is not any racial bias at the settings used.

[Dawn Butler]

But when we look at the numbers of people, something like 0.5% of scans—I cannot remember the statistic—still result in somebody being misidentified.

[Chris Philp]

On the misidentification rate, I think the Bridges court case set a standard of a false positive rate of one in 1,000: out of every 1,000 people stopped, 999 are the people the police think they are, while one is misidentified. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures, but from my recollection the system in practice is running at about one in 6,000. That is an extraordinarily high accuracy rate—much more accurate than a regular stop and search.

About 25% to 30% of regular physical stops and searches, where a police officer stops someone and searches them for drugs or a knife or something, are successful. About 70% are unsuccessful, while the equivalent figure for live facial recognition is 0.02%. That means that this technology is 4,500 times less likely to result in someone being inappropriately stopped than a regular stop and search. It therefore hugely—by three orders of magnitude—reduces the likelihood of someone being improperly stopped and searched.

I turn to the use of the technology on the ground. I asked for it to be trialled in the centre of Croydon, which is the borough I represent in Parliament. Over the past nine months or so, it has been deployed on a relatively regular basis: about once a week. I believe that the Minister was supposed to go down this morning to have a look; I certainly encourage her to go again as soon as she can. By the way, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) asked whether people know when the technology is being used. The answer is yes: one of the guidelines is that public signage must be displayed telling the public that the technology is in use.

Over that period in Croydon, there have been approximately 200 arrests of people who would not otherwise have been arrested, including for all kinds of offences such as class A drugs supply, grievous bodily harm, fraud and domestic burglary. It has also included a man who had been wanted for two rapes dating back to 2017. That wanted rapist would be free to this day if not for this technology. Just a couple of weeks ago, a man was stopped and subsequently arrested in relation to a rape allegation from June this year. There are people who are alleged to have committed rape who would not have been stopped—who would still be walking free—if not for this technology. It is only the fact that they walked past a camera outside East Croydon station or somewhere that has meant they were stopped by the police. They will now have a normal trial with the normal standards of evidence, but they would not have been caught in the first place if not for this technology.

I have done quite a lot of public meetings on this. I explain, “These are the people who get caught, and the price the public pay is that you might get scanned when you walk down Croydon High Street, but if you are innocent your picture is immediately deleted.” By and large, the overwhelming majority of the people in Croydon think that a reasonable trade-off.

There should be protections, of course. Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, have rightly said that there should be guidelines, rules and procedures. However, it is not true that there is a complete vacuum as far as rules and regulations are concerned. The Bridges case at the Court of Appeal in 2020 looked at how South Wales police were using the technology between 2017 and 2020. It found that some of the ways they were using the technology were not appropriate because they broke rules on things like data protection privacy. It set out in case law the guidelines that have to be adhered to for the technology to be lawful—things like public signage, the rate of accuracy and having no racial bias.

Secondly—I do hope I am not taking the Minister’s entire speech—there are guidelines for police. The College of Policing has national authorised professional practice guidelines that the police are supposed to stick to. There is a debate to be had about whether, for the sake of clarity and democratic accountability, we in Parliament should set something out more formal; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made that point. I think there would be some merit in clarifying at a national level where the guidelines sit, but I would not go as far as Europe. If we had done so, those rapists would not have been arrested. I would also be careful to ensure that any legislation is flexible enough to accommodate changing technology. Primary legislation may not be the right vehicle: a regulation-making power might be a more sensible approach, so that things can be kept up to date from time to time.

While we consider that, I strongly urge the Minister not to halt the use of the technology. As we speak, it is arresting criminals in Croydon and elsewhere who would not otherwise be caught. I urge her to continue supporting the police to roll it out. I think some money was allocated in the Budget for the current financial year, to continue developing the technology. I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether that money is still being spent in the current financial year. I do hope it has not somehow been snaffled by the Treasury in a misguided cost-saving effort—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the shadow Secretary of State, but I am looking at the time. I am sure hon. Members would like to hear from the Minister.

[Chris Philp]

None more so than me. I will conclude by saying that this is an important technology: it takes people off the streets who would otherwise not be caught. The Minister has my support in continuing its roll-out and deployment.

10:46

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate. I am grateful to him and all other right hon. and hon. Members who have made thoughtful and insightful contributions this morning.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on his new role. When he held the role that I now hold, he was very passionate about this subject. That passion is demonstrated today by the number of interventions he has made and by his contribution in defence of the previous Government’s approach to this particular policy. Now that we have seen the shadow Home Secretary in a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, I very much hope that we might see him here again when we debate the many other policing issues that we have to deal with, including police reform and police accountability—the list goes on.

This has been a very good debate. We have ranged from discussing the Jason Bourne films to a night out with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). We have also had excellent contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), the hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean).

I will deal with the complex issues that Members have set out so eloquently. At the heart of the issue is the fact that we are dealing with a powerful technology that has the potential to be transformational for policing. However, some have very legitimate concerns about it, including misidentification, misuse and the effect on human rights and individual privacy. I agree wholeheartedly that we need a proper, informed debate on the subject, both in this House and with the public, and I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to start that today.

Let me quickly run through the current use and benefits of live facial recognition, which, as we have discussed, allows the police to spot people in crowds. It uses live video footage of crowds passing a camera and compares their images to a specific watchlist of people wanted by the police. As well as Essex police, who we have heard about, the Metropolitan police and South Wales police have been using this technology for a number of years. In fact, as the shadow Home Secretary said, I was due to go and see one of the deployments this morning, but then this debate was scheduled, so I am going to see it for myself this afternoon instead.

I am told by the Metropolitan police that between January and November this year they made over 460 arrests as a result of live facial recognition deployments, including for offences such as rape, domestic abuse, knife crime and violent robbery. In addition, over 45 registered sex offenders have been arrested for breaching their conditions. South Wales police tell me that between January and November, they deployed live facial recognition locally on 20 occasions, resulting in 12 arrests. They also located a high-risk missing young girl, who they were able to safeguard from child sexual exploitation and criminal exploitation. Essex police, as the right hon. Member for Maldon has attested, have also had considerable success in their use of this technology.

The potential of live facial recognition to contribute to our safer streets mission is clear. It could make our streets safer for us all, particularly for women and girls, by helping the police to identify wanted people quickly and accurately. It could also save precious police time. Rapid advances in the technology and improvements in the accuracy of algorithms increase that potential.

Let me consider the concerns that have been raised. I was pleased to hear that the right hon. Member for Maldon was impressed by the strict limit that Essex police have put on their use of live facial recognition. That includes use of the narrowly drawn watchlist and the immediate deletion of images. However, I note his worries about the lack of a specific legal framework for the technology’s use. It is therefore important to be clear that facial recognition is covered by data protection, equality and human rights law as well as common law powers and detailed guidance from the College of Policing. However, the right hon. Member is right that no one specific law gives the police the power to use live facial recognition.

The Ada Lovelace Institute, an independent research institution with a mission to ensure that data and AI work for people and society, has written to the Home Secretary to express similar concerns to those of the right hon. Member. It believes that the only way to scale up those technologies safely and successfully is through the introduction of a statutory regulatory framework. I have spoken to senior police leaders about the matter, and some believe that the lack of a specific legal framework inhibits their use of the technology and dampens willingness to innovate.

With legal challenges highly likely, it is not surprising that some police forces are reluctant to use the technology. However, others in policing are keen to emphasise the safeguards that are already in place. For example, they assure me that the police do not keep the biometric data of people filmed during live facial recognition deployments, that watchlists are bespoke and that the police deploy the technology only when there is an intelligence case for doing that. I have also been assured that there will always be a human being in the loop to decide whether to apprehend someone. That would never be done solely on the basis of a match made by a computer.

Privacy campaign groups have a long-standing interest in the subject. I am aware of their concerns, as well as previous and ongoing legal actions relating to police use of live facial recognition technology. Potential bias in the algorithms used for live facial recognition systems is another frequently raised concern. Questions have been asked today about that very point and whether live facial recognition discriminates against people on the grounds of gender or race. I am also aware that 65 Members of Parliament and peers signed an open letter last year that called for a ban on live facial recognition, and that in January the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee sent the then Home Secretary a report raising concerns and making recommendations about live facial recognition.

I remind Members that the Government have been in post for five months. Let us put that in the context of the previous 14 years of Conservative Administrations. The Government want to take time to listen and to think carefully about the concerns that have been raised and about how we can best enable the police to use live facial recognition in a way that secures and maintains public confidence.

As we have heard today, facial recognition technology is a powerful tool. In considering its current and future use, we must balance privacy concerns with the expectation that we place on the police to keep our streets safe. We particularly need to consider how much support the police may require from Government and Parliament to set and manage the rules for using technologies such as facial recognition. We must think about how we protect the public from potential misuse of those technologies, and we need to consider how the application of the rules and regulations is scrutinised.

I am therefore committed to a programme of engagement in the coming months to inform that thinking. Building on initial conversations with police, I will hold a series of roundtables, for example, with regulators and civil society groups before the end of the year. I look forward to hearing at first hand from a broad range of parties on the subject.

I am running out of time. I want to say much more on this issue, and I want to confirm that money is being spent this year on the roll-out of the live facial recognition vans that are being equipped to carry out this work. There is a full evaluation of that work going on. I very much look forward to the House having further opportunities to debate the issue in the coming weeks and months.

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

Rural Broadband

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

11:01

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they can make speeches in this debate only with the agreement of the debate holder. Sarah Dyke will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered broadband in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Broadband and internet connectivity are integral to modern life, whether that be in education, employment, leisure, healthcare or almost anything else. We rely on broadband more than ever before, and the tasks that we carry out require higher speeds than ever before. Digital connectivity provides us with great opportunities. Small businesses can widen their reach. Health consultations can be carried out online. However, many rural areas are still struggling to realise the opportunities available, because of poor broadband coverage: 17% of rural domestic premises and 30% of rural commercial premises do not have access to superfast broadband.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. She brings really important debates to Westminster Hall, and her contributions on the Floor of the House are much appreciated as well. On the subject of rural broadband, especially for businesses, I, like the hon. Lady, make a plea. Broadband must be dependable as well as fast, and the Government need to ensure that connections are up to date, fit for purpose and able to cope with the intensification that working from home has brought to the need for reliable connection. Does she agree that the Government really need to move on this one?

[Sarah Dyke]

Yes, I agree, and I will come on to that as I move through my speech.

County Councils Network analysis shows that only 21% of county areas have gigabit broadband, compared with 70% of London. Those statistics will not come as a surprise to my constituents in Butleigh, where more than 15% of premises receive lines getting 10 megabits per second or less, putting the area in the worst 10% in the UK. Other areas of my constituency mirror that: 10% of premises in Bruton, Brewham and Cucklington receive less than 10 megabits per second, while about 7% of premises in Curry Rivel, Fivehead, Ilchester, Mudford, Langport, Long Sutton and Martock also receive less than 10 megabits per second. Only yesterday my constituency office in Sparkford lost internet connection during the working day, leaving my team frustrated and annoyed. The same feelings are regularly felt by many people reliant on good broadband to carry out their work in rural areas. The broadband speeds that these premises receive are under the universal service obligation, which Ofcom calculated at 10 megabits per second in 2018. However, it is important to note that as the need increases, broadband speeds must reflect that.

In a survey by the Countryside Alliance, 70% of respondents felt that digital infrastructure was the most important issue to the rural economy. Given that only 58% of premises in Glastonbury and Somerton currently have gigabit broadband compared with the national average of 78%, it is clear that people in rural areas are being held back by poor broadband access.

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

The Minister has very kindly agreed to meet me and my Somerset colleagues, including the instigator of this debate. The reducing rate of network expansion across Somerset is absolutely shocking. Connecting Devon and Somerset has been a monumental failure. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make certain that the exceedingly disappointing performance in getting rural broadband into Somerset has to stop, and things need to accelerate, not decelerate?

[Sarah Dyke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing an audience with the Minister. I hope we can ensure that we get the coverage we need in Somerset, which is largely a rural county.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Connectivity is a significant problem for my constituents. My constituency of Derbyshire Dales has the 26th lowest rate of gigabit broadband coverage in the country, and currently only 40% of residents have access to gigabit broadband. Does the hon. Member therefore welcome the fact that the recent Budget allocated £500 million to support the roll-out of gigabit broadband to ensure that we can reach full national coverage by 2030?

[Sarah Dyke]

The funding is very welcome, but we need to make sure that it is fit for purpose and reaches our customers. That is the most important thing. Far too many rural areas are in very hard-to-reach areas, so the money should be fit for purpose.

Openreach’s gigabit economy report estimates that full-fibre coverage could boost UK productivity by £72 billion by 2030 and bring over half a million people back into the workforce. If the Government want to achieve the growth that they have spoken about, they must recognise that there are huge opportunities in rural areas, and adequate broadband coverage is crucial to achieving that.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I also represent a very rural area. Despite the fact that it is a stone’s throw away from Bristol, there are people who do not have adequate services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the timeliness of getting the service is also important? If professionals such as doctors wait a long time for the installation, that is as much of an issue as the speeds once the service is installed.

[Sarah Dyke]

I could not agree more. The ongoing spending review must take that into account and must ensure that the remaining unspent funds for Project Gigabit are spent on ensuring that hard-to-reach areas are indeed covered.

I thank the Chamber Engagement Team who provided me with quotes from members of the public in preparation for this debate. The following demonstrates just how damaging poor broadband is to productivity in people’s lives. Alison, a small business owner, said that slow broadband impacts the entire productivity of the business, from accessing emails to downloading and uploading files to suppliers. With more and more people working from home, poor broadband puts rural people at a massive disadvantage.

My constituents in Charlton Adam work in technology and video editing, often from home; but due to poor broadband speeds, they are continually hampered by poor download and transfer speeds. When inquiring about the cost of connecting fibre to their premises for on-demand services, they were quoted an astonishing price of £270,000.

Poor broadband also impacts farming and agricultural businesses.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

This issue has a real impact on rural farming businesses. As a vet I spend a lot of time driving around the Meon valley and places such as Chilcomb, where not only is the broadband terrible, but a mobile signal and 3G, 4G and 5G barely exist. It is not unusual for me to be trying to find a property at midnight to attend an emergency—which can affect someone’s business if it results in the death of a cow or horse—and be unable even to make a phone call or look on Google Maps to find my location. We lack not just broadband, but connectivity on every level. If we can get a landline to every single property in the UK, we should be able to do the same for fibre.

[Sarah Dyke]

I wholeheartedly agree, and will say more about the implications for rural businesses, farmers and vets.

Farmers rely on the internet for multiple purposes, such as sustainable farming incentive and other grant applications, animal monitoring and the security of their property. Vanessa, a farmer, told the engagement team that she could not connect her burglar alarm to her mobile as her broadband was too weak. That is very concerning for farms, especially in the south-west, where the cost of rural crime rose 41% last year, costing farmers £7 million, according to the National Farmers Union’s “Rural Crime Report”. Even if equipment is fitted with alarms, it takes the police time to respond due to the remote locations of farms and rural businesses, but reliable broadband and smart wi-fi products give farms proactive and reactive security.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister needs to find a suitable alternative for our constituents in Somerset, after the failure of Connecting Devon and Somerset and Airband?

[Sarah Dyke]

As I said, we must work harder to resolve some of the problems that CDS has left us in Devon and Somerset.

Farms are also hindered by poor mobile connectivity. An NFU survey revealed that only 21% of farmers had reliable mobile signal across their whole farm. That is especially important in farming, as it is Britain’s most dangerous industry and accounts for 20% of all deaths in the workplace. Farmers often work alone, so it is vital that they can contact help if there is an incident.

We must make progress on the shared rural network. Although the recent funding announcements are welcome there is still more progress to be made, especially in the very hard-to-connect areas that make up about 4% of Glastonbury and Somerton. I have spoken to Connecting Devon and Somerset, and the challenges to connecting those premises are clear. If there is physical infrastructure access, a build can cost £20 per metre, but without it prices can go up 10 times. If the landowner does not give permission, the costs rise even further. Project Gigabit has been targeting homes and businesses not included in broadband suppliers’ plans, and has helped to reach those hard-to-reach communities. It is important that we recognise the project’s successes, which I hope will continue, but we must not forget the final few per cent of people who will struggle to get good broadband coverage.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Several villages in my constituency depend on outdated legacy copper lines. Areas such as Darrow Green Road in Denton and Ringsfield common rely on copper connections that can be a couple of miles from the cabinet. They struggle with broadband speeds that are abysmally inadequate for the needs of modern life. Those areas have no indication of when they will get upgrades. Will the hon. Lady join me in calling on the Minister to set out transparent timescales for supporting those villages and hamlets?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. This is Sarah Dyke’s debate, and she can conduct it as she wishes, but it seems to me that it may be more appropriate to ask for a longer debate because of the number of interventions she is accepting and the difficulty that may cause the Minister in responding.

[Sarah Dyke]

I take your point, Dame Siobhain, so I will hesitate to take any more interventions.

The previous Government launched a consultation on reaching very hard-to-reach areas, and to their credit began important work in this sector. The new Government must take the opportunity to re-establish that work to ensure that those areas are not left further behind. This is a once-in-a-generation project, and I fear that, if we do not focus on providing adequate coverage now, it may never happen, as it is highly likely that these areas will not be commercially viable for providers to connect in the future. When speaking to Wessex Internet, which has both the local authority and the Project Gigabit contracts for Glastonbury and Somerton, it is clear that there are changes that could help it to provide coverage in hard-to-reach areas. More flexibility is required from Building Digital UK to add additional properties to the contract and to ensure that premises that have been missed are brought into scope again, while also providing a route to subsidy funding that would help to boost coverage.

Many providers face struggles in accessing land, with the electronic communications code sometimes necessitating taking a lot of time to grant the provider access to private land to build, thus creating a barrier to rural network build. The electronic communications code could be streamlined to speed up that process, reduce costs and provide more communities with access to gigabit broadband faster.

That would be welcomed by my constituents in Fivehead who wrote to me before this debate to reveal that they were reliant on the slow speed of 5 megabits per second, which is hardly adequate to meet modern demands. Fibre build to the premises may never be feasible for some rural areas due to the huge cost and logistical challenges involved. We must therefore look at alternative solutions, whether that be fixed wireless or, in the most rural areas, satellite coverage. As technology develops, opportunities arise, and we must be prepared to take full advantage of that. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that gigabit broadband is available to every home and business, and we support local bespoke solutions to achieve that.

I look forward to the Minister’s comments, which will be short, on how this Government will ensure that these most-difficult-to-reach places are not forgotten. Now is the opportunity for us to move further and faster and to simplify processes to deliver gigabit broadband to every community. We must not leave rural areas behind. Otherwise, I fear they will never catch up.

11:16

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

It is a delight to be here, Dame Siobhain, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this debate. I am not sure I will be able to answer the questions of all the Members who have come to this debate in my speech.

Some Members have raised concerns at DSIT questions as well, and I note that one Member said that I was prepared to have an audience with people, which makes me sound like the Pope. I am not the pontifex maximus— I am not even the pontifex minimus—but my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), who is my Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I are happy to organise meetings with officials to go through the specific issues in individual constituencies. Some of the statistics that have been thrown out are different from the statistics I have, and it may be that mine are a little more up to date, because we have a whole Department to look up statistics for us. That offer is available to all hon. Members. I want to be as helpful a Minister as possible, because—

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

rose—

[Sir Ashley Fox]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Wait a second! Because I fully accept the fundamental point that was made right at the beginning by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton: broadband is essential to nearly every form of engagement in modern life—finding out where you are, finding out which is the nearest chemist that is still open, logging on to a Government website, the Government trying to do their business, or someone trying to set up a local business. All those things are absolutely vital.

Broadband is greedy. Every year, more and more speed and capacity is needed. That is why we need to make sure that we get to full gigabit capable broadband for every single set of premises as soon as we possibly can. That is not a difficult thing to achieve.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Lady because her request to intervene is timely.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister greatly. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers)—is the Minister actually the king of mobile signal as well? If he is, there is a cracking need to get on with making sure that areas like mine, like his, have got a decent mobile signal.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am the Minister for Telecoms, and that includes—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Does that include Portcullis House?

[Chris Bryant]

That is an interesting intervention from the Chair! I think that Portcullis House is a matter for the Speaker and the Administration Committee. But there is a serious point here: in many cases if we could get to 5G standalone universally, some of these issues would not apply, because we would be able to do lots of things. The police, for instance, could have fully streamed services available through their 5G, and broadband might not be so immediately significant.

I am painfully aware that this is an issue I raised as a Back-Bench MP and baby MP all the time. Sometimes Ofcom’s reporting does not match people’s lived experience. It will say, for instance, that somewhere has 98% coverage from all four operators on mobile, but when people get there they cannot get a signal for love nor money. Often that is because of the way Ofcom has been reporting, which relies on 2 megabits per second. But with 2 megabits per second people cannot do anything. That goes back to the original point made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton—I will think of her as the hon. Member for Glastonbury Tor now, because it is shorter in my head.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The data issue that the Minister is raising is precisely what we have been experiencing. Looking at it on paper, from the maps, the villages have fantastic signal and broadband, but that is just not people’s experience. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me recently to discuss this and for the roll-out we are going to see from the Government in East Cleveland.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want Opposition Members to think that I have had an audience with a Labour Member and not with others. There is a universal service obligation on the Minister here. For most of the issues that have been raised, I think the most useful thing would be to book in a time for officials from Building Digital UK to go through both the mobile and broadband issues that relate to Members’ specific constituencies. We do have more precise maps, and we are able to talk all those issues through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) is right. One of the first things I did when I became the Minister with responsibility for telecoms was to write to Ofcom to say, “You have to review the way that you look at these issues of reporting.” I am glad to say that Ofcom replied recently, and I am happy to put a copy of that letter in the Library so that everybody can see the correspondence we have had. But it is a good point; apart from anything else, mobile operators would quite like to know where there is good coverage—and good coverage should mean coverage that is actually any use to anybody, rather than something that theoretically says 4G but does not feel like 4G at all.

[Richard Foord]

The Minister has kindly agreed to meet me and some Somerset colleagues later this month to discuss this issue. One thing I want to put on the agenda for that meeting is Connecting Devon and Somerset, which has cancelled three contracts previously and has just cancelled a fourth. I wonder if we have a special problem in Devon and Somerset.

[Chris Bryant]

That may be the case, and that is one of the specific things we can take up with BDUK.

I should explain the whole process first. Of course the Government do not want to have to pay for the roll-out of broadband across the whole of the UK. That would be an enormous big-ticket item. Nor, for that matter, do we want to pay for the roll-out of 5G. We are therefore trying to ensure that where commercial operators can do that roll-out, they are able to do so as cost-effectively as possible. Where it is not commercially viable, the Government will step in. That is what the whole BDUK programme is, both through Project Gigabit, which relates to broadband, and the shared rural network, which applies to mobile telephony. That is the plan.

The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton mentioned very hard-to-reach places. The truth is that there will probably be 1% of places where it will be extremely difficult—for either a commercial operation or for the taxpayer—to take a fibre to every single property. That could be so prohibitively expensive for the taxpayer that we will have to look at alternative means. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) that we will have to look at alternatives, and some of those may relate to satellite or wireless delivery of broadband.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Another new Member wants to make a contribution.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

The £500 million set aside for the shared rural network was instigated by the previous Government. In the highlands of Scotland, it is organised by land mass, rather than the geographic concentration of people. If the Minister wants to find £300 million or £400 million of that to help with the roll-out of broadband, he can feel free, because it is very unpopular where we are and it is not serving the needs of the people.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope that I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman a little here. I know the highlands of Scotland very well: I spent many of my childhood summers in Aviemore, and I know the Cairngorms well. It seems to me illogical simply to put big masts in places of extreme natural beauty just for the sake of saying that we have covered geographical mass. It is much more important to have masts in places where there are actually people and a connection that will be used, so that is very much the direction of travel that I hope we can go in. I am not sure that it will save the amount of money that he talks about, because, for all the reasons raised by other hon. Members, people still need connectivity in lots of places that are fairly out of the way, but broadly speaking he makes a fair point. I cannot remember if he has written to me about this issue, but I know that several Scottish MPs have. If he writes to me, he will get the same response as the others, which broadly speaking is the point that I have just made. Incidentally, if Members want, they can go to thinkbroadband.com for the most up-to-date figures on broadband roll-out.

I mentioned the figures raised by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton. I think the figures in the south-west are that 97% of premises can now access superfast broadband and 77% can access gigabit-capable broadband. However, that is lower than in the rest of the UK, and our aspiration is to get to the same levels across the whole of the United Kingdom, although there are obviously geographical difficulties; I know that from the south Wales valleys, where this issue is also difficult. There is a difference between “have access to” and “have”. For instance, in many parts of the UK—not rural, but urban—gigabit-capable broadband has gone down the street, but not into the building, so there are sets of issues for urban areas. I know that the hon. Lady and others have written to me or asked me questions about how much of the BDUK budget is being spent on rural areas. It is more than 90%, but we need to address some urban issues as well. I am trying not to see this as urban versus rural, as there are different issues in different areas, and we need to address all of them. I have referred to areas that are very hard to reach, and we are looking at alternatives.

The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton also raised the issue of the electronic communications code, and I rather agree with her that the process is cumbersome. There has obviously been a new electronic communications code, and I can confirm that we are looking at implementing the provisions under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 that have not yet been implemented in fairly short order. I hope that we can make further announcements about that fairly soon, and that should deal with some of the issues that the hon. Lady is concerned about. The truth of the matter is that broadband, mobile connectivity and connectivity in general are as important as water, electricity and any of the other services on which we have all come to rely, whether it is for the issues that the hon. Lady relates in particular about farms, to do with running the Government or to do with being a member of society.

One of the other areas in which we must do far more—it is a shame that less has been done over the last 12 years by the Government—is digital inclusion. We can map areas of digital deprivation in parts of the country, including in the south-west, and we need to tackle that. We need to have a whole-Government approach, part of which is about access, part of which is about skills and part of which is about tackling poverty. There is a whole series of different issues, but if we really want to take the whole country forward into a digital and prosperous future, we can do so only if we have included every single part of it. As I said, part of that is about connectivity and the affordability of connectivity. Part of it is about people understanding that they need the high speeds talked about by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, and part of it is about having the skills and understanding to take those issues on.

I am very happy to give an audience to anyone who wants one; they should approach me as soon as possible, because we have quite a long list of people who do. However, I see this issue as an essential part of our delivering an economic future that we can all be proud of in this country.

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Educational Opportunities

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

00:00

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling barriers to educational opportunities.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard.

In the UK today, most 18-year-olds—around 64%—do not go to university. I want to focus on the barriers facing the 64% of young people in accessing the education and training that they need to lead fulfilling working lives. I do not believe that they have benefited from the same educational opportunities as the minority of young people who leave school for university, and that makes no moral, social or economic sense. In my view, our system of vocational education and training is not working for the 64%, or for our country.

My constituency of Folkestone and Hythe has incredible potential for a thriving vocational education and training system. It has strengths in the creative industries, independent retail, tourism and hospitality, as well as green energy and nuclear decommissioning. We are home to the Little Cheyne Court wind farm and the former Dungeness nuclear power station. However, the potential for a technical education system to supply those industries, and others, with skilled workers in both Folkestone and Hythe and the UK as a whole remains untapped. In 2022-23, there were 677 apprenticeship starts in Folkestone and Hythe, but only five in the leisure, tourism and travel sector, despite the size of that sector. And despite the significant number of regeneration projects in Folkestone and Hythe, the number of apprenticeship starts in construction, planning and the built environment fell by 49% in 2022-23 compared with the previous year.

Our country has some incredible further education colleges; I commend the work of East Kent college in Folkestone. When I visited during the general election campaign, I was shown workshops, kitchens and classrooms where, among many other vocations, the builders, electricians, carpenters, programmers, chefs and healthcare workers of the future are being educated. The college, which was judged to be “outstanding” by Ofsted in 2023, offers an incredible range of qualifications, including BTecs and T-levels. It offers adult education and there is also a junior college, with a two-year creative curriculum for learners aged 14 and over who want to specialise in arts or business studies. I thank its staff and students for their hard work, and for the grilling that they gave me and the other candidates at a hustings event hosted by the college before the election.

Unfortunately, in many colleges like East Kent college, not all students who complete courses in specialist areas actually go on to work in those fields. That is not always down to students changing their minds; it is also because of the lack of jobs and apprenticeships available in the labour market. Under 14 years of Conservative Governments, apprenticeships starts plummeted, the apprenticeship levy was exposed as inadequate and further education was starved of vital funds. In 2015-16, the total number of apprenticeship starts was 509,000; by 2022-23, that number had fallen to 337,000. Between 2017 and 2024, the number of engineering apprenticeship starts fell by 42%. It was encouraging to see that apprenticeship starts grew by 3% in the month Labour took office, demonstrating employers’ optimism following the change of Government.

I am afraid to say that the Conservatives’ reforms, such as the apprenticeship levy and T-levels, were ineffective. There was not enough flexibility built into the apprenticeship levy and not enough investment in apprenticeships for younger learners. As the chief executive officer of Make UK, Stephen Phipson, has said, successive Governments have provided inadequate funding for engineering apprenticeships, rendering them uneconomical for FE colleges and private providers to deliver. Neither have we had proper alignment between our industrial and our vocational education strategies.

As a result, our skills policy has not been supporting the sectors of our economy we most need to grow. Sectors such as battery technology, electrical vehicle production and renewable technology manufacturing do not receive the funding for apprenticeships that they need, and in turn do not benefit from a steady supply of skilled workers. We need to end the mismatch between what is taught and the skills needed by the labour market. I warmly welcome the Government’s agenda for skills and vocational education and the Budget announcement of an additional £300 million funding boost for further education next year. But we know that in this policy area, as in so many others, funding is not enough—ambitious reform is what we need.

I will touch on three aspects of the Government skills policy: Skills England, devolution and reform of the apprenticeship levy. I support the creation of Skills England, which will end the fractured skills landscape and bring together combined authorities, businesses, workers, trade unions and colleges so that there is co-ordination to meet local economies’ skills needs. It is incredibly important that Skills England will be a strategic body so that it can make sure that our industrial strategy, Invest 2035, and the vocational educational strategy work as one. Only then will sectors such as advanced manufacturing, which is rightly a focus of our Invest 2035 plan, benefit from a predictable supply of skilled labour.

I also support the fact that part of Skills England’s mandate will be to collaborate with the Migration Advisory Committee so that we ensure that our own young talent is trained up and joins our labour market before we reach out to recruit from abroad. We have an abundance of young talent. This is about ensuring that our skills policy makes the most of the talent, work ethic and creativity of our young people while having an immigration system that welcomes the workers we need to get our economy growing and our public services working again. The Migration Advisory Committee has for far too long looked at labour market shortages in a vacuum without thinking about how our skills policy can address those shortages in the long term.

I also believe that it is important for more powers over skills and technical education to be devolved, because the UK still has variation in our regional economies. For example, the creative industries are very important in Folkestone and Hythe, and nationally that sector contributed £124 billion to the UK economy in ’22. In the west midlands, the automotive sector is important. On Teesside, there is a resilient chemical sector, and there is still a proud steel industry in Scunthorpe and Port Talbot. Different regional economies will demand different focuses and priorities for policymakers, so I endorse the Government’s plan to ensure that there are local skills improvement plans and that adult skills funding will be devolved to combined authorities.

Reform of the apprenticeship levy is long overdue. The levy is a tax on employers with a wage bill of over £3 million a year that funds apprenticeships. The problem is that the funds levied can be spent only on very specific types of training. For example, businesses cannot use the money to fund any courses shorter than one year. The new growth and skills levy will be critical, because it will mean that businesses will be able to pay for a greater range of training options, apprentices will have more choice and apprenticeships can be shorter than a year. It is very important that employers will be required to fund more of their level 7—that is, master’s degree-level—apprenticeships. The money saved there will be reinvested into foundation apprenticeships, which will give younger workers more opportunity and flexibility.

I know that the road ahead is challenging. Between 2017 and 2022, the number of skills shortages in the UK doubled to more than half a million, and by 2022 skills shortages accounted for 36% of job vacancies. Training expenditure is also at its lowest level since records began in 2011. Yet if we get skills policy right, the opportunities are huge. Total revenue from the apprenticeship levy is forecast to grow from £3.9 billion to £4.6 billion by 2029 due to rising wages. A broader skills base will mean more productive jobs, higher labour productivity, stronger wage growth and rising living standards for all workers, not just university-educated professionals. That will benefit young people, many of whom feel demotivated and disenfranchised and believe that the 21st century economy does not serve them. In places where they have been given a pound shop instead of a workshop, they may be right.

On future policy development, can the Minister provide more detail on the timeline for when we can expect the different phases of development of Skills England? I would also be grateful to know how the Government plan to align Invest 2035 with their post-16 education strategy. Both those strategies require prioritisation, so what sectors do the Government plan to focus on to drive up the number of apprenticeship starts? Are there any other areas of education and skills policy that the Government would like to devolve to local economies rather than combined authorities? For example, there is no combined authority in Kent. What plans do the Government have to ensure more apprenticeship starts in the industries of the future, such as artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, green energy and new nuclear?

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Somerset is home to Agratas, which is a 40 GWh gigafactory at the Gravity Smart Campus. It is creating jobs and boosting the green economy. It is important that local people in Somerset have the skills to work in those jobs, so does the hon. Member agree that we should encourage local partnerships between schools and industry to teach science, technology, engineering and maths skills and offer those opportunities?

[Tony Vaughan]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and that is exactly what Skills England is going to do. It is about the collaboration between all the different stakeholders in society, not just businesses and colleges, to enable us to get to a point where the skills need is being facilitated by education providers.

A high quality vocational education system will improve social mobility, and be one of the best ways to tackle the precarity of the low skill, low productivity and low pay economies that have been built over the last 14 years. I look forward to working with the Government to break down the barriers to opportunity for the 64% of young people who do not go to university, and to build a vocational training system that we can all be proud of.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is very popular and oversubscribed; over 17 Members want to speak. To get everybody in, I am afraid that I will be imposing a time limit of two and a half minutes. I call Jamie Stone, who I am sure will set a great example.

14:42

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on a most interesting speech.

If one visits the Scottish Parliament—some Members may have done or may in future—one cannot help but admire the woodwork. The joinery, carpentry and cabinetmaking are of the highest standard. I was on the Committee that oversaw the building of that Parliament—it nearly cost me my seat in the 2003 Scottish election, but that is beside the point. What struck me very forcibly was that in the United Kingdom we did not have the cabinetmaking and joinery skills to produce a finished article of that quality. Most of the work was done by people from Romania, Poland and other eastern European countries. My point is that when skills disappear, they can sometimes disappear forever.

I worked as a young man at a yard in Wester Ross called Kishorn, where the mighty Ninian Central Platform for the North sea was built. I worked at Nigg, where a number of the hard steel jackets were constructed. At the highpoint of Nigg in the early 1980s, some 5,000 people worked there. They were highly skilled: they were trained in welding, fabrication and all manner of supporting disciplines to achieve some of the greatest structures ever built for the North sea. Today, many of those people are retired or nearly at retirement age, and my big worry—this echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe—is that although those people could pass on the skills and train young people in them, there is no effort to make that happen. We could be faced with a parallel to the situation I described at the Scottish Parliament: skills could disappear.

I am heartened by the news from Hull that turbine blades are going to be constructed there. That is good news and the Prime Minister was quite correct to emphasise that today. The point is that we should be making far more floating offshore structures in the United Kingdom—the cells, the blades and the towers themselves. While we have the fabrication skills in different parts of the UK, including in my constituency in Scotland, we should get that business going again and be training up the next generation.

In the past, there was an organisation called the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Under the management of the Scottish Government, it has been left to become almost nothing. I am sorry that no SNP Members are here to hear that. They should get up and sort it out, because if that is not reactivated, we are in dead trouble.

14:45

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this important debate and for his compelling and comprehensive survey of adult education.

For centuries, Scotland had one of the best education systems in the world, but that is not the case today under the Scottish National party. Attainment has been falling for years. As recent programme for international student assessment reviews show, standards in literacy, mathematics and science are falling, and that is closing doors for children and young people in my seat. The response in Glasgow, I am afraid, has been to cut 172 teaching posts this year, with further cuts to come.

The attainment gap in Scottish schools is widening. Where someone is born is becoming more, not less, important than it was and barriers for poorer children are increasing. It is worth saying that the Government are tackling one of the causes of the attainment gap—poverty—by introducing legislation that will make work pay and tackling family poverty by increasing the national minimum and living wage. However, the SNP is also responsible for the attainment gap in our schools and that is preventing young people from getting good jobs and being able to provide for their families.

A simple example of that failure is that since 2010, there has been a material drop in school attendance. If someone does not go to school, they do not learn. There has also been a general worsening of behaviour in Scottish schools since 2016, shown by figures from the Scottish Government themselves. Put simply, in many Scottish schools, parents, children and teachers have great fear and worry about school behaviour. Nicola Sturgeon made it clear that closing the attainment gap was her main objective, but the SNP has failed on that.

Adult education, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe spoke so compellingly about, is critical for jobs for people in Scotland. The OECD recently carried out a study of Scottish adult education and other matters in the west coast of Scotland, where my seat is located. It reported that career guidance for adults is “challenging to access” and financial incentives to invest in reskilling and upskilling workers are very low. That has a terrible impact on low-paid workers in Scotland and a real impact on both economic growth in Scotland and such critical matters as the transition from oil and gas to renewables.

With six seconds to go, I will conclude by saying that elections take place in Holyrood in 2026. It is time for change and a Government that put education first.

14:47

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this broad-ranging debate on barriers to education opportunities. There are many things that we could talk about, but in 150 seconds I will restrict myself to three things.

The first is about free school meals. Labour Members said some pretty terrible things in 2018 about what we would do to eligibility for free school meals. It did not happen. In reality, the number of children eligible has risen from about one in six in 2010 to one in three most recently, and that is despite employment, the number of children growing up in workless households and the number of people in work and on low pay having come right down. What will the Government do to keep entitlement at around the same level as now even after universal credit roll-out has concluded?

Secondly, I want to ask about the holiday activities and food programme, which has been successful for young people. I am sure the new Government would not dream of cutting it, but a lot of local areas—I know that one in Yorkshire has been discussing the matter very recently—want some reassurance and some forward visibility about what will happen with the HAF programme after the end of this year.

Finally, I wanted to ask about breakfast clubs. The Government have talked a great deal about primary school breakfast clubs and people are quite disappointed about the scale of what they have heard so far. The total percentage of primary schools in England covered by the first phase is, I think, 4.5%. They also talk about breakfast clubs as if they were something novel, whereas in reality there are thousands in schools across the country already. So when they say they need to move slowly because they need to have a pilot, what does the Minister think needs to be piloted? Is it the type of bowl or the angle of pour of the cornflakes, or is it just that they are trying slow down the roll-outs?

Most importantly, I want to ask about secondary schools and special schools. Among the thousands of breakfast clubs, including those supported by the national school breakfast programme, are those in secondary schools and special schools. If we are talking about impacting something like attendance, we can have more of an impact with breakfast clubs at secondary school. Again, I am sure that the Government will not think about cutting that programme—it would be unthinkable to do so—but what will they do? When will they give visibility to secondary schools and special schools about how they will grow the support for breakfast clubs in schools in the future?

14:50

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your chairmanship. One of the many legacies of the previous Government is a crisis in education and overwhelming barriers to opportunity for young people. Those barriers do not diminish with age, as gaining new skills is difficult in a country where employer investment in training and development has fallen by a third

The UK economy is facing a severe skills shortage. Over the next decade, we will need 350,000 construction apprenticeships, 1.3 million skilled tradespeople and 130 naval nuclear roles. However, apprenticeships have started to decline sharply in recent years, highlighting the need for a focus on them. First, we want to create more opportunities for apprenticeships. Despite a chronic skills gap, for every apprenticeship, there are three applications. We need to restore financial incentives to small and medium-sized enterprises to take on apprenticeships, make the apprenticeship funding model more transparent, and get into our communities and showcase to children, young people and parents the opportunities that are out there. We need to increase financial support for the apprenticeship rate; it is set at £6.40 at the moment and that is just not enough to survive on. We need to expand foundational apprenticeships and introduce shorter apprenticeships for those who cannot afford the 12 months, and we have to simplify the system and increase the flexibility.

Secondly, it is vital that we value all pathways. The toxic legacy of the Tories in education and the undervaluing of certain subjects—from vocational courses to the arts and social sciences—have meant a loss in those areas. Inspiring young people into diverse sectors is vital, and many young people and their parents do not see trade careers as an option. We must boost careers advice and awareness of apprenticeships. We must use the growth and skills levy, with which the spending of levy money on accessing outreach should be permitted. Careers advice must also highlight the range of training provisions.

Finally, we must bring local people into those opportunities. In my constituency, 8.8% of people are on minimum wage. We have good-quality jobs in industry and technology, as well as naval and maritime opportunities, but they are not being accessed by local people. I believe that if we cannot see it, we cannot do it. We must open up those opportunities to local people, whether they are children or people who want to change career, with outreach into their local communities. In short, we need to overhaul the system and provide equalised, valued places, and we must ensure that local people have access to them.

14:52

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your chairmanship. I wish to contribute to this debate by talking about education opportunities that are close to my heart in the creative industries, and the barriers in this country to a creative education. I come to this place as a proud graduate of University of Chichester in my constituency, and I am living proof that a creative qualification can lead someone down many paths, including to this place.

Years of underfunding and poor organisation means that, despite a booming creative industry in the UK, young people are finding it increasingly difficult to attain the education they need to enter the sector, especially through the state system. There has been a significant drop in arts enrolment at A-level, with a 29% decline since 2010. Government grants for arts education have fallen 40% in real terms over the past decade, and the number of those teaching arts-based subjects dropped by 27% between 2011 and 2024.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests as a trustee of Chichester Festival Theatre, which has a thriving learning, education and participation department, and it is leading the way in giving access to performing arts education to those from underprivileged backgrounds. Pallant House Gallery also has a fantastic education and outreach department, and both Chichester College and the University of Chichester are creating the next generation of creatives who will feed into a creative industry, which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) mentioned, is worth £126 billion to the economy and creates 2.4 million jobs.

The work that charities and organisations are doing in this space to reduce barriers to opportunity is immeasurable, and their work is at risk if local authorities are not appropriately funded to ensure that their non-statutory obligations are protected. The nature of the English baccalaureate means that it restricts take-up of the creative subjects and adds additional barriers to artistic education, which is why the Liberal Democrats are committed to including arts within it and ensuring Ofsted monitors schools so they provide a broad curriculum, including arts, with links to the creative and digital sectors. That would encourage young people to continue with an arts-based qualification, which is shown to be beneficial to their mental health. It would also improve results in subjects such as English and maths, and attainment in education as a whole.

The UK arts and creative industries are crucial to the UK economy and cultural identity, so there should be no barriers to the educational opportunities the sector can bring. I look forward to hearing the Minister commit to recognising the importance of a creative education.

14:55

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this very important debate.

I first got involved in politics because I thought it wrong that, far too often, the postcode in which a person is born dictates their life outcomes. I have spent the past 17 years working with some of the charities that the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) mentioned to tackle that disadvantage gap. I am incredibly honoured to be the national champion for the opportunity mission, because I believe that the most important element of this Government’s priorities is to break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that a child growing up in Clayton-le-Moors in my constituency of Hyndburn has exactly the same opportunities as a child growing up in Chelsea.

I will focus on the issues that we must tackle in the special educational needs and disabilities system, particularly for children and young people who grow up with SEND, but I first want to highlight the absolutely catastrophic situation that we inherited. Sadly, across the country, 20% of children grow up in poverty, but in my constituency of Hyndburn it is 37%. The data is stark. The Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrates that the earnings of boys who grow up in the most affluent households are 19 percentile points higher than those of boys from the most disadvantaged households, and for girls it is a 27 percentile point difference.

I strongly believe that a strong state education system is the key to overcoming that disparity, so I welcome the significant £1.4 billion schools rebuilding programme and the £2.1 billion we are investing in the repairs fund. That will have a direct impact in my constituency on Altham St James school, Knuzden St Oswald’s school, the Hyndburn academy and Haslingden high school.

My inbox is filled with messages from parents who are desperately fighting the education, health and care plan system. I have to write to the head of SEND at the borough council more than to any other stakeholder. Just this week, a constituent told me that she has been waiting over a year for a copy of her daughter’s EHCP, after an emergency review hearing. In the meantime, her daughter is out of education, just before her GCSEs and transition to college.

I am conscious of time, but I have some questions for the Minister. The attention on SEND provision across educational settings is welcome, but will she tell us a bit more about how the Government will approach that? When can we expect the children’s wellbeing Bill?

14:58

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing the debate and setting the scene. I thank him for being here and giving us all an opportunity to participate.

I have two helpful suggestions for the Minister. If things we have done in Northern Ireland have been successful, I want to share them and tell others about them. In Northern Ireland, the Minister of Education, my DUP colleague Paul Givan, has acknowledged that there are barriers and has implemented a new scheme called the RAISE programme. That it is an important opportunity to look afresh at the issues caused by deprivation and drive forward the whole community. It is a place-based approach to remove the barriers to learning and educational achievement. That is important to us because in Northern Ireland, young, white Protestant boys are not achieving their goals. The Government and the Education Minister recognise that and have set about trying to address it. The Education Minister said:

“My department will now continue to engage with key stakeholders in each RAISE locality through a series of workshops over the coming weeks and months—to identify needs, build the evidence base and bring forward strategic plans for consideration.”

I know the Minister here is always keen to participate. Has she had the opportunity to discuss that programme with Minister Givan, as she might wish to put it in place here too?

I want to reflect on one of the most effective residents’ associations in Strangford. The Scrabo Residents’ Association has a project to build up the confidence of young men within communities, so that they will understand that they can find a job, break the cycle within their family and have pride going to their job. I have met some of those young men; their pride in what they can do is excellent to see.

Government have made funding available for some residents’ groups to do such projects on the ground, thereby giving people jobs. Success stories include HGV driving, and work in factories and in fields. Will the Minister consider some of the things we have done in Northern Ireland, such as the Raise programme and projects that we are pursuing with community groups? With those we can add value, and add value to the local community at the same time.

15:00

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing the debate.

My experience as a maths teacher at a secondary school taught me about the barriers to opportunity that students face. As I have highlighted these issues many times and will continue to do so as a member of the Education Committee, I want to focus today on the lack of support for young carers, primarily because that has been raised by my constituents.

A recent report by the Carers Trust highlights the issues. It spoke to almost 25,000 pupils and 65 young carer services for the report, which highlighted three main concerns. First, caring can have a significant negative impact on education, opportunity and attendance. In 2022-23, young carers on average missed more than a month of their education, which was nine days more than their classmates who were not carers. The report also found that, in England, almost a half of young carers were persistently absent from secondary school that year.

The second area of concern was that many young carers are not spotted or recognised while they are in education. Only a quarter of the respondents to the survey agreed that teachers had a good understanding of their challenges. Although many local young carer services are promoting awareness-raising campaigns, only a third of them said that they had the capacity to give education providers the help they need to identify young carers. The third area highlighted in the report was the inconsistency of support offered to young carers in education. Almost one in four young carers stated that there was no support for them in their college, school or university.

What can we do to tackle that? There are two things I would like to ask the Minister to consider. First, to consider adding young carers to the Department for Education’s daily attendance reporting scheme. That will help to inform schools and local authorities about the young carers who are missing from school and their level of attendance. Secondly, I ask the Minister to consider introducing a young carers’ pupil premium. That would ensure that schools had the funding they need to support all the young carers in their educational institutions. In conclusion, I am very keen to support young carers in our community.

15:03

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate.

I want to take the opportunity to highlight an issue that affects the future of many children in our communities—the barriers to educational opportunities faced by children in kinship care. In my constituency, 450 children are living in kinship care, placing us in the top 10% in England and Wales. Those children being raised by relatives or close family friends often face significant challenges that can hinder their educational progress. Many have special educational needs or disabilities, including social, emotional and mental health issues. More than one in 10 have been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder.

Those challenges mean that kinship children are much more likely than their peers to attend SEN schools. Kinship children in England alone are over three times more likely to have an EHCP than all other pupils. Despite their needs, kinship children often do not receive the same level of support as those in local authority care. The lack of support can leave them struggling to cope in the classroom and with their post-school opportunities, impacting their ability not only to learn but to thrive. Kinship carers want educators to be better trained to understand the unique challenges that kinship children face, and to provide the support that these children need throughout their lives. It is crucial that we address the barriers and ensure that kinship children receive the support they need to flourish in their educational journey, just to give them a fair crack of the whip. That means improving access to special educational services, providing targeted training for educators and recognising the unique challenges faced by kinship families. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive and supportive educational environment for all children, ensuring that, as we have said in our mission statement, every child, regardless of background or circumstances, has the opportunity to succeed.

I want to finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions, including whether the Government are considering taking any specific actions to support the children in kinship care and whether an assessment has been made of the gap in SEND provision disproportionately affecting children in kinship care.

15:05

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate.

University is great, but it is not for everyone. We need to have alternatives of equal status, value and quality. West Lothian college in my constituency, under the principal Jackie Galbraith, is a fantastic institution that delivers a range of vocational and non-vocational courses to thousands of pupils and learners every year. But colleges across Scotland have faced a decade of decline under the SNP, with a lack of focus and a lack of funding. Since 2021 there has been a 17% real-terms decline in college funding, with the most recent Scottish budget cutting £32.7 million from the budget for Scottish colleges, including a £12 million cut to student support funding.

However, with a UK Labour Government there is hope for further education in Scotland. The UK Budget delivers an extra £1.5 billion to the Scottish Government this year, and an extra £3.4 billion next year for them to invest in Scottish higher education. The Scottish Government now have the resources to restore Scottish colleges to their full potential, but they must act at pace and with a competence that they have so far not shown in order to do so.

On apprenticeships the picture is no better. The SNP promised to deliver more apprenticeships, but they had to be bounced into funding modern apprenticeships for the next financial year when a press release from the Scottish Training Federation noted how their failure to fund Skills Development Scotland had left

“apprentices, training providers and employers in limbo”.

Across Livingston constituency I have met employers in renewables, house building and the food and drink sector, and all have spoken to me about the lack of apprenticeships in their sectors.

Now that the Scottish Government have the funding, as my colleague in the Scottish Parliament Pam Duncan-Glancy has said, they have “nowhere to hide” from their record on funding for education and apprenticeships. It is finally time for them to show ambition for Scotland and break down the barriers for people across the Livingston constituency and across Scotland.

15:08

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this debate, which is a crucial opportunity to reflect on the steps that we must now take to open up opportunities for all to thrive.

Employers regularly tell me that they are urgently seeking people equipped not just with the skills of today but the skills of tomorrow. They are preparing for new waves of technology, evolving processes and increased automation—preparing for the future. In my constituency of Southampton Itchen we see great examples of that at the National Oceanography Centre and in the transformative technology at Ocean Infinity. Those and many other organisations embody the future that we are building—an economy fit for the 21st century. Only if we plan with intention and foresight for that future will we be able to break down the barriers to opportunity. That is why it is essential that Ministers take advantage of the upcoming curriculum review and the establishment of Skills England to build the foundations of what my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has set out today and move away from high stakes assessment, pivoting instead towards providing young people in schools with the academic base and the practical, applicable skills and opportunities that exist today and that inspire and excite them.

What might all that look like? It is a curriculum that is fit for, as hon. Members have said, kids with SEND, those with care experience, and those who are young carers. It is about practical skills, including financial and media literacy. It is about an ambitious approach to work experience. It is about realising the value of early visits to sites of industry and creative companies, which really inspire. It is about building resilience in our children and young people.

In my constituency, Southampton college and Itchen college are working hard to equip young people with the qualifications and skills—the apprenticeships—they need and the preparation they deserve. It is institutions such as these that may benefit from the £300 million cash investment that we announced in the Budget. That kind of targeted support and a revamped programme of study and skills development will drive meaningful change in our communities. As someone for whom education made all the difference, and as the proud husband of a secondary school teacher, I know that it all starts with the foundations of education. We can now look forward to real investment in them.

15:10

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate. With 4.3 million children living in poverty in the UK and one in four in my constituency, covering Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich, it is an urgent debate. Child poverty latches on to children before they are born, stays with them throughout their educational journey and follows them into adulthood.

We know that education is the key to lifting people out of poverty. UNESCO estimates that world poverty could be cut in half if all adults completed secondary education. It is vital that we tackle each barrier to that outcome head on. There are many barriers to choose from, and we have heard many today. We could discuss high transport costs or low availability of services. We could discuss the effect of poor-quality housing or the lack of available social housing.

As a number of my colleagues have done, I will focus on provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. In the House, we have heard time and again about inadequate provision for young people with SEND. Every young person deserves the opportunity to thrive in an environment that meets their needs. Despite the best intentions of everyone involved, the current system is broken and actively incentivises bad outcomes for everyone. The recently published National Audit Office report clearly sets out the stark inadequacies of a system that has not only lost the confidence of families but is adversarial, causes immense trauma for children and parents, and sets young people up to fail. It is abundantly clear that we need to rebuild the system from the ground up to ensure that it is not just functional, but robust and fully equipped to provide the necessary support for those that need it.

We need more early intervention, and improved teacher training so that schools are better able to identify and adapt to SEN. We need nothing short of a revolution in how mainstream schools, particularly at secondary level, approach SEN, accompanied by more resource provision. We need to increase capacity in our state-run special schools and avoid the use of private schools that cost local authorities five or six times as much per child. Above all, we need to rebuild trust between parents and a system that has failed them for too long.

I am pleased that the Government have made it a priority to put in place a SEN system that will break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child can achieve and thrive. I will champion this crucial mission on behalf of my constituents.

15:13

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Something about under your chairmanship—sorry, I have forgotten the line, Mr Pritchard. My apologies.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

No worries at all. I will take anything—within reason.

[Emily Darlington]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for bringing forward this really important debate. Education is the best way in the world to bring peace and prosperity, and for people in my constituency of Milton Keynes to get better jobs and have better lives.

In the 1960s, Harold Wilson dreamed of a university of the air. Jennie Lee made that a reality through the Open University, which she chose to base in Milton Keynes—I am very lucky in that. The OU is so important for educational opportunity, because it makes no distinction based on someone’s formal educational qualifications. In fact, it actively encourages those without formal qualifications to come forward and be everything that they can be. It is absolutely crucial for social mobility. More than a quarter of the undergraduates live in the most deprived areas across the UK, and more than 37,000 students last year had some kind of disability, particularly those who had been failed by the current school system and wanted the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

The most important thing about the OU is its flexible learning model, which has been taken forward by many colleges and universities right across the UK and the world, including the Russell Group. At the heart of any ambitious Labour Government is education, education, education for everyone. Being for everyone means that it has to be at the heart of our universities, colleges and schools, and so far this generation is not seeing that investment. I ask the Minister: how will we transform those opportunities for people in Milton Keynes and for my daughters, who are currently going through school?

15:15

[Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. As a former senior lecturer at a further education college in Glasgow, I recognise the importance of this issue across the UK, but I will focus my brief remarks on Scotland.

In Scotland we have had 17 years of SNP Government: 17 years of money being spent on projects that have not worked and 17 years of further education being treated as an afterthought. As a former FE lecturer in engineering, I will always place particular value on STEM courses. A once-great industrial nation, Scotland has communities such as mine in Airdrie and Shotts where the industries of the past still shape who we are today, and indeed where we will go in the future. However, I cannot stress enough the importance of the word “opportunity”. Opportunity for a decent education beyond our school years and for well-paid, secure employment is something we may take for granted, but for many in my constituency it is a distant possibility rather than a reality.

I took the time to attend a meeting of the Educational Institute of Scotland, my former union, in North Lanarkshire, and hear directly from FE staff. The words “undervalued”, “overworked” and “underpaid” came up again and again. As a former senior lecturer myself, it was tough to hear that the challenges of working in the sector had worsened only a few years after I left, but my passion to see renewed focus on and investment in FE has only strengthened.

The lack of investment is understandable from a Scottish Government that are financially illiterate. We have come to expect this narrow Weltanschauung from them. However, we must understand how it came about: too many people placed at the top of institutions in our country who have never had a trade, never worked their way up learning every aspect of their trade or business, and never understood the basics of how industry works and what technical and human skills are required for a modern workforce.

I attended the Open University—an unashamedly Labour policy—and place significant value on a good education and the importance of opportunity in an individual’s outcomes. I will use my time in this place to fight to eliminate barriers to that, and I look forward to working with hon. Members in doing so. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing this important and timely debate.

15:18

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. As a former teacher in secondary education, like many others here, this issue is a particular passion. There are a multitude of situational, institutional and dispositional barriers that impact people. Those barriers will impact each and every one of us over the course of our lives, and across our constituencies many people will be affected by those barriers layered on top of each other.

I will talk about three types of barrier in particular. They were identified by the former Government, but I believe they need to be tackled by this Government. The first is age. We know that over the course of our lifetimes, many of us might have multiple careers, depending on future election results. Many of our constituents will also have multiple jobs and multiple careers, and they need to be given opportunities in the employment landscape to engage in continuous professional development. They need access to courses—not necessarily university courses, but other types of courses. What can be done to promote continuous professional development in the workplace? We know that is age-related as well.

I want to highlight the fact that BAE Systems, a major employer in my constituency that just invested £200 million extra in the Rochester aerospace division, is promoting continuous professional development within its employment base, as well as additional apprenticeships for those aged 18 and over. That type of large-scale initiative can also link with the Government’s investment strategy around the green new deal, and where we can set the direction of the future and align it with colleges and aspiration.

The second barrier, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, is SEND access. Having met headteachers last week in Holmesdale School and Holborough Lakes in my constituency, I can tell hon. Members now that local authorities, including Kent, are struggling with getting provision into schools and supporting our students. What can we do to ensure that this appalling legacy is redressed?

The final barrier is early years access. One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government was Sure Start, which gave educational opportunities. We know that if we target students at the very youngest age, outcomes can be positive at the end of their lives. That life course is absolutely critical if we are to get aspiration into our young people, so what will the Government do around early years provision so that we can get support to parents and give educational opportunities to all our young people?

15:20

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for bringing this important discussion to the House.

Like many who have spoken today, I am a former teacher, and I know of the huge impact that a child’s home life can have on educational attainment. I feel it is really important that when we talk about children’s educational attainment, we consider not only exam results, but the wider school experience—sometimes we call it the hidden curriculum. In my constituency of Harlow, there are pockets of high child poverty. Some 17.3% of children in Harlow live in low-income families compared with the Essex average of 12.8%, and we saw that during the terrible pandemic, in which nearly 8,000 families had food parcels delivered to them. This will have a huge impact on children—no child will be able to learn if they are hungry—and I welcome this Government’s pledge of free breakfast clubs in every primary school.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards) mentioned, I will speak about a specific group of young people who are often forgotten: young carers. Some 38% of young carers surveyed reported that they regularly miss school because of their caring situation. No young person can learn when they are not in school, and no one can focus with the anxiety of being away from those who they care for. I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has pledged to make young carers an integral part of the recently announced youth strategy, and I ask that young carers be a golden thread in any future educational reform.

I recently had the privilege of inviting a group of young carers to Parliament. One young girl highlighted that when she rang up her university and said that she could no longer attend because of her caring commitment, she was not asked any follow-up questions. We also know that young carers are not classified as disadvantaged in education. Another young carer said that he felt there was no description that fitted him when he went to university. When he went on the university’s website, there was no description of a young carer that fitted his young caring abilities.

I will finish with an ask. We know that this lack of awareness of young carers across education and universities needs to be recognised and responded to. I want to see young carer leads as a standard, not an exception.

15:23

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate.

Barriers to learning and skills development affect not only children and young people in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, but adults. Upskilling is key to economic participation and engagement in the labour market, yet last week, when I met our local Staffordshire chamber of commerce, it highlighted concerns from local employers about a lack of basic skills development among young people and adults at all points in their careers, so it is important that we focus on helping people to achieve those qualifications. Our city council, local further education and independent providers work incredibly hard to upskill adults, and that is reflected in our higher participation rates in further education and skills. Tackling barriers to educational opportunity is really important in promoting social mobility in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, and many of our local schools and colleges focus on and recognise that.

However, as we know, barriers to opportunity are multifaceted. They are linked to deprivation, housing conditions and household income, and improving educational outcomes goes hand in hand with addressing socioeconomic inequality.

Perhaps the most significant barriers to educational opportunity in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove are the high rates of speech, numeracy and language deficiency in our early years outcomes. As we all know, early years development is a significant predictor of our educational outcomes across the whole life course. Sadly, last year in Stoke-on-Trent, only one in two of our two-year-olds had a good level of development compared with nearly 80% in England, and the level of development locally has been declining for a number of years.

Tackling barriers to educational opportunity begins in the very early years. I hope the Minister will agree that investment in our early years is critical to tackling those barriers.

15:25

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this important debate.

I want to focus on the importance of the fabric of the buildings in which we deliver our educational opportunities, and on one particular school in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South—Trentham academy. I have been a teacher for 30 years, and I was astonished at what I saw when I visited recently. I met the headteacher, Mr Mike Whittingham, to discuss the Trentham academy estate and to see for myself the challenges that it has faced.

I will say at the outset that Trentham is an excellent school. It has achieved a “good” Ofsted rating, with “outstanding” in some areas, and it is highly oversubscribed. The 750-capacity school already has more than 790 pupils, and last year it received 580 applications for new students as the first choice of parents. It delivers excellent education. It has a strong ethos, the teachers are smiling and it is a great little school, so when I visited I could not have been more shocked at the state of it. There are rotting floors and mould in some classrooms. There are annual rat infestations, with fly infestations following. Rats and other vermin have repeatedly fallen into classrooms, into teachers’ hair and, worst of all, into their cups of tea, which is enough of an excuse in itself to rebuild the school.

There are only five female toilet cubicles, three male cubicles and 11 cubicles in a unisex toilet, which I would not enter—not because it is unisex, but because it is just not fit for purpose. It is technically against building regulations, and the disabled accessible toilets are inadequate. Legislation says that there must be one toilet per 20 pupils. Trentham academy currently has one toilet per 40 pupils, and I would not go in some of those. I could continue. Another issue is the poor fire doors and the real fire safety risks.

I welcome the school rebuilding fund, with £2.4 billion for school maintenance and £1.4 billion for school rebuilding. I ask the Minister merely for the money to rebuild the school, and I assure her that we will deliver a cracking school with great education, and fill the desperate need for extra secondary school places in Stoke-on-Trent.

15:28

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing such an important and wide-ranging debate. Tackling barriers to educational opportunity is critical to everything—to the lives of our young people, to the strength of our economy, and to the future of our country and society. Given the breadth of the topic, I hope Members will forgive me for not being able to cover everything in depth, but I will try to cover as much territory as I can.

Children face all sorts of barriers to the education they deserve, whether that is growing up in poverty at home, or getting the necessary support for special educational needs, disabilities or mental ill health. Some children may grow up in foster care, and more than 140,000 grow up in kinship care, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) discussed. They may be young carers, which the hon. Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned. None of their needs should be forgotten—everything from hunger, to abuse, to the damaging impact of social media should be taken into account. They are all barriers that young people face in their education today.

It is not just about children at school; the vital role of education starts in the early years and continues throughout people’s lives. Indeed, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe opened the debate by focusing on adult education and skills, which is vital at a time when the demands of our economy are changing so rapidly and unpredictably. It has never been more important that adults have the opportunities they need to learn new skills so that they can get well-paid, secure new jobs. I look forward to seeing the detail that the new Government bring forward in their reform of the apprenticeship levy and their review of the reform of level 3 qualifications. I also hope they will look at boosting apprenticeship pay for young people, which is out of step with the national minimum wage.

Rather than speak about all those things in any detail, I will focus on a few barriers and offer a few solutions that I hope the Minister will consider carefully. One of the biggest barriers to educational opportunities is, of course, poverty. With just over 4 million children in the UK estimated to be living in poverty, that equates to nine in every classroom. In a country like ours, that is utterly shameful. Many hon. Members who are former teachers will recognise the phrase often said to me when I go into schools, which is that school staff see themselves as the fourth emergency service as they deal with poverty and the social issues that brings. Whether it is children living in poor housing, with poor health or with challenging relationships at home, we all hear from teachers who spend time helping disadvantaged pupils with food, uniforms and other basics that their families are struggling to provide. That simply cannot go on.

I suggest to the Minister that there are three ways to tackle poverty, and child poverty in particular. First, we should abolish the cruel two-child benefit cap, which denies more than one and a half million children and their families the support they deserve. Its abolition would lift some 300,000 children out of poverty immediately, giving them the chance to learn, to grow and to access the life chances that are available to some of their more well-off classmates.

Secondly, we should extend eligibility for free school meals. Food poverty poses a particular barrier to education: hungry children struggle to learn and they often struggle with their behaviour. They face a fundamental barrier that many of their classmates may be lucky enough to avoid, and there is simply no excuse in 2024 for a child to be hungry at school. By expanding free school meals to all children in poverty, we could ensure that 900,000 children are no longer at risk of being hungry in the afternoon and having to learn on an empty stomach. I urge the Minister to make that commitment.

If that is too big an ask of the Chancellor, a good first step would be the auto-enrolment of all those who are eligible for free school meals. In Lib Dem-led Durham county council, the introduction of auto-enrolment this academic year has already led to some 2,500 extra children receiving a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the school day. All the evidence tells us that those children will have improved educational and health outcomes.

Thirdly, we should tackle the attainment gap through a tutoring guarantee. The attainment gap between disadvantaged and more well-off pupils has widened every year since 2020. The evidence is clear that tutoring can be highly effective in improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged young people. Small-group tutoring showed its value under the national tutoring programme, which was poorly implemented at first, but when school leaders were empowered to deliver it, the evidence has shown that tutoring does not just lead to improved attainment but can help to build pupils’ confidence and benefit their attendance, which is currently such a big problem in our schools. Funding for tutoring ran out in July this year, so will the Government commit to a national tutoring guarantee, so that every disadvantaged pupil can access the support they need? It would be a small step with a huge impact that would help to break down one of the biggest barriers to education in our society today.

Hon. Members have spoken about the huge crisis in our special educational needs and disabilities system, which affects one in six pupils. Only 17% of SEND pupils achieve grade 5 or above at GCSE in English and Maths, compared with 51% of other pupils, and they are much more likely to be suspended or permanently excluded. At the beginning of last year, when I visited Feltham young offender institution, the vast majority of young men there had special educational needs and were out of education for a lot of their childhood.

There is simply not enough mainstream support available at school. Coupled with a lack of specialist provision, that has left many children languishing at home without proper access to education. This is an enormous challenge that deserve many debates of its own, and we have had many well-subscribed debates in this place since the general election. Indeed, last month I secured an urgent question on the National Audit Office report that has been mentioned. I urge the Minister to look again at Liberal Democrat proposals for a new national body for SEND to support children with the most complex needs, for more training and specialists to identify needs early, and for speeding up the building of state special schools.

We know that SEND is closely related to poor mental health services. Our mental health services are struggling to keep pace with demand, and there is huge unmet need. Research conducted by the Liberal Democrats earlier this year revealed that over 300,000 children are stuck on a mental health waiting list. Many of those children will struggle to learn properly and will almost certainly experience their condition getting worse while they are waiting for support. With the number of children with a diagnosable mental health condition now hitting one in five, putting a dedicated mental health professional in every school, both primary and secondary, is urgent.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made a brief comment on the early years sector, which has not been talked about much in the debate. After years of Conservative underfunding of the early years sector, the Labour Government are introducing a national insurance rise that will hit many private and not-for-profit early years providers. The Early Years Alliance said this could

“push the sector to the brink of collapse.”

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about whether she is pressing her colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that sufficient funding is available, so that parents do not have to foot the bill once again and more disadvantaged parents and their children are not forced out of early years provision, because the early years are when we can make the biggest impact on educational attainment.

I recognise that all these solutions cost money, but it is time we stopped seeing our children as a cost item in a profit and loss account. It is time we saw our children and young people and their education as one of the best investments we can make—an investment in the potential of every individual, in our society and in our economy. This Government cannot be serious about growth if they do not invest in educational opportunity.

15:37

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing the debate and on his focus on the specific issue—it was a very good speech. I echo the commendation from him and the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) of the work of colleges and the important things they do.

I will get the ding-dong out the way. I gently point out to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that apprenticeship starts under the Conservatives went up quite considerably from 2010 to 2022-23, from 279,000 to 337,000. I am sure he will want to reflect that in his closing remarks. I also want to pick up on something said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). We are never going to get anywhere if we talk about a toxic legacy on education under the Conservatives. We all want to make progress on this stuff. In 2010, we were behind Germany and France in PISA; now we are ahead. Obviously, we can contrast that with what happened in Wales and Scotland.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) was absolutely right that the SNP has failed to close the gap for disadvantaged children. If we are going to make progress, which we all want to do, on raising educational standards and helping disadvantaged children, it is important to look at why some things have gone well, and one of the reasons is a knowledge-based curriculum. I say to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that we need to be careful about what we do in this area, because the worst thing we can do for disadvantaged children is dilute academic standards.

I will get to the meat of the debate now because I think I have covered that. We are all interested in the number of apprenticeships going up. I would be interested to know from the Minister how much apprenticeship start numbers will go up and whether the Government stand by the pledge to spend up to 50% of the apprenticeship levy on other types of training. That was committed to before the election. I am not clear as to whether that is still the case now, so it would be helpful for the Minister to give some clarification on that specific point.

I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that once skills have gone, it is very difficult to get them back. What is the Minister doing to safeguard specific high-value and rare skills, particularly in the craft area? I hope she answers correctly the brilliant contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on free school meals, holiday activities and breakfast clubs, all of which are crucial to driving forward the progress of disadvantaged children.

I share interest in the question asked by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on when the children’s wellbeing Bill will be introduced. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), mentioned the importance of driving down the number of absences, which we absolutely want to do on a cross-party basis. We will very much support the register, which I believe is going to be in that Bill, but when will that Bill be brought forward and how does the Minister intend to make it work?

The speeches made about young carers by the hon. Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) were very moving and absolutely right, and I am interested in the Minister’s comments on them. The mention by the hon. Member for Twickenham of state special schools was important. I was pleased to see that they have not been paused, but given the speech given last week by the Secretary of State, will the Minister confirm that she still believes in the principle of having separate special schools? Will they be continued and will parents have the choice as to whether they send their kids to them?

I very much echo the comments from the hon. Member for Twickenham about the importance of early years. I will quibble with her about the funding that has gone into early years, which obviously increased massively under the last Government, but we have a real problem now with early years funding. The national insurance contributions change will have a significant impact on the sector. It will means that, in contrast to what the Prime Minister said today, costs for parents will go up. Also, childcare provision has had no guarantees that the Government’s funding formula will include provision for the increased cost from NICs. Obviously, under the previous Government we set it up so that the minimum wage increases will be taken into account. Will the Minister please confirm today that the increased costs from employers’ national insurance contributions will be taken into account by the Government in the funding formula? Otherwise, we are going to have a real crisis with provision. The Minister needs to recognise that and take it away if she cannot answer now.

More broadly, this has been a helpful and interesting debate. Education is an area where we need to work together to make progress for disadvantaged children. I say to all Labour Members that the Conservatives will drive that forward by insisting on high academic standards and the rigorous holding to account of schools for their performance, and by ensuring that the curriculum is knowledge based and drives children forward. We will support the Government if they seek to drive up apprenticeship starts and improve vocational education, and we will work as hard as we can with them on improving the current absence rates, because we know they are hitting disadvantaged children.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I should say that if she wants to make time for the mover of the motion to have a minute or two at the end, I think we have time, if she is so minded.

15:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

It is a real honour to respond to this debate on this important matter, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing it, and for its wide scope as well.

I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions—I will try to answer their wide remarks and questions as best I can—and I want to mention a few. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned kinship carers and SEND, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) also talked about SEND. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) talked about the need for buildings, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about adding value. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) talked about issues in the creative industries, and the Government’s response to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke about early years, and there have also been conversations about young carers, breakfast clubs and so on.

The Government believe that the opportunity to enjoy a good life with a great job, and to secure a home, should belong to everyone. Every child and young person should have the opportunity to succeed, no matter who they are, where they are from or how much their parents earn, but as a nation we are yet to fulfil that promise. A person’s background often counts more towards success than effort and enterprise, and too many children are held back by the circumstances they are born into. Children from the lowest-earning families, those from diverse backgrounds, those with special educational needs and disabilities, those with experience of the care system and young carers face too many barriers to building the best life they can.

Too many children and young people grow up seeing success as something that happens to others, but it also belongs to them. That is why this new Government will be a mission-led one, with a defining mission to break the unfair link between background and opportunity. The opportunity mission will build opportunity for all by giving every child the best start in life. It will help them achieve, thrive and build skills for opportunity and growth, and will ensure security.

Building skills for opportunity and growth is key to the opportunity mission. From the age of 16 onwards lies the transition into the world of work and future opportunities. We will ensure that every young person can follow the pathway that is right for them, whether that is through high-quality apprenticeships, colleges or universities, including Open university. The right skills and courses give people the ability to progress into good jobs and not shy away from opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe focused mostly on skills and technical education. I assure all hon. Members that the Government are focused on opportunities for everyone, whatever their background, age, ability and identity. We are ambitious for children and young people, and for their aspirations. Our higher education system is globally recognised for its excellence, which is great. The Government recognise that university is right for many, but that it is not the only option. Apprenticeships and skills are absolutely the right option for others. That is why we are determined to get it right and support young people who wish to take that path. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that under 14 years of Conservative Government, the number of apprenticeships has plummeted. The apprenticeship levy was exposed as inadequate.

[Jamie Stone]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I have so much to get through that I am afraid I cannot.

Skills policy has too often been made in isolation, leading to a system that is confusing for employers and individuals, and that does not lead to the right jobs for our population. Skills shortage vacancies in England more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, from 226,500 to 531,200. Too few young people—indeed, people of all ages—have been able to gain the benefits of a quality post-16 education. Those figures are shocking.

We need to do so much more to ensure that people do not face unemployment, low wages and poor health outcomes. The lack of a clear plan has led to widespread skill shortages in areas such as construction, manufacturing, hospitality, information and communication, healthcare and social care. That is why meeting the skill needs of the next decade is central to delivering the Government’s five missions: economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy. We aim to create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system that supports people of all ages, breaks down barriers to opportunity and drives economic growth.

We have not stood still. Last month’s Budget included an investment of an additional £300 million in further education to ensure that young people develop the skills they need. It also included £950 million of skills capital funding, including £300 million to ensure that college estates are in good condition so they meet students’ learning needs. We have also commenced a curriculum and assessment review, which is now in full swing with roadshows up and down the country. It will deliver a curriculum that is rich in knowledge, strong in skills and led by evidence. We have announced the youth guarantee, which will help to ensure that young people have the opportunity to acquire the skills that they need.

We will reform the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy to deliver greater flexibility for both learners and employers. As a first step we will introduce foundation apprenticeships to give more young people a foot in the door. The new foundation apprenticeships will support clear progression pathways into further work-based training and sustained employment. We will support and fill the pipeline of new talent that employers need. We are investing £40 million to support the development and delivery of foundation apprenticeships, as well as apprenticeships of a shorter duration that will provide further flexibility for employers, as so many have called for.

We have also listened to feedback about qualifications; concerns were expressed about the rapid pace of reforms from the previous Government, about the quality of qualifications and about how they do not always serve students well. This Government are determined to do better—and indeed we will. We have therefore announced a short-term internal review of qualifications reform, which clearly signals our intention to balance the range of concerns and to provide clarity in the qualifications landscape. We believe that this is the best way to support students, unlock opportunity, harness talent and drive growth.

We have introduced Skills England in shadow form. It will ensure we have the highly trained workforce needed to deliver national, regional and local skills for the next decade, aligned with the upcoming industrial strategy. Skills England will ensure that there is a comprehensive choice of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access. Skills England will ensure that the skills system is clear, and that both young people and older adults can navigate it, strengthening career pathways into jobs across the economy. It will increase the quality and quantity of skills development in the workplace by providing an authoritative assessment of national and regional skills needs in the economy, now and in the future.

Moving to the school rebuilding programme, this Government have increased next year’s capital allocation to improve school buildings to £2.1 billion, which is £300 million more than this year. We have also committed to £1.4 billion to support the current school rebuilding programme to deliver 518 projects across England.

Many issues have been raised about children with special educational needs and disabilities and the anxieties of their parents. On reform, this Government’s ambition is that all children and young people with SEND will receive the right support to succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. We are committed to improving inclusiveness and expertise in mainstream schools, and to ensuring that special school provision continues to meet children’s most complex needs. That will restore parents’ trust, as they will know that their child is getting the support they desperately need. We will work with the sector, as it is essential that we join our valued partners in that shared vision.

There were questions about free school meals and ensuring that children are eligible. We have a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity, and to confront child poverty. The continued provision of free school meals to disadvantaged children plays an important role in that. The Government spend around £1.5 billion annually on free lunches for over 3 million pupils. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach open and continue to review it. It remains our ambition that no child should go hungry.

We are also doing a child poverty review. The new child poverty ministerial taskforce will drive cross-Government action on child poverty, starting by overseeing the development of an ambitious child poverty strategy, which will be published next spring. The taskforce publication of 23 October, “Tackling Child Poverty: Developing Our Strategy”, sets out our framework for how the strategy will be developed, harnessing all available levers to deliver a reduction in child poverty in this Parliament as part of our ambitious 10-year strategy, which addresses its root causes.

On breakfast clubs, we will remove barriers to opportunities by ensuring that every primary school pupil, no matter their circumstance, is well prepared for school. From April 2025, free breakfast clubs will be available for up to 750 early adopters ahead of the national roll-out. Early adopters will allow us to identify and tackle barriers to implementing the full breakfast club roll-out. That is the first step in our commitment to enable breakfast clubs in all primary schools.

[Damian Hinds]

Before the Minister moves on, my main question on breakfast clubs was about what happens to the national school breakfast programme for secondary and special schools. We have heard a lot about primary schools, but we have not heard much about secondary and special schools in disadvantaged areas. Is she in a position to tell us a little more about that?

[Janet Daby]

This Government are committed to tackling child poverty. As I have already outlined as regards the poverty taskforce, many of the issues and areas are continuing to be reviewed and worked out. We are determined to bring down child poverty. On the specific areas the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, more information will be coming, but I am afraid he will have to be patient, as we had to be patient for the past 14 years.

I also add that through the children’s wellbeing Bill, which has been mentioned, the Government will look to introduce further strategies for improving the outcomes for children and young people, and to make the reform and changes that we need. The Bill will be introduced, as parliamentary time allows, and we appreciate Members’ patience.

Time is quickly moving on and running out. I could say so much more about so many other areas that were mentioned, but I am afraid I will have to move to a close. We will try to respond where we can, but I ask Members, please, to continue to write in and ask questions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing the debate on such an important matter and I hope the House appreciates that I made every attempt to respond.

15:58

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the Minister for her response and everyone present for their contributions to this important debate. Members have highlighted an inheritance of widening inequality, increasing child poverty, narrowing opportunities and an education system crying out for change. They have also highlighted that the Government’s proposals for reform give us cause for optimism: the curriculum review, Skills England, reform of the apprenticeship levy, improved teacher training on SEND, free breakfast clubs in primary schools and a properly funded education system.

There are of course particular barriers to opportunity. We heard, for example, from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on SEND; my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on young carers; my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on kinship carers; and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on poor school buildings. There is a long way to go.

To respond to the points made by Opposition Members, after the apprenticeship levy was introduced in 2017, there was a 31% fall in apprenticeship starts. That fact cannot be denied; it is a fact that is being responded to by this Government, and it is part of the inheritance that we are actively addressing. I am proud to be a Labour MP supporting a Labour Government. We are the party that introduced Sure Start, the single most effective measure for reducing child poverty. The measures we are taking will help ensure that every child, regardless of background, has access to the opportunities that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling barriers to educational opportunities.

Kinship Carers

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Alistair Strathern will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. I remind colleagues that, as is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for kinship carers.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I start by welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. It is a real pleasure to see her in this role. Not only does she bring experience as someone who has worked in children’s social care, but her compassion and drive to improve situations for young people right across the country will be a powerful motivator to ensure that we deliver the change we have committed to as a Government, and will benefit of kinship carers in my constituency and right across the country over the coming years.

I am delighted to introduce my second debate on kinship care, having held one in the immediate aftermath of the last Government strategy earlier this year. As MPs, we get to meet, I think it is fair to say, quite a wide range of campaigners, all of whom are very powerful. I have to say that some are more convincing than others, but there can be no group more powerful or moving to work with than kinship carers. I was privileged, before I was even an MP, to be grabbed by Carol and Amanda, two kinship carers in the then constituency, to talk through some of the challenges they were facing. It was impossible not to be moved by their determination to do right by the young people in their care and young people in kinship care right across the country, so we stepped forward and agreed to work together.

I was soon to find that kinship carers are, rightly, an incredibly tenacious group of campaigners. One week after I was elected, Carol and Amanda pitched up at my surgery to ask what I had managed to do so far, and what I would be doing in the next week, to take their cause forward. It should have come as no surprise, then, that one month after my re-election—albeit in a slightly different constituency—they were beating down my door again. They did so because this is a cause that matters. Kinship carers do amazing work on behalf of the young people in their care right across the country. They step up at a moment of real trauma for a young person and ensure, through love, compassion and dedication, that everything possible is done to give that young person the stability, the common identity and the compassion they need to thrive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is equally tenacious, and so is everyone else in this room. Last year in Northern Ireland, there were 3,801 children in care. We welcomed the boost for foster carers earlier this year, but we did not see a boost for kinship carers. Does he agree that there must be more financial provision for kinship caring across all of this great United Kingdom?

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank the hon. Member for making incredibly poignant remarks, as he always does in these debates. I think I have yet to attend a debate here where he has not brought something to the table, and I could not agree more that we need to be thinking about the breadth of support that kinship carers get. I hope to touch on some of those points later in my remarks.

As a former councillor and lead for children’s services, I was also privileged to work closely with kinship carers and see at first hand the impact they could have in transforming the outcomes of the young people in their care. They were making sure, in those difficult moments, that the young people had the stability of place, the familiar face and the retention of their identity needed in order to be as resilient as possible in the face of more traumatic circumstances than many of us will ever have to comprehend or grapple with personally. It came as no surprise, then, that the independent review of children’s social care a few years ago remarked clearly that kinship carers deliver far better outcomes than many other parts of the care sector, but are often underserved by a care network that just is not set up to fully consider them, fully recognise their needs and fully embrace the role they can play in supporting young people through that really difficult moment.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that kinship carers like David and Pamela in my constituency not only should have equal access to vital financial allowances, but should get the training and support they need when they take on this vital role?

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. It highlights the breadth of support we need to be considering for kinship carers—not just the pilots that have already been announced, but some of the wider training and therapeutic support needed to ensure that they are equipped to support the young people they are taking on caring responsibilities for.

This debate comes at a critical time for kinship carers across the country. They are finally having their voice heard, and we as parliamentarians owe it to them to live up to the commitments we have made over the last few years. It was fantastic at a recent reception to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education listening so attentively to one of the kinship carers, Poppy, talking through some of the challenges she faces and what she would like to change so that kinship carers and those in kinship care across the country are finally fully supported by the Government and their local authorities.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on securing this debate and being a champion for kinship carers, not just in this Parliament but previously. Does he recognise that the situation for kinship families is urgent and that the inaction that we saw from the previous Government means that many kinship carers are unable to continue? If they could not continue, it would push more children back into an already overstretched care system. Does he agree that though the 10 pilots are welcome, the best way to support families would be a non-means-tested mandatory allowance for all kinship families?

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention. It is important to recognise the urgency. We have inherited a situation in which one in eight kinship carers are worried that they might not be able to carry on their caring responsibility, while thousands of other young people across the country could be placed into productive, meaningful and nourishing kinship care placements but are currently denied that by our antiquated children’s social care system.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

As has just been mentioned, many kinship carers are on the breadline. They are not managing. Is it not right that instead of just patting them on the back and putting our arm around them, we should ensure that they receive adequate allowances to give the children they are looking after the best chance in life?

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful point. He rightly highlights that financial support is a crucial part of the package that kinship carers need. I am really excited that the Government are finally bringing forward the £44 million needed to get on with the pilots. However, it is important that we do not just put an arm around kinship carers, but provide a wider range of therapeutic support and advice. Both financial and non-financial support will be crucial.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the £44 million and the 10 pilots are a groundbreaking initiative on the part of this Government—something that kinship care families have long awaited and campaigned for? This is just the start, but we cannot have everything that we might want right now.

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. Since they took office, we have seen from the new Secretary of State, the Minister and the Government an urgency that, finally, is starting to meet the needs of the moment, and the needs of young people in kinship care and their carers. Whether it is making sure that we finally have a kinship care ambassador to actively champion the role of kinship carers and take to task local authorities that do not always provide the support they need, as some kinship carers in the room might be able to attest to; bringing forward statutory guidance and a framework to ensure that we have more in place to recognise the values of wider family networks in planning decisions for young people, and to do everything we can to remove the barriers to placing young people in kinship care; or—

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

As the previous Member for Mid Bedfordshire, the hon. Member knows how profoundly important this issue is to constituents like Amanda and Carol, who are tenacious. Does he agree that it is important to make sure that there is not a postcode lottery between local authorities and that there is equality of service across borders?

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The new kinship care ambassador and the guidance for local authorities that was brought out earlier this year will be important in delivering that, as will making sure that local authorities are held to account for delivering the local offer for kinship carers. This is an incredibly important issue, and whether a kinship carer and a young person get the support they need cannot be left to the luck of a postcode.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alistair Strathern]

I will give way to both my hon. Friends, then I will have to make some progress.

[Peter Swallow]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He makes a really important point about ending the postcode lottery. Does he agree that that extends to businesses and employers being more flexible when it comes to granting leave to kinship carers? Kinship carers often take on the responsibility at a moment of great crisis. It can be a really difficult moment, and we need to do more to ensure that they are supported to take the time off from work that they need to look after those in their care.

[Alistair Strathern]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who, with typically great foresight, has alluded to one of the points I hope to touch on later in my speech.

[Amanda Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must thank all kinship carers, in particular the 600 in my city, and that we must recognise that when children cannot be with their biological parents, it is often as a result of tragedy and trauma, yet kinship carers do not get the opportunity as often as adoptive parents and foster carers for training and preparation? That needs to be highlighted.

[Alistair Strathern]

I absolutely echo those sentiments. It cannot be right that young people who have gone through exactly the same level of trauma or difficulties early in their life can get very different levels of support depending on the statutory context in which they are looked after. We must consider that as part of the wider reforms to social care.

It would be fair to say that there is a consensus in the Chamber today that although there are exciting announcements coming from the Government on kinship care, there is a real desire to ensure that we do justice to kinship carers in thinking about how we can go further. I am really glad that in the Budget, the Government clearly set out the need to think about children’s social care reform more widely. It has been kicked down the road for too long. As the independent review of children’s social care rightly laid out, we are presiding over a system that is not delivering good outcomes for young people and their wider family network, at great cost to the taxpayer. That cannot be allowed to continue.

It is important to me and, I can see, to everyone in the Chamber today that kinship carers are a big part of how we put that right. We know that outcomes with kinship carers are better. We know that for every thousand people we place in kinship care, the taxpayer saves £40 million, and that that cohort, being better supported, will go on to earn up to £20 million more than if they had been placed in private social care. That is simple maths—a cold, hard, brutal underlining of the scale of the opportunity we are missing if we do not do right by kinship carers.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The economic point that the hon. Gentleman makes is powerful. This is not just about the long-term savings he alluded to from the improved outcomes for these children; there are short-term savings to paying kinship carers an allowance universally—not just in 10 pilots across the country—and extending employment leave through the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. Will he join me in pushing his party’s Front Benchers to be more ambitious? That will help the Chancellor find many of the savings she is looking for.

[Alistair Strathern]

I hope the hon. Lady knows that I will always be an ambitious advocate for kinship carers. I have met my match in the Minister, who is a very ambitious advocate for them too. I look forward to working with her and the Secretary of State, who I know has a real ambition for kinship carers and children’s social care more generally, to ensure that we do right by those who have been failed all too often by the system we have inherited.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alistair Strathern]

Let me make some progress, in order to ensure that I give the Minister time to respond.

I will briefly highlight three areas where we would welcome further consideration and action. The pilots are fantastic news, and if we have not yet settled on where they will be, I cannot recommend Hertfordshire and Central Bedfordshire councils more. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no delay and that the support is brought forward as quickly as possible. While I recognise the value of a compelling evidence base in policymaking, there is a clear case that this financial support will make a meaningful difference to kinship carers and potentially help to relieve the impact of further cost burdens in the system right now.

As other Members have alluded to, far too many kinship carers and their families cannot access the therapeutic support their young people and wider family networks need to navigate moments of trauma as effectively as possible. I know that there have been moves to rename the adoption fund, which has had positive benefits in improving some kinship carers’ access to it, but currently just one in seven of even those kinship carers who are eligible are benefiting from therapeutic support provided through that funding, and others are not eligible yet. Measures to widen access and put kinship carers on par with foster carers in other parts of the care system can only be welcomed.

I welcome the Government’s ambition to look again at things like parental leave. We have seen real action from the Government already, in their expansion of workers’ rights. It cannot be right that some of those who are least prepared to take on family responsibility, and have to do it at the shortest notice, in some cases with no planning at all, because of the very nature of the responsibility, receive no support at all. I urge the Minister to do everything she can to voice the need for consideration of kinship care leave as part of that wider allowance.

I am so excited to be part of a party that is taking this issue seriously and showing real leadership. I am looking forward to working with everyone in the Chamber to take forward our shared ambition to do right by kinship carers across the country, including those who have joined us here today. No one who meets a kinship carer or a young person in care can be under any illusion about the urgent case for change. We need to put right the things that they are experiencing and do all we can to support their love and determination to ensure that no other young person has to go through the challenges that the care system is currently forcing on them.

I thank the Minister for listening so attentively and colleagues for intervening so forcefully. I apologise to those from whom I was not able to take interventions in the end. It is so nice to see such interest in this issue, and I very much look forward to working with hon. Members and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), in taking forward the exciting issues we have been discussing today.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on securing this important debate. He has a keen interest in supporting kinship carers, and it is great to hear his passion and advocacy for kinship families in his constituency. It was also great to hear the interventions by so many Members from across the Chamber, who, alongside those who were unable to intervene, are equally passionate about improving the situation for kinship carers. I assure them that I hear the strength of their arguments and their passion, and I will take that with me as I work in this space.

The Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity and give every child the best start in life, and that includes supporting the amazing role that kinship carers play. I thank all kinship carers for the excellent caring work that they do, and the love and compassion they show to the children and loved ones they look after.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for the Government’s emphasis and focus on kinship carers. We are all desperately awaiting the announcement of the 10 pilot areas, but does the Minister recognise that the trial alone offers little reassurance to people such as my constituent Elaine Duffy, who was working full time but had to go part time and withdraw her pension savings to adapt her home so that she could care for her three grandchildren? She still receives no state financial support, and she is looking for some reassurance from the new Government. Can the Minister offer any?

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. If he will allow me to continue, I will address the inconsistencies across local authorities. We have heard about such real-life examples, and we recognise that the situation is not good enough. As I continue, I will explain how the new Government have already begun to address it.

I met some kinship carers during my first visit as a Minister, and it was clear to me that the challenges I witnessed years ago when I was a children and families social worker are still being felt today. That is shocking. I listened to the stories that hon. Members told, like the one that my hon. Friend just raised, and I was very troubled by them—how could I not be? However, we are in government; we want things to change, and change has begun. The evidence shows that children in kinship care often do better in school. They have better health outcomes and do better in later life, in terms of employment and their ability to socialise. Kinship carers are to be thanked, applauded and celebrated for providing a safe and loving home for children who can no longer live with their parents, but are instead being cared for by family members or friends who love them.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I will make some progress, but if I have time later, I will let my hon. Friend in.

The Government recognise the important role that kinship carers play. Our manifesto is committed to working with local government to support children in kinship care and kinship carers. We are already making progress, as we have heard. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £40 million to trial a new financial allowance for kinship carers, equivalent to the allowance for foster carers. That will take place initially in up to 10 local authorities. I have already been lobbied on this, and I say again that we are looking at how it will be rolled out, but Members will need to be patient. We will get the information to them as soon as possible. I recognise the desire for this in local authorities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Janet Daby]

I will make some progress, but again, I will give way later if I have time.

The investment is the single biggest made by any Government in kinship care to date. Our ambition is that all kinship carers will get the support they need to care for their children. It is important that we continue to build the evidence base to find out the benefit of financial support for kinship families. I have no doubt that kinship families will be able to tell me much about the benefits, but it is important that we go through the process.

Helping kinship carers with financial challenges is critical to giving children in care the opportunity to thrive. During Kinship Care Week in October, I was delighted to announce the appointment of the first ever national kinship care ambassador, Jahnine Davis, who will advocate for kinship children and their carers—she has already been to me to advocate for them. The ambassador will work directly with local authorities to improve services for kinship families and share best practice across areas.

My Department has also published new kinship care statutory guidance for local authorities to help them to apply a consistent approach. It sets out the vital support and services that local authorities should provide to kinship families. The guidance confirms the requirement for local authorities to publish their local offer in a clear and accessible way, so that more kinship families get the help they need.

On workplace entitlements for kinship carers, I have met many kinship families since I became the Children’s Minister, and I recognise the challenges that many kinship carers face in continuing to work alongside taking in and raising a child. I am delighted that on 6 November, the Department for Education introduced kinship leave, offering a pay and leave entitlement to all eligible staff who become kinship carers. As the Department leading on support for kinship carers, we believe that we should be an exemplar employer offering a model for others to follow.

[Sam Carling]

In my North West Cambridgeshire constituency, we have a huge number of kinship families, and Peterborough city council is doing a lot of work around that. It has sent the Minister a letter, and I think it will follow that up with a business case next week. I will not ask for a commitment from her, but can she reassure me that that will be taken into consideration when deciding which local authorities will be included in the trial?

[Janet Daby]

There we are—another bit of lobbying. I recognise the work of local authorities and the letter; a process will be rolled out, and we will give everybody the opportunity to apply.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the Minister consider the Isle of Wight as one of the 10 local authority areas to benefit from any Budget money? The Isle of Wight is an excellent place to trial such things.

[Janet Daby]

I will not repeat what I have said—it still stands.

[Melanie Onn]

I congratulate the Minister on securing the DFE as a kinship-friendly employer. There are other employers in the country, such as John Lewis, B&Q and Card Factory, that have done amazing things around kinship care leave. Is any consideration being given to bringing some of those best practice examples together, so that we could roll out, through our Government structures, support to employers to become kinship-friendly?

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend makes a significant point. There is lots more that needs to be done in this space, and her point demonstrates that much more work is needed.

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for her leadership on this really important issue; I know she cares a lot about it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on securing the debate, and I would like to say a huge thank you to the brilliant kinship carers here today and across the country for the amazing work they do, as the silent, often unheard, majority of the children’s social care system.

The previous Government had the right prescription but probably the wrong dose, as I have said on a number of occasions. I welcome the fact that the Government have announced the next wave of funding for kinship care and, in the Budget, an additional £250 million in 2025-26 for reforming children’s social care, with a major commitment at the spending review to look at the whole system. I congratulate the Minister on securing that.

I would like to reiterate three quick and simple points. I ask the Minister to find a way to secure parental leave for all kinship carers; to ensure that we find a way of helping local authorities to legally back family-led plans where they are an alternative to care; and to follow guidance that the Department for Education has published through Foundations, which recommends, based on evidence, that financially backing kinship carers as an alternative to foster care works.

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his significant work and knowledge in this area, which he keenly demonstrates, and for his many significant points, which we will continue to consider.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I am afraid that I need to make some progress.

I am pleased to confirm that the Government are supporting the delivery of 140 peer support groups across England. That is a vital service, giving kinship carers the opportunity to come together. It will provide peer-to-peer support, as well as offering them the opportunity to socialise with and meet other kinship carers, which will be a huge benefit. Alongside that, we are delivering a package of training and support for all kinship carers across England. Both those services provide much-needed additional support and offer guidance for kinship carers, because we recognise the early-years trauma and the other experiences of the children that they care for. They need support to enable them to do their best by the children they care for and love.

We are focused on improving support for children in kinship care. The role of the virtual school heads has been expanded and now includes championing the education, attendance and attainment of children in kinship care, ensuring that more children in kinship care receive the help they need to thrive at school. The renaming of the adoption and special guardianship support fund will rightly ensure that families are aware of the support to which they are entitled. It will incentivise local authorities and regional adoption agencies to make applications on behalf of kinship carers in need of therapeutic support, to ensure that those who can access the fund do so.

Keeping children safe is a key priority of the Government. In addition to our £44 million investment to support children in kinship care and foster care, £1.3 billion of new grant funding was announced for local government to deliver core services, of which £600 million is for social care, including children’s social care. I mention that to highlight some of the other areas to which the Government are entirely committed.

I will talk briefly about national kinship pay and leave. Kinship carers will benefit from additional support and flexibility from their employers to help them to balance work with providing the best possible care to the children they love. The Department for Education has published guidance for employers that sets out the best practice for supporting kinship carers at work, including how they can adapt internal policies, signpost existing entitlements and create a culture of support to best meet the needs of kinship carers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin for raising this extremely important debate. I also thank those who have contributed, raising the profile of better support for kinship carers. That is a key priority for me and the Government. We want to continue to build on the great progress that we have begun and to do much more in this space.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I thank the Minister for speaking in back-to-back debates—absolutely fantastic. We move on to the next debate.

Family and Work Visas

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered eligibility for family and work visas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to have the opportunity to highlight the impact of some changes introduced earlier this year by the previous Government, and how they are landing with public services and the economy in Northern Ireland. As with any set of rules, I appreciate that there will be winners and losers, but these changes have had a negative impact in many areas, and it is important to ensure that the specific consequences for our region are factored into the current review. Flexibility in understanding regional differences is important to ensure that we build a system that allows businesses to grow and wages to rise, while hopefully the Stormont Executive and the UK Government’s missions get a grip on our skills shortages.

Let me say from the outset that I appreciate that for many the issue of immigration is vexed and politically contested—certainly here—and I do not propose that we spend this hour talking about it in generalities. For what it is worth, I will say that the Social Democratic and Labour party, which I represent, is internationalist, pro-worker and pragmatic, and we want to see a fair immigration system that enriches our society and economy and allows talented people to come here and build a life, as many Irish people have done around the world for many generations.

We also appreciate that people see challenges for infrastructure and services—housing shortages are often cited—but we contend that the problem is that the proven value and economic impact of overseas workers in the UK economy has not in the past been properly directed and spent in health, housing and transport. Overall, the statistics bear out the fact that this aspect of immigration has washed its own face economically, and we are quite determined that decent and essential workers do not carry the can of years of failure to invest those gains properly. It is also a fact that our economic reliance on immigration is in part a consequence of inadequate skills investment, and I firmly support the aim of training and properly rewarding a local workforce. However, the rules and changes that will hopefully come have to deal with the economy that we have, not just the economy that we want to create.

Although the scope and parameters of immigration are a legitimate subject of debate, and I respect the right of any Government to devise policy, the current framework is detrimental to our local economy and services. I will focus specifically on the five-point plan that the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) announced in December 2023, which came into effect earlier this year, in the hope that the Government will reform aspects of the changes. Like many, I believe that those changes were electorally motivated; they were a last roll of the dice for a Government on their way out—from the minds who brought us the Rwanda scheme and other things—and they did not necessarily fit in with economic needs. The changes are: the prohibition on dependants of social care workers; the increase in the baseline minimum salary for a skilled worker visa; the shortening of the list of eligible roles on the immigration salary list; the increase in the threshold for a partner visa to £29,000, with proposals to increase that further next year; and the changes to the graduate visa, which the Migration Advisory Committee found no significant abuse of and recommended maintaining.

I will briefly set the context of the Northern Ireland economy. Overall, wages are lower in Northern Ireland, with a median full-time average of around £32,900 versus about £35,000 for the UK generally. From the get-go, that differential impacts businesses in different ways. We, of course, share a land border with the rest of Ireland, and while Brexit has made labour mobility more complicated than it was, there is a lot of such movement, with thousands of people crossing the border for work every day. That means that there is competition for talent.

With an open and dynamic economy, the Republic of Ireland has consistently invested in skills and education, even through the crash years, and created real opportunities to attract talent. That has not been the case in the north. By comparison, many northern businesses struggle —as, increasingly, do public services, with growing numbers of healthcare workers fleeing our truly broken system for the opportunity to work down south with better standards of care and better rates of pay.

Sadly, one of Northern Ireland’s top exports continues to be our young people. We invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in their primary and post-primary education, with many then feeling the need to move to Britain or to the Republic in search of university places, which we artificially cap, better career opportunities, or—for many—a more stable and tolerant society. That is the real immigration problem that Northern Ireland needs to grapple with. I appreciate that not all of that is within the Minister’s remit, but it was important for me to set out the environment in which local Northern Irish businesses are operating, and therefore the context of the further squeezes that the visa changes are applying.

The changes were not designed to support our economy or public services, and the negative impact is felt both economically and in terms of the myths they propagate. Just last week, a small child in my constituency was injured by broken glass caused by masonry being thrown through the window of their family home, which they share with a health worker parent. That was due to race hate, which reached a crescendo in many places, including my constituency, in August; that was in very large part due to hype coming from the media and at times from this Parliament.

The parent of that child is one of 12,000 immigrant workers in the Northern Ireland health and social care system—and thank God for them. Many are nurses, doctors and social care workers. The average wage for a care worker is £11.58 per hour. That is pennies above the minimum wage, lower than many retail or hospitality jobs, and the care sector understandably has a higher turnover. With tens of thousands of vacancies in that sector across the UK, it seemed bizarre that the Government made it even less attractive by legislating to separate workers from their families should they come from overseas. The general secretary of Unison put it well when she said that the Government were

“playing roulette with essential services just to placate its backbenchers”.

Far from being a concern for just the public sector, these changes have been raised with me by numerous individual businesses and representatives of sectors including manufacturing, hospitality, transport, fishing and parts of agriculture, some of which, it is fair to say, are dominated by entry-level and casual work. I support all the efforts to organise and support workers within those sectors.

One sector that has been strangled by lack of access to workers—exacerbated by these changes—is the mushroom industry in Northern Ireland. Mushroom workers are still limited to seasonal agricultural worker visas, which restrict workers who come through that route to a six-month stay. But with a training window of several months to get to the required levels of skill and productivity, the industry does not feel that that scheme meets the needs of a year-round crop. Those challenges are exacerbated by the proximity of the industry to the border, and the night and day difference between how farms in the south—

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is highlighting some of the issues with the seasonal agricultural worker scheme. Does she agree that one of the challenges of the scheme, in recent years and going forward, is that it is being extended on only an annual basis? If we want farmers to invest in technology and equipment, we need to give them a proper window to do so.

[Claire Hanna]

Absolutely, and that reflects the feedback I have received from the people who are trying to increase productivity and modernise. Such arbitrary frameworks do not help.

As I have said, the challenges for northern mushroom farms are exacerbated by the differential in investment in similar farming businesses in the south, where a bespoke visa is available for the mushroom sector that permits workers from across the globe to remain for two years. Given those additional subsidies and things like energy costs—it is a high-energy business—how can we expect to achieve the goal that we all share of locally grown food with a low-carbon footprint and profitability? A key aspect of supporting a thriving industry lies in the Government’s hands, and they must ensure that it has access to labour.

Fishing is similarly impacted. My colleague and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will touch on the plight of the fishing sector. We worked together consistently on this issue under the previous mandate, as it affects a lot of rural and coastal communities, which depend very much on fishing. The recent paper from the sectoral body, Seafish, assessed the impact of the skilled worker visa changes, and gave a fairly comprehensive breakdown of reliance on overseas crews, along with the sector’s operating losses and reduced profits, which suggests that there are only a few months of viability for a lot of those vessels.

It is not just the food supply that is at risk but infrastructure. Ferries are essential trade routes, as well as moving tens of thousands of people between our islands weekly. Since Brexit, non-national seafarers have no automatic right to work on GB-NI routes, which has impacted companies like Stena Line, which operates crucial routes into Belfast and Warrenpoint. It has augmented its UK and Irish crews using frontier working permits, but those are not being issued any more, which poses a serious risk to service levels. Those seafaring jobs are highly skilled and well renumerated, but the workforce are traditionally global and there has been less of a defined merchant navy pipeline in recent years. This is another industry that has a solution ready to go, and it suggests—similar to the 2022 offshore well boat workers—a targeted and potentially even timebound ferry worker concession that could avert disruption to the passenger and trade lifeline, with almost no cost or impact on the taxpayer, which would buy the industry time to adjust to all the post-Brexit frameworks and skills deficits.

I will turn briefly to the nearly 50% uplift in the skilled worker visa salary. Silotank is a Belfast-based manufacturing business that, among other things, is helping Northern Ireland Water to update its antiquated infrastructure safely and sustainably. Across Northern Ireland, development has come to a halt. Thousands of houses in planning have been delayed for the want of modern drainage. That business is investing heavily in decarbonising its products, with alternative energy sources to its west Belfast plant, but growth is limited by a lack of access to qualified technicians, with no adequate engineering pipeline in Northern Ireland.

Manufacturing NI, the sectoral body, has highlighted a perfect storm for its members: rapid expansion in manufacturing is one of our success stories, I am pleased to say, but we are not making it easy for the industry in many ways, as that is accompanied by a low skill pool and low net migration. Manufacturing NI says that some 80% of its members have low confidence in their ability to fill skilled roles. We lament our sluggish productivity, but it is hard to invest in an economy with labour shortages. The organisation advocates resurrecting a sector-based scheme from the last time Labour was in government, as that would allow temporary 12-month opportunities with a plausible £26,200 minimum salary.

Another recent change was the rise in the minimum salary for sponsoring a spouse or partner, which has gone up to £29,000 and is set to increase. The Migration Observatory called that the most restrictive family reunion policy of any high-income country, citing the existence of thousands of Skype families who are unable to be together because of these rules.

Before the changes, family reunion accounted for some 60,000 people. By definition, those people were joining established and earning family units. Having such a high threshold—if it continues to go up, it will be much higher than average earnings—is forcing many people to choose between their families and their career, which will have a disproportionate impact on women and create an environment in which only the wealthy can choose who they fall in love with.

Those examples across sectors are the top-line problems. There are fixes and willing partners in industry, including some low-hanging administrative fixes as the Government work through new policies. Unlike the current policies, however, those new policies need to be based in the economic reality of the world we live in, as well as the environment in which businesses are operating in Northern Ireland, which is qualitatively different to England in many ways.

Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s latest quarterly economic survey confirms that access to skills is a challenge for local businesses across sectors, with three quarters reporting difficulty recruiting and nearly 40% highlighting a negative impact from the changes. Workers face barriers to sustaining and progressing in their employment, and sometimes face less-than-decent treatment at work. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland highlights that migrant workers are over-represented in low-paid jobs, certainly in their early years. Too much change and a tightening of the rules has created uncertainty, which is a deterrent for some employers who are unsure of the legal framework, and real difficulties for many in changing jobs.

On a separate issue—before I finish and while I have the opportunity—the reform of work-related visas should finally address the unreasonable delay in the right to work for those trapped in a chaotic asylum system. I appreciate that that is a different matter entirely, but we know that it delays integration, increases the cost to the public purse of supporting those people in that time, deprives that person of the dignity of work, and deprives our economy of often incredibly skilled and entrepreneurial people, whom we could absolutely do with.

That reform is in line with the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation. It would help to address labour market gaps and would surely give people the right start to a needed new life. I thank you, Mr Pritchard, and the Minister for facilitating this debate, which is brought in the spirit of constructive feedback and hopefully fairer and more pragmatic rules in future.

16:47

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing this debate. She spoke very eloquently and with a lot of knowledge and passion, as well as a real grasp of the issues at hand. I thank her for the way in which she introduced the topic.

The problem affects local families not just in Northern Ireland but right across the UK. In my constituency of Ilford South, immigration and visa issues are among the most common that people raise with me, and my office has had over 15 cases this week. As the hon. Member said, it is having an impact on our economy and the fabric of our society, and it is tearing families apart.

People choose to make the United Kingdom home for many reasons, often due to close family ties, historical links and pressing needs, and of course for a better way of life, to which I can attest—my family came here 50-odd years ago for a better life. I would like to think that we have contributed to society here. Unfortunately, as has been highlighted, many people face a needlessly hostile system that is rigged with barriers, which in the worst cases quite literally tear families apart.

I will share the story of a family in Ilford South. My constituent, Dr Siddiqui, is a fully qualified medical doctor, who not only had cared for people in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but had brought his talents and much-needed skills here to the UK. This chap spent his whole life helping people, but he was put in an impossible situation by a system that is rigged against some of the talent that we are trying to attract. Dr Siddiqui’s wife, who is also a fully qualified doctor, had to make the heartbreaking decision to leave her husband in the UK to look after their severely disabled daughter because the daughter’s visa was turned down.

We were at risk of losing two fully qualified medical doctors. Thankfully, following an intervention, the Home Office reviewed the decision and the Siddiqui family were reunited in Ilford South, but not before they had endured incredible hardship trying to work through an unknown, often challenging and entirely unnecessary system.

The Siddiqui family’s story thankfully has a happy ending, but sadly many other families have not been so fortunate and remain separated by the complicated and inaccessible visa system. If Dr Siddiqui had been a social worker—another essential and desperately needed profession—neither his wife nor his disabled daughter would have been eligible to join him here in the UK, and we need to look at how we can change that system. We must always remember that, with the changes to the eligibility criteria, there are have significant human costs, as well as the economic loss to this great nation. We risk the economic growth of our country, which is desperately needed, in addition to the very fabric of our society, which will be much poorer if we do not address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that this is a 60-minute debate. There is no formal time limit right now, but I encourage everybody to stick to around four minutes.

16:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing this important debate.

I am proud to represent as part of my constituency the diverse town of Keighley, where a third of residents are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage. A high volume of the constituency casework that comes into my office is related to visas or immigration, and that is what my contribution will focus on, because what is most important to me and, indeed, my constituents is that the system is fair. Recently, my office has seen a rise in the use of an immigration loophole through spouse visas that not only makes a mockery of the proper procedure for obtaining indefinite leave to remain, but puts an additional cost on the taxpayer. I will explore some of the challenges that I am seeing in my casework.

Under the standard procedure, individuals brought to the UK on a spouse visa are granted an initial 2.5 years’ right to remain. The spouse must then apply and pay for that to be extended for a further 2.5 years. Assuming the relationship does not break down in that period, the individual may then apply for settled status, again at their own cost, which we would all agree is appropriate. But if the relationship breaks down, the visa is void and the individual returns to their country of origin.

If the spouse reports that they have experienced domestic abuse by their British partner, however, not only are they allowed to seek settled status immediately, but the costs are borne by the British taxpayer for the process. Let me quickly say that I am in no way suggesting that honest claimants of domestic abuse should be ignored by the authorities or should not be assisted by the police. Of course, anyone found to have perpetrated domestic abuse should feel the full force of the law, and victims should receive as much support as necessary. Of the nine cases brought to my office in recent months where domestic abuse had been reported, however, none has received any further action by the police.

I will give an example from one mother whose son’s spouse came across to reside with them. A complaint of domestic abuse was made against not only the son, but the wider family. The police explored it, and it resulted in them taking no further action, but it caused a huge amount of stress for the family.

Indeed, some claims of domestic abuse are now being made as early as a few weeks into the claimants’ arrival in the UK, both by men and women. I fear that even in loving relationships, a claim of domestic abuse is being used by certain individuals to accelerate getting settled status or to avoid the costs that must be paid to apply for settled status or for visa extension. That is wrong, not only for my constituents who go through the system properly and fairly, but for the wider UK taxpayer, who is funding a system that encourages the cheapening of the experience of genuine domestic abuse cases that are pursued by the police and authorities. It is a loophole that exists to try to enable people to save money.

In my view, if a relationship is terminated on the grounds of domestic abuse, the spouse should be returned to their country of origin once the police have carried out sufficient investigation or any immediate safety concerns have been addressed. The closing of the loophole has wide-ranging support across my constituency, including in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. We all fear that the system, which most people use honestly, is being abused by a small minority. I bring that issue to the Minister’s attention, as it has been raised by many of my constituents, and I hope that she will address it her closing remarks.

16:56

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing this important debate. I will limit my remarks to a few key points.

I argue that the current system for family work visas is arbitrary and does not work for anybody. We have shortages in hospitality, care work, medicine and, indeed, dentistry, as I discussed with the Scottish Government this morning—to name just a few areas. I understand that dealing with the domestic skills gap is a priority, but I cannot turn around to my local businesses struggling to keep a full rota, or to the families on a waiting list for social care, and tell them that they just need to wait.

I, too, was contacted by constituents distressed at the increase in the earnings threshold for family visas when it was introduced earlier this year. One constituent wrote to say that his son effectively had to emigrate to live with his partner elsewhere, because as recent graduates they would not be meeting the threshold for years. That is the brain drain playing out right in front of us.

I will make some points in relation to family reunion visas. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into the long delayed application of my constituent, who was granted asylum in March this year and immediately in April applied for his wife and two children to join him. He has not seen them for years and misses them, but he is also deeply worried for their safety. My team first contacted the Home Office about it in August and we were advised that the 24-week turnaround time meant that my constituent could expect a response in October. The Minister can observe that we are now well into November; if I pass on the details of the case, will she look at what can be done to expedite it and ensure that my constituent’s family can be brought back together?

My second point on family reunion is about stage 2 of pathway 1 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. As the Minister will know, it opened in the summer after much delay, and was welcomed and appreciated by Afghans, but there are still issues with it that I hope the Minister can respond to today, or return to her Department and write to me later about. That particular route refers to the separated family members of those who were evacuated under stage 1 of the pathway: those who were identified for evacuation from Afghanistan immediately prior to and following the fall of Kabul.

The first issue is the time limit. Although Afghans were identified for evacuation in a relatively short period, between 13 and 28 August, many were unable to access evacuation flights at that time. We can all remember—certainly those of us who were in the House, and even those who were not—the chaos unfolding as the Taliban came closer and closer to the airport. It took until March the following year for all those identified for evacuation to reach the UK. The ability for them to be reunited with their family, however, is based on being evacuated in that limited August period, not just identified for evacuation. I assume that it must be an oversight to leave families out of the scheme for those people who happened to come a few days, weeks or months later through no fault of their own.

My second question for the Minister is whether she will look into the take-up of the scheme. The application window was open for only a short time—from 30 July to 30 October. The forms are lengthy and the evidence required is, rightly, substantial. Has support been provided to Afghans here and families elsewhere? How is the Home Office responding when families struggle to provide the necessary documentation? That is particularly difficult for families who have fled to Pakistan and may not have access to documentation such as bank statements, marriage certificates and medical records. Will the Home Office consider reopening the application window if it comes to light that the process has not worked, and that families, many of whom served and worked with the UK when we were in Afghanistan, remain separated due to the short timeframe and difficulties in meeting those requirements?

This debate is wide. It is about many things, many people and many places, but at its heart is whether the Home Office is set up to make the processes involved transparent, efficient and effective.

16:59

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your guidance, Mr Pritchard. I give my serious thanks to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for bringing an important issue to this place. Britain should control our borders and regulate migration effectively, and we should do it humanely and in our own interests, yet so often we do not do that at all. We obsess about the shallow politics of it all and we ignore practicalities for the people involved and for businesses in Britain and the wider economy.

There are two areas to cover. The first is family visas and the minimum income requirement. I ask the Minister to ensure that the driving principle is about what people need to earn in order to support a family, not a ham-fisted way of limiting numbers. The current income floor is £29,000—up from £18,600 under the Conservatives. The plan to take it to £38,700 will absolutely divide families. I ask the Minister to consider the impact upon child poverty, child development and family welfare. Will she assess the impact of splitting up children from one or both of their parents, which has happened in my constituency? I have been talking to constituents near Grange-over-Sands recently. I also spoke to a gentleman in Oxenholme, and he and his wife would not qualify under the rules even as they are. Will the Minister look carefully at the policy and ensure that it does not destroy families by splitting children from their parents, or parents from one another? That would be a deeply unpleasant thing for this Government to do, the scheme having been designed by the previous Government.

Because of time, I will move on to skilled work visas. The threshold is moot and is being discussed. In a letter to me just a few days ago, the Minister said:

“Raising the salary criteria is designed to ensure that resident workers’ wages cannot be undercut and ensures that the Skilled Worker route is not used as a source of low-cost labour.”

Yes, I completely agree, but will she accept that things are different in some parts of our country? I will give a quick run-through. The Lake district is the most populated national park in the country. Some 80% of the working-age population in the lakes already work in hospitality and tourism. There is no reservoir of talent for us to delve into. What we desperately need to do is control the excessive numbers of second homes and holiday lets, and build genuinely affordable homes for local people so that we can build our workforce that way. We also need to upskill our young people and stop them leaving our communities, so that they can remain and contribute to the workforce.

There is no doubt whatever that a smallish population, serving the biggest visitor destination in the country outside London, will always need to import labour, so we desperately need consideration. The chief of Cumbria Tourism, which serves our community so well and represents businesses right across our area, said:

“Without legal migration Cumbria (in particular central Lakes) will suffer in terms of labour shortages. We don’t have enough chefs, we don’t have enough experienced Managers and we don’t have enough people in customer service roles. All roles that we didn’t struggle to fill when...overseas workers were able to take up jobs more freely.”

To finish, I will give a picture of what this issue means on a macro level for our economy. Some 66% of hospitality and tourism businesses in the lakes and dales are operating below capacity because they do not have enough staff. It is good to control our borders, but let us do so humanely. Let us control our borders in a way that works for Britain, rather than damaging our economy.

17:04

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing the debate. She and I may have some constitutional and political differences, but this is a unifying issue for us both and for the community that we represent.

Connectivity across the UK is a subject that I have raised on multiple occasions over the past number of weeks, and the reason is clear: the lifeblood of Northern Ireland is our ability to trade skills and products with the mainland UK on a reciprocal basis. The ferry system is as vital to that ability as oxygen is to the very lungs with which we breathe in this Chamber. The current situation is concerning. It needs not simply a debate in this place, but action by the Government. We very much look to the Minister for assurance that the needs are heard and will receive attention and action.

Ferry routes across the Irish sea are vital to national infrastructure. They ensure that trade, tourism and essential services flow; without them, Northern Ireland cannot exist in this modern world. We need that movement, as the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down outlined. The insidious Northern Ireland protocol, with its difficulties for the haulage companies and delays in transport, has highlighted the nature of Northern Ireland and shown that, within days of delayed shipping, shelves were empty. That is a fact of where we are. Our trade is important, and Stena Line in particular, which carries the bulk of trade, economy and tourism across the water, is very important. Clearly, the ferry routes must be protected and prioritised as vital infrastructure.

I therefore ask for a commitment by the Government, and the Minister in particular, to engage with Stena and its parent company to find a solution, perhaps using—I offer this as a solution—the offshore well boat concession as a template to solve the problem. There has been an understandable focus on the politics and the paperwork of the Windsor framework, but an offshoot of that has been that insufficient thought has gone into ensuring that we have the people with the necessary skills on the seafaring routes to ensure that there is no disruption to trade across the Irish sea. Their vital role must be protected. If the ferry routes are not able to operate in the future because we do not have qualified seafarers, that could lead to empty shop shelves, lack of certain medical supplies and certain difficulties for my constituents.

The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down mentioned the fishermen. My understanding is that last week, the Government made concessions for horticulture and farming, including for those in mushrooms, vegetables and potatoes; but they have not made those concessions for the fishermen, although they could have done. Fishermen’s work is not only skilled but seasonal.

Last Saturday I was in the advice centre at Portavogie. Fishermen came to see me and underlined the issues clearly: they need a seasonal work system, so that they can bring people in for eight or nine months a year. Last week, the fish producer organisations met the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a very constructive meeting—and I spoke to him before a debate. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs was hoping to speak to the Minister who is in her place today. I suggest that more such contacts should be made, because I believe there will be a way forward. I make a plea for some help for the fishing sector.

The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down and I did not agree on Brexit—I just say such things—and we did not agree on the protocol or on many other Northern Ireland issues, but I can tell hon. Members this: the visa programme is a clear uniting issue. That so often happens—that there are things that bring us together. I like to focus on the things that bring us together, and the hon. Lady likes to do so as well. We need those crews to operate, and they must be able to continue as they are, or Northern Ireland might well come to a standstill.

I look to the Minister again for consideration and action. I am happy, if necessary, to facilitate a meeting between the fishermen, Stena Line, the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down and me to make that happen.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front Benchers—five minutes each for the two in opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister.

17:09

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to participate with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I offer many congratulations to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing this important debate.

If I am to make only one point today, it is that our visa system is broken. It is not fair, it is not fit for purpose and it is costing us—our economy, our communities and, most importantly, our people. The Liberal Democrats want to see a system that is fair, practical and humane, and one that values families, recognises economic realities and ensures that our workforce can meet the needs of the country. The previous Conservative Government imposed an arbitrary salary threshold—it has been mentioned by others—of £38,700 for skilled work visas. So far, the incoming Labour Government have followed their lead. The threshold does not work. It is just a number, and it is detached from the realities of the UK’s labour market.

Across industries like hospitality and social care, which are absolutely vital to our society and economy, salaries are often below that threshold. By setting an inflexible limit, we are denying skilled workers the opportunity to contribute to our communities and leaving critical roles unfilled. The threshold does not just hurt workers; it hurts us all. When we drive qualified people away, we end up short-staffed in our NHS, schools and care homes. Every unfilled position means a longer wait in A&E, a larger school class or a care home resident left without the help they need.

That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for a flexible, merit-based system for work visas. Such a system would allow us to work closely with each sector, responding to its unique needs and ensuring that skilled individuals who meet those needs can come to the UK. We should be assessing visa applicants based on their skills, qualifications and the demand for their expertise, not on an arbitrary figure forced to fit across all industries.

This is just a piece of a larger puzzle, and it must go hand in hand with a long-term workforce strategy. If we want to tackle labour shortages and skills gaps in a sustainable way, we must invest in developing our own talent for high-demand sectors. The previous Government failed to prioritise that, and I urge the current Labour Government to turn this plan into a reality. We have also urged the Government to move control over work visas and policies for international students out of the Home Office, which has repeatedly shown its lack of understanding of the needs of employers and universities. These issues should be put where they belong—in the Departments that understand their value.

Moving on to family visas, the Conservatives’ decision to increase the minimum income threshold has left many families in a state of deep uncertainty, wondering whether they will be split apart simply because a loved one’s income does not meet an arbitrary requirement. This is not just a policy failure; it is a failure of compassion. The Liberal Democrats believe that no family should be torn apart by these cruel thresholds. Family life should not be a privilege for the well-off; it is a basic human right. We have therefore called for an immediate reversal of these unfair increases to the income threshold. Families deserve clarity and stability, and we urge the Government to act swiftly to address the issue.

In short, the Liberal Democrats are clear that we can and should have a fair, compassionate visa system that works for UK people and people wanting to come here to contribute—not against them. The time has come to move beyond arbitrary numbers and red tape. We should build a system that is rational, humane and responsive to the needs of our society. A merit-based approach to work visas, aligned with a practical workforce strategy, will help us attract and retain the talent we need. A fair policy on family visas will keep families together, relieving them of unnecessary anxiety and hardship. I urge the Minister and the Government to abandon many of the policies of the past and support a vision of the UK that values family, fairness and economic common sense.

17:13

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, particularly in my first response to a debate in my new position. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) has been campaigning on this issue for some time. Although we may not agree on it, I applaud her for securing this debate.

Today we have heard much from hon. Members about the impact of eligibility criteria. Although we will not always agree, some points were well made. Ultimately, I believe that there is broad agreement across the House, and definitely across the country, that we need a system that prioritises skills and talent. People are happy to see migration that helps our economy grow and supports our NHS, while encouraging investment in and protecting our resident workforce. That is why we now have the highest number of nurses ever, and we were able to increase the number of GP appointments from 2019 to 2023 by 50 million.

We want a system that rewards those who come to the UK and contribute, while ensuring that those who already live here are not negatively impacted. What is paramount is that people feel the system is fair. We must be comfortable with migration policies on visa eligibility that provide robust controls to limit migration and prioritise the economic welfare of the UK. To achieve that, we previously took a number of steps to strengthen the rules. The success of those measures has already been demonstrated: we have seen decreases in applications, with 15,200 applications recorded between April and September 2024 following our changes, which was a reduction of 83% compared with the six months before.

Applications for dependants are also down considerably. In 2023, we got to the point where there were six dependants for every one worker seeking to come to the UK. This dramatic drop underscores the need to adapt our eligibility criteria to provide robust rules and prevent misuse of the system. The significant numbers that we saw in the past were excessive, and we had to take action to get them down. The new Government have maintained our changes to the system, and clearly we agree that the policy is working—or, perhaps, the Minister will announce that she is changing the strategy today. However, I ask her for her assessment of the reduced numbers. Will the implications of the reduction be taken into account when evaluating other visa categories?

Although it is still in the early stages of analysing the data, the Migration Advisory Committee has noted that initial indications suggest that changes to the student route will also impact on total numbers. The Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family member immigration rules and said that no further changes will be made until the advisory review is complete. Although I have full confidence in the ability of the committee to deliver a thorough review, the Government must review the urgency with which they are acting; delays are not in the best interests of the system. Past measures have shown that decisive action can deliver a significant impact on overall levels of migration. We must ensure that we maintain a fair system and reduce migration where it is too high. I therefore ask the Minister if there is a clear timetable for the review. Will she assure the House that the Government will act swiftly to implement all and any recommendations from the committee?

Although I do not want to pre-empt the remarks of the Minister, I expect that she may allude to the levels of legal migration during the tenure of the previous Government. We have been clear that we agree those numbers were too high, which is why we implemented the significant change to visa rules, and we will work co-operatively across the House with the Government on further measures in this Parliament. The changes that we made should be seen not as an end point, but as part of a longer process to reduce migration to ensure that the public have confidence that our immigration system is being managed effectively. If the process continues to reduce numbers and create a fairer, more effective system, it will have our support. Will the Minister outline if the Government are planning any further changes to our legal migration framework in the next year in either data collection or visa eligibility?

As I said at the start of the debate, legal migration bringing in skills to key sectors is not an issue. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and I would be the first to back calls for more agricultural workers to deliver the right work that we need. When I was in central Asia, I saw for myself the geopolitical benefits of bringing in people for seasonal work. In central Asia, they normally have a return rate of about 99%. They want to come, do the work and return home, and our farmers and agricultural industries want to receive their support. However, migration must be managed in a way that protects the interests of the UK and our residents, and that includes reducing the total number of migrants, which we accept has been too high in recent years.

The reforms made by the Conservatives in the last Parliament have borne fruit and been maintained by Labour. I hope that the Minister will build on them and ensure that our system is as robust and fair as possible.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this debate. There has been thoughtful consideration of the issues by Members from across the House. I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady did and how she helped her community in August, in those very difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed. I will seek to address all the points raised, but I hope that Members will understand that that may be difficult in the time that I have. I will certainly come back in writing if there are outstanding points.

I will deal briefly with a few of the points raised before I go into more detail in my remarks on the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down. Some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) were reflected by others in terms of the quality of caseworking and the service received. As Members of Parliament, we have all experienced those cases and circumstances, so I am glad that the issue he raised has been resolved. Where there are any issues or concerns about whether the system is being fair and how cases are being dealt with, please write to me on those matters. We will certainly look at them in a way that also enables us to learn from what could be happening better and implement those systems.

The point about public confidence raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about immigration is important, but it comes back to the point raised more broadly about having an immigration system that is fair, humane, transparent and compliant with the law, including international law. I am keen to make the broader point that it is important that we continue to have dialogue across the House on matters such as immigration, which need and want a lot of cross-party support to deal with the challenges. That is in the interest of our economy and of fairness, but is also important for our security, so we need to have open and transparent debate on such matters and take the input from colleagues across the House.

I will come back to other points that have been raised during the debate, but on net migration and some of the changes being made, I want to make it clear that the Government recognise and value the contribution of workers from overseas to our economy and our public services, including our NHS, and they would not function without them. The point has been made, and we are very clear, that the immigration system needs to be properly managed and controlled—and that is important for public confidence too.

We are clear that net migration and reliance on overseas recruitment need to come down, and in addition to bringing down levels of overall net migration, our approach will also help ensure that there are better and higher-paid jobs for those who are already resident in the UK. In April 2024, the previous Government introduced a package of changes aimed at reducing overall levels of net migration and tackling abuse in the social care sector. Those changes included requiring any employer in England wishing to recruit international care workers or senior care workers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission and to carry out regulated activity. They also included removing the ability for care workers and senior workers to apply with dependents. The package also replaced the previous shortage occupation list with the immigration salary list.

The Home Secretary confirmed in July that the Government are retaining those changes. We acknowledge the concerns raised and welcome debates such as this one. I also think it is important, in response to some of the issues, that we lay out where we are going further and taking a different approach. We have established a new framework that will link the Migration Advisory Committee’s work with the newly formed Skills England and skills bodies across the UK, as well as the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Department for Work and Pensions, to support a more coherent approach to migration, skills and labour market issues.

I will make a broad point on the issue raised about particular routes and the appendix for domestic abuse. It is extremely important for Members across the House to ensure that we are tackling abuse on any routes. On what is an important safeguard in the system, we are clear that there has to be a high threshold of evidence and that we take steps to tackle abuse wherever we detect that and wherever that occurs. That is extremely important and a clear approach across the Home Office.

On salary requirements, for too long, immigration has been used as an alternative to tackling skills shortages and labour market issues in the UK. The salary requirements that were raised in the spring related to the median salary for occupations, ensuring people continue to be paid at a higher rate than many in the occupation. That, along with the immigration skills charge, are designed to ensure that employers look first at the resident labour market before looking at employing an international worker.

Points about the threshold were raised, and I will come back on a couple of points. For those new to the route since 4 April 2024, who must be paid £38,700 per year or the going rate for their occupation—whichever is higher—the salary floor can be reduced to just over £30,000, depending on tradeable points such as discounts for new entrants. There is some flexibility. Indeed, for those extending visas in this route or working in healthcare or education, who must be paid £29,000 per year or the going rate for their occupation, again, the salary floor can be lowered for roles on the immigration salary list. Those roles in healthcare and education are based on nationally set pay scales or by using tradeable points.

It is important to say that immigration remains a reserved matter, and we will consider the needs of the UK as a whole. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK can complicate the immigration system, harm its integrity and cause difficulty for employers, who need the flexibility to deploy their staff to other parts of the UK. The independent and expert Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly recommended that we should not operate different salary thresholds for different regions or nations across the UK.

I am aware of the concerns from the fishing industry about labour shortages. In the interests of time, I will just say that I am looking forward to meeting my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I am certainly happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this too. On the Afghan schemes, I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but I am very pleased that we were able to open that scheme and see the positive response to it.

Finally, I will speak to family immigration rules. As colleagues will be aware, on 10 September the Home Secretary paused any further increases to the minimum incomes requirement and commissioned the MAC to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. This review will ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future changes to the minimum income requirement. We expect that conducting a full review of the financial requirements will take approximately nine months. I urge hon. Members to provide views and evidence in response to the MAC’s call for evidence, because I am sure we can all agree that a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that it can make effective recommendations and that policy is informed by evidence.

17:27

[Claire Hanna]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, it is about many things, many people and many places. We all appreciate how complex this area of policy is. I appreciate that there was a lot of detail back and forth, but it is important that we are able to talk about the detail in a constructive, open way. We must push back against the myth that we are not allowed to talk about these things. It is important that we are open and honest with people about the impact it will have if we do not have workers in certain sectors.

I think the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) put it well when he said that it is important that we do not obsess over the shallow politics and that we are about the practical realities. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) is right to say that it is about finding consensus—personally that is what I am all about politically. I think it is the best way to solve this. I do not think that people are being negatively impacted, though. I appreciate that there are pockets of it, and it is about directing the economic gains where they are needed in infrastructure terms. I do not recognise all the figures—by my calculations it is about 1.2 dependants per worker, and quite often a couple comes and both of them work in social care.

The elephant in the room is probably, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) put it, the lack of a long-term skills strategy. Many of the employers I deal with would love to have the skills on the doorstep and not have to go through this complexity, but we do not have that. As I say, my intention was to ensure that the policies, when they change, reflect the economy we have and that the challenges of people who are trying to create jobs and wealth and increase productivity in my region and others are met halfway. If the Minister does not mind, I would be grateful if we could follow up on some of those specifics and see how we can facilitate those changes—

17:30

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