Westminster Hall

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 20 November 2024

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

Blind and Partially Sighted People: Employment Support

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered employment support for blind and partially sighted people.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am really pleased to have secured this debate on what I and others—judging by the number of Members here today—believe is an incredibly important issue. I thank the many organisations that provided briefings ahead of the debate.

In October, the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, which I chair, published its “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report, which looked at employer attitudes towards blind and partially sighted people. I thank the secretariat—the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Thomas Pocklington Trust—all those who responded to the written consultation, and especially those who shared their experiences at the oral evidence sessions, which I will discuss shortly.

We wanted to know why the number of blind and partially sighted people in employment is still stubbornly low at a time when there are about 900,000 job vacancies, despite the Equality Act 2010, a wealth of diversity and inclusion policies, and more than a decade of welfare-to-work programmes from various Governments. In November 2023, the APPG commissioned YouGov to carry out polling to look at employer attitudes. The findings were shocking, and prompted the APPG to launch its inquiry to look at the issue in more detail. To my knowledge, it is the first parliamentary inquiry to look solely at employer attitudes. We held a series of oral evidence sessions, put out a call for written evidence and held a number of one-to-one meetings with employers, including Apple and Channel 4. We heard from a range of employers, sight loss organisations and, most importantly, blind and partially sighted people themselves.

We found that 48% of employers said that they did not have accessible recruitment processes, so for many the online job application was not accessible, and in many cases it was not compatible with assistive technology. That obviously prevented many people living with sight loss from applying for those jobs in the first place. Some employers were not willing to make reasonable adjustments where possible, for example for psychometric testing, which is part of the recruitment process for many grad schemes, so many of those platforms were also inaccessible. Most worryingly, about a quarter of employers said that they would not be willing to make workplace adjustments or adaptations in order to employ blind and partially sighted people. The problem stems partly from a lack of awareness of where to access support or funding, or just advice and information, but there is also a pattern of outdated attitudes towards visually impaired people.

During the oral evidence sessions, we heard powerful testimony from many blind and partially sighted people. Many expressed a deep sense of frustration and anger at the job market because employers do not understand the importance of ensuring that their recruitment and interview processes are inclusive. Websites were not accessible, and application forms were not provided in alternative formats. Many respondents had to face the dilemma of whether to disclose their disability, or even ask for reasonable adjustments during the interview process.

I know that from my own experience. I have always been in the camp that chooses to declare their visual impairment at the start, but not everybody has the confidence to do that, based on their experiences. Others referred to the time it took to complete applications and said that their request for a reasonable adjustment of extra time had not been granted. One respondent reported that an interviewer seemed more focused on their blindness than their qualifications; they said that it felt as though the assessment of their ability to do the job was treated as a secondary factor, rather than the primary objective.

Although I am speaking a lot about the recruitment process—applications and interviews—many respondents shared their frustrations about being in work and acquiring their sight loss, or being in work and wanting additional aids or adaptations. I hope hon. Members do not mind my speaking from my own lived experience. Throughout my working life—I will not show my age by saying how long that has been—I have known the challenges that many have faced. I have been a Member of Parliament for seven and a half years, and to this day I still face challenges with technology, which cause a lot of stress and worry. There are days when I am not able to do my work as an MP because my IT kit is not working. Recently, I had to go further and lodge a formal complaint. I hope that by doing that I will finally be able to get all the kit I need to do my job and represent my constituents, just as my colleagues can.

Why do we need action and change? The employment rate for people living with sight loss is 42%, compared with 82% for non-disabled people. The disability pay gap is around 17%, which equates to us working unpaid for 54 days a year. The disability employment gap has remained at around 29% to 30% for more than a decade. I think that is hugely disrespectful. Actually, it is a disgrace. Employers are missing out on a wealth of talent. One of the respondents at our oral evidence session, who is quite senior in their workplace, said that they found that their visual impairment became less of a barrier the more senior they became. That is absolutely the right thing, but it should start at the entry level of any job.

We know that not getting the right support has a negative impact on health and wellbeing. There is clear evidence that good work improves health outcomes across people’s lives and protects them against social exclusion. Employment can bring not just better incomes but financial stability, security and a greater sense of purpose, which in turn can lead to healthier diets, increased exercise, higher living standards and, most importantly, better mental health outcomes.

Our report contains some excellent examples of best practice, and I will share a few. Roger told us that in his corporate workplace, screen-reader software and ergonomic equipment enabled him to perform his tasks efficiently, and that having a supportive team who understood his needs made him feel valued and included in his workplace. Another person told us that about a member of an interview panel who guided a visually impaired person through the process, taking them to the interview room and explaining its layout; then, as they sat down, the panel described themselves and gave information about who they were. Those are examples of small adjustments that can be made. They are not complicated or costly. As one respondent put it,

“It’s not just about providing the tools; it’s about creating a supportive environment where blind and partially sighted employees can thrive.”

Our “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report makes a series of recommendations that aim to fix what we believe is a broken system. The key element is the need for a disability employment strategy that sets out measures to improve employer attitudes and increase the number of blind and partially sighted people finding and retaining work. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that we need a clear strategy, and that this must be a watershed moment in how we improve employment opportunities and support?

Another recommendation is for the Government to partner with sight loss organisations to develop best practice on recruiting blind and partially sighted people and supporting them to enter work, as well as on supporting them in work. I hope that the Minister will agree to look at how he can do that. Other recommendations include reviewing the Equality Act to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century and our modern labour market. This is not just about the Government taking action; it is about employers taking action. We want them to take practical steps to ensure that their workplaces are inclusive, including by preparing documents and information in accessible formats. Naturally, we need to address the issues in the Government’s Access to Work scheme, including the delays and backlogs. When Access to Work is working efficiently, it is probably the best form of employment support.

I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations in the report, which I know he has had sight of. I welcome the fresh approach from the Government, who are taking a serious look at this issue, and thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me later today—it is interesting that the debate came on the same day. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, who gave a speech at the report launch. She said that it was an opportunity for “big change”, which was

“needed so that all blind and partially sighted people can play their full role in society”.

She kindly said that the report would be considered as an early submission to the upcoming employment White Paper, so I look forward to seeing what the White Paper includes in relation to a disability employment strategy.

Does the Minister agree that this issue is not just about the Department for Work and Pensions? We need a cross-Government approach that incorporates the Department for Business and Trade, the equalities office and others to ensure that we have a strategy that helps to shift employer attitudes. Will he commit to working with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we take an approach that truly supports employers to snap up all the amazing talent that is waiting for them and that they are currently missing out on?

The report recommends looking at practical steps to ensure that workplaces are inclusive. However, there is already brilliant guidance and best practice available, so in many cases this is not about reinventing the wheel, but about working collaboratively with other organisations. At the moment, we subscribe to accessibility standards for online spaces. I am keen to know whether the Government will look at legislating to ensure that all websites meet an accessibility standard requirement.

Finally—I raised this issue previously—will the Government look again at the Sense charity’s recommendation for a jobcentre technology fund? Such a fund would equip jobcentres with specialist assistive technology, such as screen-reading software, so that some disabled people are able to look for work in jobcentres. At the moment, no computers in jobcentres have specialist assistive technology. The recommendation seems like a nice, quick fix that could ensure that those spaces are inclusive for people who are looking for work.

I look forward to working with the Minister and his colleagues in implementing the recommendations and ensuring that Labour will deliver for all disabled people. At the end of the day, ensuring that recruitment practices are accessible and workplaces are supportive is not about charity; it is about doing what is right and just. It is also about helping employers and our economy to benefit from the skills and talent they are missing out on.

I will end by quoting an individual who appeared before the APPG. They said:

“The more blind and partially sighted people there are in the workforce, the more public assumptions and attitudes will be challenged. This will benefit blind and partially sighted people of all ages, and ultimately change…attitudes, which is the biggest barrier to thriving for all.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. Then we will work out the order of who is going when.

09:45

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq; I always look forward to it. I commend the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for setting the scene so very well on a subject that is of great interest to all hon. Members present and to me personally. It is only fair to put on the record my thanks for her leadership of the APPG on eye health and visual impairment. In the time we have known each other, I have always supported her in these debates; she used to be on the Opposition side of the Chamber, but has now been elevated. We look forward to working strongly alongside her and others in the years ahead, if God spares us.

There are currently 57,500 people across Northern Ireland with sight loss, and the figure is expected to rise by over 25% by 2032. Today’s debate sets out the problem, but it also gives us an opportunity to think about what we can do to reduce that figure. Some 50% of sight loss is preventable, and it is that preventable 50% that I want to talk about.

The message must be clear that eye tests are as necessary as any other health check. I work very closely alongside the opticians in Newtownards in my constituency: they come to me regularly with their ideas, and I always convey those ideas to the Health Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Secretary of State or Minister at Westminster. I cannot remember the technical term for it, but the opticians in Newtownards have the most up-to-date machinery for checking people’s eyes—it is phenomenal.

My question to the Minister, if he does not mind my asking it at the very beginning, is what has been done to ensure more opticians’ tests, even for people who may think that they do not need one. I do not want to make them mandatory, because that would be wrong, but they should be made more accessible and available.

I will give two examples of the importance of opticians’ tests. A gentleman I know quite well once came to see me. I said that he did not look very well—he was very pale—and he said, “Jim, I have an absolutely splitting headache.” I said, “Have you been to the doctor?” He said, “I have, and the doctor gave me some headache tablets.” I said, “Where are you going now?” He said, “I’m going to the opticians.” I said, “You go to the optician and tell him about your headache.” The optician took that man’s details and sent him directly from Newtownards up to Ulster hospital in Dundonald. He had a tumour the size of an apple in his head. Immediate surgery saved that man’s life.

Another person I know quite well had been having headaches and blurred vision for some time. She would come to see me about benefits, and I would say, “Look, I think you should go and see your optician.” She did, and fortunately she had a tumour removed. It saved her sight and saved her life.

What more can we do? We—when I say “we”, I mean the Government—can prevent eye loss. If the Government can get people to make appointments early, I believe we can see great things happening for the 50% of sight loss that is preventable. Back in June, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland launched two new guides to support adults with sensory disabilities in Northern Ireland. As always, I will give some examples that I hope are helpful for the Minister to take on board.

The new resources, known as care pathways, map out the care and treatment that users can expect from professionals and support organisations to help them to manage their conditions. I welcome the excellent initiative to make a pathway to care and a future free from red tape and obstructions. My goodness! I know that there is red tape to get through—we understand that—but sometimes it becomes so burdensome that people just turn off.

The guides were released in tandem with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and other charitable groups. The support provided for blind and partially sighted people by those in the charitable sector is phenomenal. They should be thanked for stepping up and filling the breach, as they so often do.

I read recently on the RNIB’s website that it has a scheme called “SkillSET RNIB (2023)”, a Northern Ireland-based pre-employment initiative that offers opportunities for people who are seeking to gain employment for the first time or who are unable to continue in their current job because of sight loss. The hon. Member for Battersea has described the problems she experiences in coming to work and how technology lets her down; schemes such as these, in tandem with the Government Department back home and with the RNIB, can come up with ideas to address those issues directly and helpfully. They can enable people to find work and can encourage them in everyday life.

I am also aware that the Department for Work and Pensions has the Access to Work scheme, which is operated through the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. Access to Work can contribute towards any supplementary employment costs that result from a disability. Sometimes we come and present cases, but there are things that Governments do, both back home at the Northern Ireland Assembly and here. I believe that the DWP’s Access to Work scheme is available for any paid job, part-time or full-time, permanent or temporary.

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

My hon. Friend talks about what needs to be done on pathways to work. Does he agree that potential employers need to understand two things? First, they could be in breach of the law if they engage in activities that prevent partially sighted or blind people from getting employment. Secondly, they could be overlooking better-qualified candidates for employment. Either way, they will lose unless they take account of this very worthwhile debate and of the need to ensure that they comply.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, my hon. Friend adds important evidence that takes the debate forward, and I thank him for it. Hopefully the Minister is listening as well.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has rightly mentioned the importance of Access to Work and how it can make a real difference in supporting disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, to secure and retain employment. One of the challenges is ensuring that there is enough provision and that enough employers are aware of Access to Work. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important to ensure greater awareness of Access to Work and more opportunities for that support?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I know that the Minister is an assiduous Minister who is here to help, and that the staff and civil servants behind him are taking notes on all these matters, so hopefully when he winds up the debate he will satisfy our requests. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), to his place; I wish him well in the role and look forward to his contribution.

The Access to Work scheme has no minimum number of hours for eligibility for support, although people are generally expected to reach the lower earnings limit. Access to Work aims to help if someone needs support or adaptations beyond the reasonable adjustments; it helps pay towards them. What we have in place is excellent, but as the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) says, people need to know what is available. The scheme is a great one, but the onus is firmly on the employers’ shoulders. That is where we are we are failing. There needs to be a pathway for our young people throughout schooling and into employment. We need to tell people who have not worked before, “It is not impossible. It can be done. It is within your reach to use your talents, intelligence and abilities and work as your peers do.”

Debates like this one raise awareness, which is wonderful, but we need to ensure that any person who has a diagnosis of sight loss understands that they are not alone or expected to sit at home. They are part of this community, and there is a space for them and a role for them to play. The charities seek to hammer home that message and they do absolutely marvellous work, but we all need to do more. My hope is that this new Government will achieve that. I have known the Minister for years and he has always shown sympathy and compassion, so I know that he will be able to respond in a positive fashion and help people to do better. We have that opportunity, and the Government have that opportunity. Let’s do it.

09:59

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) not only on securing this debate on such an important topic, but on her skill and commitment in leading the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment.

The APPG is such an important group for ensuring that the voices of blind and partially sighted people are heard in this Parliament. Having been for many years a member of the cross-party group on visual impairment in the Scottish Parliament, I am delighted to find that the APPG here is also an effective forum for advancing key policy areas for people with visual impairment. Changing employers’ attitudes and increasing employment opportunities for blind and partially sighted people is vital, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend set out in her excellent opening speech and that the hugely important “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report highlights.

As an MP for a Scottish constituency, I am keenly aware that this is as important an issue for people with visual impairment in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK. In his excellent speech, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was quite right to point out that there is also important work for the devolved Administrations to do. Only one in four blind and partially sighted people in Scotland is in paid employment. Research by RNIB Scotland shows that there are about 9,000 registered blind and partially sighted people of working age in Scotland, of whom only about 2,000 are in work. As many as 78% are not employed, so for blind and partially sighted people in Scotland the disability employment gap is particularly acute.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly highlighted the disability pay gap and the inequality that it creates in our society. There is a huge opportunity cost not only to people with visual impairment who want to work and cannot find work, but to our society as a whole. In my career before my election to this place, I was fortunate to work at the charity Sight Scotland. A number of our services employed blind and partially sighted people. They were valued members of our team, not only as experts by experience but because of their individual skills and their knowledge. They would be assets at any workplace where they were employed.

During my time at the charity, we conducted research into the social isolation that is experienced by too many people with visual impairment. Our research showed that 90% of our respondents had experienced loneliness. It is important to recognise not only that increasing employment opportunities helps to counter low income and poverty, which still affect far too many blind and partially sighted people, but that being in work, having a workplace to go to and working alongside colleagues helps to tackle isolation, promotes inclusion and improves the quality of life for people with visual impairment in so many other ways as well. It is vital that we create far fairer access to employment for blind and partially sighted people and ensure support is in place for them and for potential employers to achieve that.

In my constituency, the charity Seescape supports more than 4,000 people each year through rehabilitation and through aids, equipment and accessible technology. Those kinds of support are essential to achieving inclusion in the workplace. Seescape’s work is transformational for so many blind and partially sighted people, not only in Glenrothes and Mid Fife but throughout the whole Kingdom of Fife. It is hugely valued by our community.

I very much welcome the recommendation in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report that the UK Government should partner with sight loss organisations to develop best practice on recruiting blind and partially sighted people and supporting them to enter the labour market. They are the very organisations with the right expertise and knowledge to achieve that goal.

I also endorse the substantive and practical recommendations in that report for the Government and employers. Those recommendations come at an important time, as we look towards the “Get Britain Working” White Paper and the £240 million that will be invested by the Government to promote employability. Following our conversation at Mr Speaker’s excellent event to celebrate Disability History Month, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister, who I welcome to his place, is seized by the opportunity that the White Paper offers to increase disability employment and to set out an effective strategy.

Sadly, in the last few years, there have been cuts in funding for employability at both the UK level and the Scottish level. Not enough has been done to promote opportunities through Access to Work, a scheme that can make a real difference when it is effectively delivered. We need to change that situation by ensuring that the White Paper leads to an employability strategy that actually works for blind and partially sighted people.

In Scotland, employability programmes such as Fair Start Scotland have certainly not had enough success in including people with visual impairment. That needs to change and it can change. We know what works in promoting the employment of blind and partially sighted people: changing attitudes and changing the approaches of employers, in line with the practical recommendations made in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report and more broadly in relation to disability.

I also commend the work of the commission led by Lord Shinkwin for the Institute of Directors and its report, “The Future of Business: harnessing diverse talent for success”. That report makes a series of recommendations to Government to create the most favourable conditions for businesses and directors to flourish, with specific reference to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.

One member of that commission was Dr Theresa Shearer, the chief executive of Enable, where I worked until I was elected to this House; I declare that interest. The All In programme, led by Enable Works, has formed employability partnerships across Scotland that have brought together specialist third sector organisations so that they can collaborate. Those partnerships have had great success in securing training and employment for many people who face barriers to employment, including blind and partially sighted people. Indeed, they have secured three and a half jobs for every one job delivered by traditional employability schemes.

There are many factors involved in improving employment opportunities for blind and partially sighted people; indeed, we could have a separate debate on education and transitions into employment. However, the many important recommendations in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report will result in real progress if they are adopted. The first recommendation is essential, namely that we establish a disability employment strategy that sets out measures to improve employers’ attitudes and increase the number of blind and partially sighted people who find and—crucially—retain work.

I commend that report and its recommendations, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on all she is doing to ensure that its ambitions are fulfilled. Fulfilling them is vital if we are to achieve genuine inclusion for blind and partially sighted people in our society throughout the UK.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Our final Back Bencher, before we move on to the Lib Dem spokesperson, is Lee Pitcher.

10:03

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing this hugely important debate.

I speak today from personal experience. My lovely wife has retinitis pigmentosa, a degenerative eye condition that has no cure or treatment. Julie has reached the stage where she uses a white cane and eventually, like her mum and uncle, she will probably need a guide dog to assist her. Those who watch “Strictly” may know that retinitis pigmentosa is the condition that comedian Chris McCausland has. Like Chris, Julie is an inspiration, not a gimmick, having recently learned to ski blind.

Julie has never let her disability define her; instead, she excels with the abilities that she does have. What we have learned together over 30 years, as our careers have progressed, is how those abilities can allow her to thrive, and I have to say that her workplaces have been enormously supportive of her.

I will focus on the use of technology and the importance of awareness, because the use of artificial intelligence is a game changer. Apps such as Seeing AI can narrate the world around the user. It harnesses the power of AI to open up the visual world, and describes nearby people, texts and objects. In the world of work, it supports people to identify colleagues and helps to facilitate a team culture. As long as those colleagues do not take offence at being taken for a 55-year-old man, as happened to me when the camera was held up to my face—I am in my mid-40s—it is an absolute gem of a research project.

Maximising the use of existing functionality is also important and remarkably useful. Adobe will read out pages of text, and people can ask ChatGPT to find those texts with a simple verbal instruction. My one ask is that when people use hashtags, they should use a capital letter for each new word because that ensures that the hashtag makes sense when read out.

The ability to work from home has opened up a world of opportunity, as meetings and conferences can be accessed from an environment that does not require travel. Although I often witness the kindness of the majority of people when Julie travels on buses or the underground to visit me or work in London, I also witness people who just barge into her as she gets on to an escalator slowly, or who tut because they cannot get past her. I get upset by that. Julie takes no notice because it has become her norm.

There is a broader need in society for people to better understand disabilities, and that starts with education and awareness in school. Will the Minister speak to the relevant Education Minister about how that can be raised as part of the curriculum review?

Future transport technology is also exciting. It may be that when we travel in future, we will jump into our own driverless vehicles and travel to our destinations. When Julie and I visited San Francisco, we saw a driverless taxi for the first time. At the moment, that can be a scary thought, culturally, but it offers a different kind of hope for travel independence in the future, and we should start to embrace what is out there across the globe.

It is great to have all those technologies and the ability to work from anywhere in any part of the world. It is also great to hear that the world is changing.

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I am pleased that he is talking about technology. Does he agree that many technology companies have cottoned on to the fact that if they make their products inclusive, it is better business for them? Companies such as Apple, Microsoft and others are leading the way by ensuring that their apps and devices such as iPads are accessible, which will help not just blind and partially sighted people, but disabled people in general into work.

[Lee Pitcher]

I could not agree more. There is a whole world of innovation out there, involving companies such as Apple and Microsoft, and we need to embrace that and find a way to channel it into everyday society and use.

As I was saying, it is great to have those technologies, but having them out there is not enough. We need to find a way for people to know about them and use them. The amazing work of organisations such as the RNIB, Guide Dogs, and the Partially Sighted Society in my area of Doncaster is just incredible. They make us aware of what can be done at home and at work through the use of technology.

The challenge for us, and for the 2 million Julies out there in the UK, is how to amplify the work of those organisations to improve employment support for blind and partially sighted people even more, to help employers to understand the technologies and processes that give opportunities for all and allow everyone to thrive. I ask the Minister how he might raise awareness of AI use in the workplace to support adjustments to maximise those opportunities.

I finish with this: I ask you, Dr Huq, to imagine Julie on that slope for the first time, carefully traversing the snow, the ice and the undulations with her white cane, then ditching that cane for ski poles, and hurtling down the mountainside with skill, talent and ability. The “Wow!” that you see on our children’s faces says it all. She is a role model and an inspiration. Anything is achievable with determination and the right support and resources. Let us make sure that everyone gets the opportunity to apply those abilities at home, when travelling to and from work, and at work. I want to see a world where that “Wow!” is visible every day in the workplace.

10:10

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Thank you for your sterling chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for securing this debate on an issue that is extremely important, particularly in the light of the recent report. It is extremely helpful that we have the opportunity to debate this matter and engage with the Minister. As the Liberal Democrats work and pensions spokesperson, and as someone who is registered blind, I hope I can bring something to the table.

I am sorry to say that, as has been said, there is sadly still significant discrimination against blind and partially sighted people. Taxis, hotels and restaurants are pinch points where disabled people going about their business often hit hurdles. Hon. Members have alluded to the kindness of strangers, however, and before I had my guide dog, I would occasionally try to use the underground in London. My belief in humanity would always be reaffirmed, as there was much kindness from strangers—the milk of human kindness is out there.

As the Liberal Democrats spokesman, I endorse the findings of the report that we are debating. The most important thing is to ensure that we do things with people, rather than to people, so co-design is extremely important. Tackling discrimination must be part of our agenda, because sadly it is alive and well, and we must strengthen the legislation on it.

Part of the challenge is the legacy of more than a decade of Conservative-led Governments, who have not tacked these issues. Mental health is a particularly challenging area. People who are blind or partially sighted face challenges and hurdles in their lives, so we need to be alive to the fact that the black dog of depression and mental health issues may not be very far away from them. Enhancing our mental health services as part of our general approach would be a real step change in support.

Once upon a time—in the ’80s—I went to the Royal National College for the Blind in Hereford, so I belong to the 1980s Royal National College Facebook page. When I became aware that this debate was coming up, I reached out to people who had gone to the college to see how the world treats them now that they are 50-something, as I am. Although a number of them had positive employment experiences, others had experienced real challenges. Somebody in their 50s told me that they had had less than a year’s gainful employment during their life, which is shocking. They said that they were able to find voluntary work, but that there were blockages in the way to longer-term employment.

Access to Work is a significant issue, as delays to it have doubled to more than 55,000. We must tackle that issue to drive the positive change that we want to see. People from the Royal National College also spoke to me about the Disability Confident employer scheme, as they are not sure whether it is just virtue signalling and not worth the paper it is written on.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Member touches on the Disability Confident scheme. Does he agree that for the scheme to be worth the paper it is written on, it needs to have proper quality frameworks in place, so that those who become Disability Confident employers actually employ disabled people? Currently, some employers with that status do not employ a single disabled person.

[Steve Darling]

The hon. Member has clearly been reading my notes, because my next point was that someone cannot be a Disability Confident employer and not employ anyone disabled—she is spot on. I have made some inquiries in this area since getting elected in July, and the problem is that the Government do not measure Disability Confident employers. When I went to my local jobcentre, it said that it did not have to report up to top shop at all, and the Library was not aware of any monitoring by the Government. If we do not measure it, it does not count, so that is a real issue.

Going back to my trip down memory lane to the Royal National College for the Blind, one of the issues I heard from former college friends was that we should not have to go out and champion the Access to Work scheme ourselves; Government should be doing that. It should not be one of Government’s best kept secrets, but sadly it sometimes is. People also described it as an overcomplicated system that had resulted in their not being able to employ support workers as agents. They said it was too complicated and there were too many delays in obtaining support through that scheme.

I represent Torbay, and a resident there tells me that after 30 years of solid work for the national health service, she decided to change employment to Devon in Sight, an outstanding local charity that supports blind and visually impaired people across Devon. Sadly, though, it took three months for payments to come through from Access to Work, which left her with significant financial liabilities. Fortunately she had flexibility in her own finances, but if the next person was coming out of a period of employment and faced financially straitened circumstances, it could have resulted in their not being able to continue with their employment.

I am also aware of a lady from the midlands who was recently made redundant by a large national charity, for which she was a rehabilitation officer. She is now looking to change to a local charity undertaking similar work, but Access to Work is only offering her a support worker one day a week. That is impacting on her personal wellbeing, as she is having to take up the cudgels and battle the scheme over what seems a bizarre offer of help. I would like to challenge the Minister on how we ensure that, when we design new schemes, we are working with people; I would welcome some assurances on that.

I would also like assurances around a project plan for Access to Work. I mentioned that there are 55,000 people in the backlog. I would welcome assurances from the Minister on how we are going to tackle that, with a project plan to do so within a reasonable length of time. Have they done the sums around that? What assurance can the Minister give that it will be up to a 28-day turnaround? Finally, I would like some assurances around Disability Confident, so that it can be a scheme that is valuable, drives positive change and, most of all, drives positive culture change in our society, so that people who are blind or partially sighted can play the active part in our communities that they should be undertaking.

10:19

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for his powerful testimony about the enormous opportunities and barriers in this space, and particularly to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for the work she has done on this topic during her time in Parliament. She serves her constituents and this community very well.

I was struck by the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) about the opportunities of AI, which opened my eyes to the huge barriers that blind and partially sighted people have suffered and how technology is helping to overcome those barriers. I pay tribute to his wife: learning to ski with partial sight is a tremendous achievement, so all credit to her.

I echo the points made by other hon. Members about the imperative to overcome and reduce the barriers that blind and partially sighted people face in gaining work and progression in the workplace. Doing so is an absolutely necessary matter of justice to those people themselves; it is entirely wrong that people are discriminated against, directly or indirectly, because of their disability. We therefore have a moral imperative to act. As the hon. Member for Battersea stressed, we also need to reduce barriers to employment for blind and partially sighted people for the sake of the economy; when we exclude blind and partially sighted people from employment and progression in work, the country is denied an enormous wealth of talent.

Finally, addressing remaining barriers to employment and work progression for blind and partially sighted people is necessary for the sake of the taxpayer and the public finances. Our country’s disability benefits bill is simply unsustainable. It has risen sharply in recent years and is projected to rise to unsustainable levels over the course of this Parliament. On the current trajectory, spending on health and disability benefits will rise 56%—an additional £27 billion—over the course of this Parliament if change does not happen. Overall, spending on incapacity and disability benefits will rise from 2.4% of GDP to 3% over the course of this Parliament. If we could ensure that people who are currently excluded from the workforce can gain employment and reduce dependence on benefits, we could spend much of that money better in other spaces. I therefore support what the Government aim to do in this space and their plan to get activity back to pre-pandemic levels—a noble aspiration, which my party will support.

There are two ways to approach this question, as has been touched on in the debate so far. The first is the role of the Government themselves in getting the law, benefits system and incentives right in the fiscal, legal and welfare spaces. I am proud to say that my party led the way in ensuring that we as a country tackle discrimination against people with disabilities. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, introduced by William Hague, required employers to make reasonable adjustments to facilitate the employment of disabled people, and it remains the great landmark and a vital step in this space. We also introduced Access to Work grants, which have been discussed today. I am pleased to say that last year saw the highest number of Access to Work grant applications awarded for over 15 years—68,000, of which 3,000, I understand, were for blind and partially sighted people. That is encouraging.

Nevertheless, we clearly need to go further with Access to Work, as we have heard today. Some innovations were introduced towards the end of the last Parliament, including health adjustment passports, which aim to reduce the time that it takes people to apply for and receive an Access to Work award, by allowing people to take the statement of their disabilities and necessary adjustments from one employer to another. As I understand it, that helpful and practical innovation is now in force. The last Government was also introducing an enhanced Access to Work package, which gave employees more support than they got under the existing scheme, as well as ensuring that employers received support if they were helping to facilitate access to work. Clearly, the process remains onerous and complex—that is a condition that applies across the benefit system with its complex, difficult application process. It only recently went online and it has just become possible for all people to apply for Access to Work digitally. Improvements clearly need to be made.

I am concerned about the extent of the backlog in the application process, which began in the previous Parliament and continues. In September 2023, 22,000 applications remained outstanding; in May 2024, there were 37,000; and in October 2024, 56,000. There are significant problems in processing these applications. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on why that is and what can be done to reduce the backlog.

We need to ensure that the conditionality and incentives in the benefit system and employment support are robust and sensitive. I look forward to the forthcoming White Paper to see how that will be achieved. The hon. Member for Battersea recommends a review of the Equality Act and I welcome contributions there. It will be interesting to see what is suggested to improve that legislation.

I am concerned, however, about proposals that rely on tightening laws—strengthening the stick side of the arrangement, as it were. As the hon. Lady said, there have been a lot of laws and programmes introduced to support blind and partially sighted people—people with disabilities—into employment, yet there are still significant problems helping them to access and progress in work. Rules will only take us so far. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme talked about the role of technology, it struck me that technology will also only take us so far.

There is a danger in looking to technical solutions, whether in the law or technology, that let us off the hook for what really needs to be done. I gently point out the phenomenon of crowding out: the danger that statutory action can diminish the voluntary action that needs to be taken, in this case by employers, to do the right thing. That is the second approach that is crucial to this space; I am pleased that that was the focus of the hon. Member for Battersea’s report and today’s debate. We need to look at the attitude and culture of employers, more than the obligations and systemic responses that Government can make. Of course, Government can significantly influence the attitude of employers but, to quote the Royal National Institute of Blind People:

“There are no hard and fast rules”

when supporting disabled people at work. We should avoid making assumptions about what blind and partially sighted people can do. That is why we need a flexible approach, in which employers use their imagination and intelligence, in consultation with employees, to develop access for blind and partially sighted people in the workplace.

The way to do that is to stress the opportunity, the benefits that employers will reap and, frankly, how easy it is. I was struck by the hon. Lady’s story of what good looks like in the workplace. It sounds like human beings being human towards each other, being genuinely inclusive, ensuring that people help their colleagues literally to navigate the workplace. One can imagine the enormous benefit to that workplace and all employees when there is a culture of inclusivity and generosity, as the hon. Lady described.

The key is awareness. Many of the changes needed to make workplaces accessible are not difficult; they just need to be done deliberately as part of the policy of the Government. I welcome the practical recommendations in the hon. Lady’s report, and I look forward to seeing what the White Paper will do to implement them. I respect the Minister and his colleagues, who are genuinely dedicated to improving employment and employability. I am pleased to see what has been trailed for the White Paper, with a focus on skills, devolution, empowering local communities and opportunities for young people.

I very much hope that the White Paper will work with employers in the spirit of the report we are debating, rather than against them, but I am concerned by the policies that the Government have announced so far with respect to employers. The national insurance rise will result in thousands of pounds of taxation on every job, and new burdens on employers are being created through the Employment Rights Bill. Those are not good portents of an employer-friendly approach. Nevertheless, on this issue we agree about the direction of travel that needs to be taken, and I very much hope that my party works with the Government to progress the very helpful recommendations that the hon. Member for Battersea has made.

10:30

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing this important and illuminating debate, and on the way she introduced it. She has a very deep commitment to this issue, as I know from her long-term work on the all-party parliamentary group. I commend her for that, and I also commend RNIB and the Thomas Pocklington Trust, which support that group by providing the secretariat.

It was welcome to hear hon. Members share their personal experiences. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) was absolutely right to remind us of the continuing problem of discrimination in work. It has not gone away and still needs to be addressed. It was great to hear about Julie’s experience of skiing—my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made his point very powerfully. I visited the Paralympics in Paris for a couple for a couple of days in the summer, and it was inspiring to see the accomplishments of people who are disabled and how much potential they have to contribute. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to do more to realise that potential in our economy and our society.

We all know about RNIB, and I am also familiar with the work of the Thomas Pocklington Trust thanks to my former constituent Helen Mitchell, who is one of its trustees. She arranged for me to pay a very useful and informative visit to its headquarters last year. I pay tribute to it for its work.

As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out, in a speech in Barnsley in July, our plans to reform the Department for Work and Pensions: rather than being the Department for welfare, it will be the Department for work. Our ambition is an 80% rate of employment, which would be the highest we have ever achieved in the UK. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire is absolutely right to remind us that the current rate of economic activity is still less than it was before the pandemic, so we still have a good deal of ground to make up.

To achieve that ambition, we have to do much better at supporting disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, into work. We will not achieve our ambition without that. We want people with visual impairments, who, as we have been reminded, have great skills and talents to offer, to have equal chances to enter and thrive in the labour market. We cannot continue with the 40% visual impairment employment gap, which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned, and is spelled out in the APPG report. We will collaborate with visually impaired people and organisations advocating for them to work out how we can meet their needs and support them better.

We do not want people with visual impairments to have to give up work, as is too often the case. The hon. Member for Torbay helpfully told us about the experiences of people he was at college with in the 1980s. We want people to be able to stay in work and not have to give it up. If they lose their job, they should be able to get back into work. Having gone into work, they should be able to progress and do well.

As announced in the King’s Speech in July, in the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to tackle the disability pay gap, which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea highlighted and which other Members also referred to. Additionally, our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which will indeed be published soon, will announce crucial reforms to employment support. We will change the way that we measure success. For example, we will focus not simply on getting people into a job, but on ensuring that they can stay in work and can progress to higher earnings in the future. We want to support people in the longer term.

We will also overhaul jobcentres. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme made an interesting point about the importance of assistive technology in jobcentres. We will introduce a new youth guarantee, so that in future nobody will be left on the scrapheap when they are young.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was absolutely right to point out that to achieve all that, we need healthy and inclusive workplaces. There are many employers who excel at creating inclusive workplaces in relation to health and disability, and it was very good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme about his wife’s positive experiences with her employers. However, the APPG’s report points out that many other employers recognise the value of providing an inclusive workplace and would like to provide one, but they need support to do so; at the moment, they do not feel in a position to do so.

Consequently, we are considering what more we can do to help, because preventing people from leaving the workforce and enabling more people to return to work after absences is a good thing. It is definitely good for the individuals concerned; it is good for their mental health and their sense of fulfilment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), and the hon. Members for Torbay and for East Wiltshire, reminded us. However, it is also good for businesses and wider society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife referred to the work of Lord Shinkwin for the Institute for Directors. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that work and I look forward to meeting Lord Shinkwin and discussing some of these issues with him in the near future.

The Disability Confident scheme, which has been referred to in the debate, is a very important resource that we already have. It featured in Lord Shinkwin’s report, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife mentioned it, and the hon. Member for Torbay dedicated a good part of his speech to it. That scheme provides a strong platform, with more than 19,000 employers participating in it. It promotes good, inclusive employment and recruitment practices. It supports employers to deliver them and to become able to attract, recruit, retain and develop disabled people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was absolutely right to underline the importance of accessible recruitment processes in making sure that people are not barred from applying for jobs in the first place. In the Disability Confident scheme, there are many committed employers who are enthusiastic about making recruitment processes accessible and who are determined to do well in that regard. However, I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Torbay that the Disability Confident scheme can do more. I have had some encouraging recent conversations about that, for example, with the Business Disability Forum. Working with both employers and disabled people, we will examine how we can make the Disability Confident scheme more robust and how it can achieve more of its potential. I am convinced that potential is there, but we must realise more of it in future.

We also support employers with a digital information service and in increasing access to occupational health services, which the previous Government rightly recognised was important.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I outlined some of the things that we are doing in Northern Ireland. Obviously, that was to help the Minister with ideas that could be used here on the mainland. The Minister has outlined a number of things that are happening here. Does he intend to contact the relevant body in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can work better together, share ideas, do things better and make life better for the people we are here for?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I certainly welcome opportunities to do that. We need to learn from all the devolved Governments in the UK. There are interesting things happening in Scotland, for example, on social security, and in Northern Ireland, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to a number of those. I am keen to pursue that further.

Disabled people and those with health conditions are a diverse group. The right work and health support in the right place at the right time is key. The contribution of Jobcentre Plus work coaches and disability employment advisers, who play an important role in jobcentres, is vital to this topic. I pay tribute to the dedication of those who are working on this at Jobcentre Plus. We will join up health and employment support around the individual. That will be through, for example, employment advisers in NHS talking therapies—seeing the NHS increasingly embrace the importance of supporting people into work—and individual placement and support in primary care.

My hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and the hon. Members for Torbay, for Strangford and for East Wiltshire, all spoke about Access to Work, rightly reflecting its crucial importance. The scheme provides grants for workplace adjustments beyond what is provided by the employer. Let us be clear that Access to Work does not replace an employer’s duty under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) pointed out in his intervention. There are clear statutory obligations here that need to be delivered. Access to Work, however, can provide funding for support workers, specialist aids and equipment, personalised support and workplace assessments, travel to or in work, and mental health support.

The hon. Member for Torbay referred to it as one of the best kept secrets, but demand for Access to Work has been growing fast. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire rightly reported that nearly 68,000 people had Access to Work support approved in the last financial year, an increase of almost a third on the previous year. It is now growing rapidly. As he said, it supported 3,850 people who reported their primary medical condition as difficulty in seeing. That is about 8% of the people who are supported by the scheme. Customers with difficulty seeing as their primary medical condition received a bigger proportion—13% or £33 million—of the total expenditure. Access to Work is making an important contribution.

We are committed to reducing the waiting times for Access to Work. Delivery of the support has been streamlined. We have more staff processing the claims. Customers starting a job within four weeks are prioritised to ensure that they get help in time. Since April, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire pointed out, all the core parts of the scheme are now online. However, I agree that more needs to be done. I welcome the engagement of all Members who have taken part in the debate and their continuing pressure to ensure that Access to Work delivers on its potential.

As has been highlighted, the APPG report rightly referred to the importance of technology in enabling visually impaired people to be in work. The report specifically mentioned text-to-speech software. Last week I visited Sense College Loughborough, a facility originally developed by RNIB. A visually impaired student there showed me the ZoomText application—which I was not aware of previously—using it to magnify the text he was looking at on a screen, and to manage a document over two screens. He commended its helpfulness to me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme is absolutely right to point out just how big a game changer AI can be. We must realise that opportunity.

Access to Work can help provide assistive tech, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out in her intervention, suppliers such as Apple and Microsoft are increasingly bundling assistive tech with their standard products, partly because, as she said, it helps all users and makes the products easier to use for everybody. The technology is coming on in leaps and bounds. It is moving very fast, and we need to make sure that people have access to it. I am looking at what the Government can do in this area to make the technology better known, because a lot of people who have it on their devices do not know that it is there; to make assistive technology more readily available, where it is not bundled in with the standard product; and, maybe on occasion, to commission research to tackle a specific accessibility problem. We are thinking about this, and I welcome ideas and suggestions from Members about what more we can do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and others are absolutely right to point out how much more we need to do to support blind and partially sighted people into employment to enable them both to achieve their aspirations and to make their full contribution to our society and economy. That is in their interest and in all our interest. I am encouraged by what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, said about this. I hope that, when hon. Members read the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, as they will soon be able to do, they will agree that we are taking the right steps towards reaching that goal.

10:47

[Marsha De Cordova]

First, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. That includes the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger).

I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability on his response to this important debate. His commitment to this issue really came across, as did his drive to make the change. It has been a good debate; every contribution brought something different and important, particularly on the opportunities of technology. I am a big advocate—forgive me—of Apple. Apple changed my life. When the iPhone and the iPad came out, they enabled me to read newspapers, finally. There are other providers out there, obviously, but it did really change my life.

Making use of AI is also important. I recently met representatives of a company called Be My Eyes, and I was bowled over by how its AI worked: you put these pretty swanky glasses on and look down, and the glasses read everything in front of you or describe what is around you. That will be game changing once they are available to everybody.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme for his skiing tips. I will have to have a proper chat with him, because I have always wanted to ski, but I was held back. Hearing that my hon. Friend’s wife is doing it, I am absolutely up for it now.

On a more serious point, it is a shame that, in 2024, we are still debating this issue. However, after 14 years, it is truly amazing that we now have a Labour Government who are committed to changing the experience, not only of blind and partially sighted people, but more importantly of disabled people as a whole, when it comes to engaging with the labour market.

I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability. He is a friend, and I know he is a good listener, because I talk his ear off on these issues a lot. None the less, he is also a man of action, so I look forward to working with him and his colleagues.

I want to press my final point: this is not just about the Department for Work and Pensions; it is about working cross-Government, in particular with the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, so that we can bring about the transformative change that will lead to changing attitudes and, most importantly, changing lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered employment support for blind and partially sighted people.

10:50

Sitting suspended.

Global Plastics Treaty

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Simon Opher to move the motion and I believe there will be one other small speech before the Minister responds. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up on this occasion, as this is only a 30-minute debate.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.

I thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate, and the Minister for attending. Plastic pollution is putting all of Earth’s systems under stress. There is no corner of the world, from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom of the ocean, that is untouched by plastic pollution. Microplastics are accumulating in our bodies, in our vital organs, and in breast milk and placentas, and current levels of plastic production expose us to more than 16,000 harmful chemicals daily and to increasing volumes of microplastics.

Plastic pollution is putting the Earth’s ecosystems and natural processes under serious strain, worsening climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification and land use—and if you think the situation is bad now, it could be much worse in decades to come. Plastic production, which is already far too high for our planet’s systems to cope with, is set to triple by 2050. The impact on climate change will be monumental. In its current state and with its current growth trajectory, plastic production will make achieving net zero impossible.

Plastic production already has a global warming impact four times greater than that of the aviation industry, with 90% of emissions coming during the production process. By 2050, half of global oil demand will come from petrochemicals. Plastic production is out of control, and everyone agrees that there is a problem. In 2022, 175 countries agreed to come together to hammer out a global treaty to address plastic pollution, but after two years and with four out of five scheduled rounds of negotiations completed, we are still in the dark about what the treaty will really look like.

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

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. The last Government oversaw soaring rates of plastic incineration, and delays to modest waste reforms such as deposit return schemes, while also refusing to support proposals to cut plastic production by 40% by 2040, which were put forward at the last round of the treaty negotiations. Does the hon. Member agree that the new Government must raise their ambition levels, and that the best way to do so is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?

[Dr Opher]

I certainly do agree with you, and it is one reason that I am delivering this speech; thank you for that.

It might seem obvious that plastic pollution cannot be addressed without significant cuts to the production of plastics, but that is the most controversial and politically challenging aspect of the treaty. Those involved want us to believe that we can recycle our way out of this crisis—something we know not to be true. Plastic can be recycled only a finite number of times, simply delaying the inevitable moment when it is burned or dumped in landfill, or even escapes into our environment. The fact is that oversupply of virgin plastics at ever lower prices is undermining the UK’s ambition to create a circular economy here in the UK.

Earlier this week, the BBC reported that a recycling site in Avonmouth, near Bristol—which is near my constituency of Stroud—is closing down due to low recycling rates and challenging market conditions. Last month, the industry body Plastics Recyclers Europe raised the alarm about a downward trend in plastics recycling as a result of the global glut of cheap virgin plastics. Flooding the world with cheap plastic allows no space for reuse and refill systems, and the recycling industry, to develop.

Here in the UK, we deal with an excess of plastic waste by burning it and dumping it on poorer countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. Both practices were allowed to increase under the previous Government, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, and the public are rightly outraged. That is why many of my constituents have written to me about plastic pollution, and more than half a million people have signed a petition calling for a strong global plastics treaty.

Earlier this year, over 220,000 people decided to take part in the Big Plastic Count—a massive citizen science project where individuals count every piece of plastic waste that they dispose of for a week. The results showed that the UK throws away 1.7 billion pieces of plastic each week, with 58% of that being incinerated, producing toxic fumes and greenhouse gases. Incineration is the UK’s dirtiest form of power generation, and incinerators are three times more likely to be placed in poorer neighbourhoods, as was the case with the one built recently in the Stroud area.

Fortunately, the new Government have taken bold steps to tackle plastic pollution. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made zero waste one of the Department’s core missions, and has set up a circular economy taskforce.

[Sarah Dyke]

My constituent Catherine Conway is the founder of GoUnpackaged, the world’s first modern zero-waste shop, which is hugely reducing the use of single-use plastics. She is also part of the Refill Coalition, which is developing and testing a standardised solution to deliver refills at scale in store and online. Does the hon. Member agree that zero-waste solutions such as these have a big role to play in accelerating the transition to a more circular economy that maximises the recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing of products?

[Dr Opher]

Thank you—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk is telling me that “you” is not usually used to refer to other Members, only to the Chair. The Clerk keeps telling me to say this; I have restrained myself so far, but it is one of the conventions of this unusual workplace.

[Dr Opher]

I do apologise, Dr Huq. I shall try to do better.

As I was saying, the Environment Secretary has made zero waste one of the Department’s core missions, and has set up a circular economy taskforce. This is a good move and will create jobs in repair, rental and recycling, as well as will significantly reducing CO2 emissions. The reuse of plastics, and not just recycling, is also incredibly important. It has perhaps dropped down the agenda a little, and we need to emphasise the point, so I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton for her intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that these treaties are great in theory, but that support is needed to reach the targets, and that that support must not simply be in the form of help for developing nations? The steps needed are understandable and necessary, but they must start at home at the local council level, with additional funding to allow our nation to pull up our own socks and make meaningful differences to our plastic production and use.

[Dr Opher]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I do believe that green initiatives and recycling have to begin at home; we have to do our own bit first and then spread the word.

The Government signed the Bridge to Busan declaration, joining over 40 countries in reaffirming the need for plastic production cuts to be included in the final treaty. The treaty needs to go further; we need a treaty that delivers a strong global target to cut plastic production, that is ambitious about the level of cuts to global production, and that is specific about how much to cut production and by when, with a global target that is legally binding.

The plastics treaty is the third time in quick succession that this Government’s international climate and nature leadership has been tested. The UK demonstrated our ambitions at the biodiversity COP in Cali, Colombia, and was one of the only countries to announce a genuinely ambitious nationally determined contribution at the COP29 in Baku. The plastics treaty is another vital opportunity for the UK to demonstrate once again that it is a progressive actor on the world stage, prepared to face down polluting industries and to put the brakes on the climate and nature emergency. That leadership role is needed now more than ever, particularly in sustainable energy and in recycling.

Other countries are looking to the UK, reinvigorated by our new Government, to give the treaty process the injection of impetus and ambition that it needs to get over the line. My ask of the Government today is this: are they willing to demonstrate international leadership and commit to doing everything possible to bring the treaty over the line?

11:09

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate ahead of the fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastic pollution, which begins next week in Busan, Korea. He mentioned the all-important biodiversity COP in Cali, Colombia. I was proud to be part of the UK’s cross-party official delegation making the case for climate and nature at that important gathering.

I have heard from many constituents in Stratford and Bow who are deeply concerned about the environmental harm caused by plastic waste in our rivers and oceans. They want to see ambitious action here at home as well as on a global scale, and they want the UK to be a global leader. According to the UN Environment Programme, 1 million plastic bottles are purchased every minute, and half of all plastic produced is designed for single-use purposes—it is used once and just thrown away.

We have long known about the harm that plastic pollution causes. Microplastics are prevalent in our natural world, where they damage environmental health and our rivers and canals and impact our oceans’ carbon sequestration. My hon. Friend set out the effects on our bodies: 77% of people have microplastics in their blood, and the most commonly detected plastic is PET, which is used to make single-use plastic bottles.

Why am I, the Member for Stratford and Bow, speaking in this important debate? East London is where Alexander Parkes invented the first thermoplastic in 1877, but nearly 150 years later it is the proud home of innovative work to end the harm caused by single-use plastic. Earlier this month, I visited Notpla, a world-changing start-up based in my constituency. In 2022 it won the Earthshot prize for its work on creating an alternative to plastic made from seaweed and plants. Notpla has already replaced 13 million single-use plastic products with its technology, which biodegrades as fast as orange peel. It is not just changing how we use and dispose of plastic waste, but seeking to end our addiction to single-use plastics altogether. It is just one example of the creativity and ambition that already exists, which is needed to support the Government’s commitment to reduce waste by moving to a circular economy. But we need to go further and faster, and I think that that is something we all agree on in this room.

Alongside such innovation, global interventions and collective effort are needed to control and prevent marine plastic pollution, to safeguard human and ecological health and to defend against biodiversity loss. Next week’s meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee is a pivotal moment. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and my constituents in Stratford and Bow in calling on all member states present at Busan to push for legally binding instruments based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics. This is a huge opportunity for climate and nature leadership on the world stage, and an opportunity to guarantee a safer, cleaner planet for all of us and for future generations.

11:12

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. It is lovely to see you here. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this really important debate, and Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. This is an important topic that people really care about.

This week, I had the most effective lobbying I have ever had; I was lobbied by 12 primary school children who came with a message in a bottle—they literally brought a bottle with a message and a petition from Greenpeace calling on me to do everything I can to secure plastic reduction. They too had taken part in the Great Plastic Count, and even the youngest, who was only seven years old, told me about all the plastic that they had. I just wanted to give a special mention to those children from Bonner primary school. This is Parliament Week, when we encourage young people to get involved in politics and understand how Parliament works, so it is a good time to engage with everybody across the country on this important issue.

[Sarah Dyke]

Carymoor Environmental Trust in my constituency runs fantastic plastic sessions and has educated over 58,000 children in Somerset about the environmental impact of plastic and about ways to avoid single-use plastic. Does the Minister agree that the best way to avoid single-use plastic is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. The global plastics treaty, which I will talk about in more detail, is crucial, and it is really encouraging to see how everybody is getting behind it.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The Minister talked about being lobbied by children, and we all know how effective kids are when they lobby their MPs. I also want to mention the education work that The Deep in Hull does with children on plastic pollution, which is impressive, to put it mildly. On the topic of education, the University of Hull has recently carried out research showing that 8 million tonnes of plastic ends up in the sea, making up 80% of the debris in our oceans.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am not meant to show bias, but The Deep is fantastic; we should all go and visit it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it does incredible work in educating children about ocean conservation, nature and plastic use. It is an amazing asset for the constituency I represent, and its work is highly regarded internationally.

I move on to talk about the treaty in more detail. After two years of negotiations, we are approaching the fifth and final scheduled meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, which starts on 25 November. The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Inger Andersen, has referred to this treaty as

“the most significant environmental multilateral deal since the Paris accord.”

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and that is why an agreement at Busan this year is critical. If we are to stop plastic entering the environment at an increasing rate, we need a treaty that provides actions at all stages of the plastics life cycle. We are proud, as a country, to be a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution. That coalition includes more than 60 countries, and calls for an ambitious and effective treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040. In September, the High Ambition Coalition published a ministerial statement calling for an ambitious treaty that covers the full life cycle of plastics, including design, production, consumption and end of life. Then, on 24 September, the UK signed the Bridge to Busan declaration, which makes the case for an ambitious treaty that includes upstream measures to ensure the sustainable consumption and production of primary plastic polymers.

It is critical that the new treaty on plastic pollution takes action across the entire life cycle, including production and consumption. The evidence is clear that we cannot solve the problem of plastic pollution unless we take action at every stage. Global plastic production is projected to double by 2050, reaching 800 million metric tonnes annually. Evidence shows that on current trends, waste management infrastructure will not be able to keep up with the pace of plastic production and consumption, and the level of mismanaged plastic waste will continue to rise. That is why the UK supports binding provisions in the treaty to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels, and to enable the transition to a circular economy.

To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act. That includes national and local governments, and the private and financial sectors. We need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is important that their voices are heard.

We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. The dialogues include actors at all stages of the plastic value chains, as well as from academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. Those dialogues have helped us understand the views on the treaty to inform our approach to negotiations.

On 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I, in conjunction with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, hosted a plastic pollution treaty roundtable for business leaders, retailers and financial institutions. We discussed the importance of agreeing an ambitious, legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Participants also signed a statement setting out the key elements that the treaty must include in order to end plastic pollution by 2040.

Many businesses and organisations are leading the way already. An example of this is the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which has been joined by more than 85 organisations, including major global businesses, financial institutions and NGOs. The UK scientific community is also world-leading and playing an active role in ensuring that the treaty negotiations are grounded in science, as well as developing the solutions and innovations that will help us take action on this issue.

However, we also recognise the importance of mobilising support for countries most in need, in order to implement the treaty, and this is an essential element of its effectiveness. We can end plastic pollution only through globally co-ordinated action and by mobilising and aligning financial flows from all sources, including all actors and stakeholders across the full plastics value chain at both the global and the local stage. The UK supports the use of the Global Environmental Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. It has established a track record of supporting environmental agreements on climate and biodiversity.

[Dr Opher]

Does the Minister know why there is no shadow Minister here to contribute to the debate for the Opposition?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I can answer that, actually. It is only a 30-minute debate, so it is very bare bones and there is no opportunity for the mover of the motion to respond and no Opposition spokesperson. It is not that they did not turn up.

[Dr Opher]

Okay. Thank you.

[Emma Hardy]

I have to say that this is one thing on which I believe there is cross-party consensus. There seems to be an awful lot of support for the treaty, and I hope that that unity continues, especially as we are going into incredibly difficult negotiations. It is really important for us as a country to stand united behind the treaty and what it means if we are not only to seek an agreement, but to ensure that it is fulfilled. I would like to hope that everyone agrees on how important this is, but I am an optimist—what can I say?

The UK is already the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, which brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in circular economy approaches in countries eligible for official development assistance.

I was asked what we are doing as a country to reduce plastic packaging. We plan to lay regulations on a deposit return scheme for drinks containers in England and Northern Ireland before Parliament in late 2024—hopefully before Christmas—for them to come into force in early 2025, assuming that parliamentary time allows. The planned launch date of the scheme is October 2027. If we are going to argue what other countries need to do, it is important that we are seen to be taking action ourselves. I really appreciate that companies—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) mentioned one in her constituency—are promoting innovative and more sustainable solutions to plastic pollution, especially from single-use plastics.

Plastic pollution is one of the greatest long-term global challenges we face, and the UK is committed to working with the chair and members of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to reach an agreement. All parties are committed to seeking to conclude negotiations on the treaty by the end of 2024. We need to secure a robust, ambitious treaty to accelerate action at pace and scale, and that is what the UK team will be pushing for in Busan.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud again for securing the debate, and I thank everyone else who has supported it.

Question put and agreed to.

11:22

Sitting suspended.

Apprenticeships and T-Levels

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

14:30

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.

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

UK productivity is well below that of the United States, Germany and France. That is not a new thing; it has been true in every year I have been alive. If we were able to fix that productivity gap, we could have higher living standards, lower tax and more tax revenue. There are multiple reasons for the gap and much academic literature has been written on it, but the level of skills in an economy is fundamental to productivity and therefore to growth. How we run our skills system is also important, because there is a cadre of young people who are less orientated towards pure academic study but have talent and flair in technical pursuits, and they deserve just the same opportunities and life chances as those who take the academic route.

In this country, although we are famous for aspects of our education system, including for our higher education—our universities—and increasingly for aspects of our school system, we are not, I am afraid, famous for technical and vocational education and training. When foreign Ministers come to Europe to look at vocational education, they tend to go to Germany, and if there is one thing we do not like in England, it is losing out to Germany.

It is right that successive Governments have been troubled by this situation and sought to fix it, but perhaps sometimes they have been a bit too quick to look for a fix. The story of our organisational infrastructure for technical and vocational provision is not one of stability. We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and training and enterprise councils—TECs. But those TECs were different from another TEC—the Technician Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council, BEC. The two would eventually merge, of course, to give us BTECs. There were national training organisations; the Learning and Skills Council; sector skills councils; the UK Commission for Employment and Skills; the Skills Funding Agency, or SFA, which would later be the ESFA—the Education and Skills Funding Agency—and, most recently, local skills improvement plans and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

The infrastructure has been mirrored by a panoply of qualifications and awards. We have had traditional apprenticeships and then modern apprenticeships; the youth training scheme; the City & Guilds system; the technical and vocational education initiative; the National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs, which are still in use; and GNVQs, which evolved into BTECs and diplomas. There were the 14 to 19 diplomas, which were not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; the skills for life programme; and traineeships. Altogether, today, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 recognised awarding organisations, excluding those that only do apprenticeship end-point assessments.

Now, just at level 3—the equivalent to A-levels—we have the following qualifications: tech levels as well as T-levels; applied generals; level 3 ESOL; level 3 NVQ, and access to higher education diplomas. There is a level 3 award, a level 3 certificate and a level 3 diploma—or someone might prefer a level 3 national certificate or a level 3 national diploma. There is also an extended diploma, a subsidiary diploma, and a technical introductory diploma. There is no official count, but by the mid-2010s someone had counted up what they could find and said that, together with other, non-level 3 courses available to 16 to 18-year-olds, there were at least 13,000 possible qualifications that someone in that age group could do. It is not surprising that when the Independent Panel on Technical Education was created in 2015-16, it found that vocational education and training had become “over-complex”.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Some 6.9% of young people in Somerset are believed to be not in education, employment or training, which is higher than the national average of 5.5%. Does he agree that the Government should not only improve the quality of vocational education, but strengthen the careers advice and links with employers in schools and colleges, to enable more young people to get into education on the right courses?

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed—the hon. Member is absolutely right. Part of the point of careers advice is knowing which course to take and which qualification to pursue. The panel that I mentioned found that if someone was considering a career in plumbing, for example, there were 33 different qualifications that they might seek to take. It also found that in general the various qualifications were not providing the skills needed; they had become divorced from the occupations they were meant to serve, with no requirement, or only a weak requirement, to meet employers’ needs in those occupations.

The panel’s report, which came out in April 2016, became a blueprint for a major upgrade of technical and vocational education in this country. The panel was determined to address both the productivity gap and very clearly also the social justice gap, whereby some young people were being left behind. I stress that although the report was a blueprint, it was also a “redprint”: the panel was chaired by the noble Lord Sainsbury, the distinguished Labour peer. The report called for “a fundamental shift”, with

“a coherent technical education option…from levels 2…to…5”.

There would be 15 clearly defined sector routes, covering 35 different career pathways. Three of those routes would be available only through an apprenticeship; the other 12 would be available either through an apprenticeship or a college track, and there would be common standards for both. Both the apprenticeship and college-based routes would result in

“the same or equivalent technical knowledge, skills and behaviours”

to take into the workplace. The report said that this path

“needs to be clearly delineated from the academic option, as they are designed for different purposes. But, at the same time, movement between the two must be possible…in either direction”.

The report also recommended expanding the then Institute for Apprenticeships into an Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, so as to cover both apprenticeship and college tracks. It added:

“Specifying the standards…is not a role for officials in central government but for professionals working in…occupations, supported by…education professionals.”

It recommended that there should be improvements to apprenticeships and a new, largely college-based qualification, which would become known as the T-level.

With T-levels, the knowledge, skills content and required behaviours are set not by somebody at the Department of Education but by employers. There is the core technical qualification, but there is also content in English, maths and digital. Crucially, there is a 45-day industrial placement. There are also more college hours than with traditional vocational qualifications and indeed more taught hours per week than for A-levels.

For the upgrade that we needed in our country, in both productivity and opportunities available to all young people, T-levels had to become the principal college-based option—not the only option, but the principal or main college-based vocational qualification. And the T-level could not be grafted on to a market that already had thousands of qualifications; there was an incumbency advantage and even commercial interests attached to some of those. It had to replace a number—a lot—of qualifications. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, has been speaking about this quite recently.

The other thing that was always going to be difficult about T-levels was finding enough industry placements. Lord Sainsbury found that we might need up to 250,000 industry placements for 17-year-olds, and that, of course, is hard to achieve. We could say that it is too hard and give up, but if we did that we would be giving up on advancing our competitiveness.

The alternative is that we change culture in our country and say to companies that if they want to be a great success in their sector, and their sector to be a great success in our country, and our whole country to be a success in the world, we all have to invest both the resource and the time in the next generation.

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

I do not disagree with the right hon. Member on that point; I just wanted to highlight that in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is an apprenticeship provider called CATCH. Local businesses have come together to invest in a brand-new welding apprenticeship facility that will deliver 1,000 apprentices over the next few years. Is that the kind of partnership working that he envisages, which works well for local communities, young people and business?

[Damian Hinds]

I am sure it is. I will come to apprenticeships in a moment, but I was just talking about industry placements in T-levels.

From speaking to young people who are doing T-levels, colleagues will know that their most popular feature is probably the fact that young people get to do a real role in a real workplace. The placements are also popular with the employers that provide T-levels: first, the employers are investing in the next generation and helping develop all the things the lack of which they sometimes complain about—soft skills and workplace skills—and secondly, the placements are the most fantastic, longest-ever job interview, when employers get to see the people who may come and work in their company over an extended period. I appeal to Ministers to carry on the great work of shouting about T-levels and talking about these great opportunities and the upgrade they represent.

There were two big changes to apprenticeships. The first ensured that there were minimum standards. Previously, as colleagues will recall, some apprenticeships were so thin and flimsy that the apprentices did not know they were on one. After minimum standards came in, apprenticeships would last at least one year and involve at least 20% of time off the job. As with T-levels, there would be an end-point assessment, which would feature standards set by employers.

The second big change was the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That has always been controversial with some employers, but it was there to do two things. First, it raises the funds needed to pay for a big upgrade in apprenticeship provision. Secondly, it deals with the free rider problem, with which we will all be familiar: some companies in a sector have always strongly invested in young people, but three years later those young people leave to work for another employer that can offer to pay more but has not made the investment in the first place. The apprenticeship levy deals directly with that free rider problem, as economists call it, so that every sizeable company contributes properly.

The new Government plan to change the scope of the levy and to introduce two new types of apprenticeship, which it is fair to say we do not know a huge amount about: foundation apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeships. There is an argument that we already make the word “apprenticeship” do a lot of work—it covers a wide spectrum. Arguably, there are three types of development of self and training, which have different needs: someone may be a career starter, career developer or career changer, and the specifications of the courses and qualifications are different. For example, a 50-year-old who is changing career does not need to learn as many things about what it is like to enter a workplace for the first time as an 18-year-old does. In truth, only one of those types of training is what a normal member of the public associates with the word “apprentice”: we think typically of people who are young and starting out on their working journey.

It is totally legitimate to look at changing what the levy covers, and it is good to refocus on young people—career starters. It is also reasonable to say that the levy could cover some things that are not apprenticeships, such as management development or traineeships, but there is huge value in maintaining integrity around what we mean by the word “apprenticeship”, and keeping a minimum length and quantity of college or off-work content.

Whatever the Government do with the levy, they need to find a way to deal with the free rider problem. The Government will always be lobbied by companies saying, “We should be able to use the levy for this, that and the other”, but if “this, that and the other” means training that they would have paid for anyway, then the levy will not have achieved its goal. It has to be something that creates a net increase in the amount of training and development available.

That brings me to Skills England. Now, Ministers like shiny new things, and some people will always lobby for things to change. A sweet spot is found in public policy when the two coincide: Ministers get lobbied to do something, and they think they have come up with a shiny new thing that sounds like it will achieve those ends. Skills England is one of those things; I am afraid that, without major design change, it is doomed to failure. I have no doubt that plenty of people who lobbied the Government when they were in opposition said, “We need a different approach to skills. We need to think about them across Government, take the long view, listen to employers, listen to young people and have an integrated approach.” The Government have come up with this thing called Skills England, which they think will do that.

Skills England will be the 13th new skills agency in five decades. If all it took to solve our skills and productivity problem was a change in the machinery of government, do the Government not think that one of the previous 12 might already have managed it? The instinct in difficult circumstances is to break glass and reach for a quango, but Skills England is not even a quango; it is nada—not quasi-autonomous, but a non-accountable departmental agency—and there is no reason to think it will be any better at working across Government, let alone across the economy, in solving these issues.

If the Government were serious about creating something new to join together the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the DFE and everybody else, they would put it in the Treasury or perhaps the Cabinet Office. They would not just make it part of the DFE management structure. Worse than that is the loss of independence compared with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

There is legislation currently going through the other place that ostensibly creates Skills England, but it does no such thing. All it does is abolish the independent institute and move all of its powers into the Department for Education. The Secretary of State will now have responsibility for standards for T-levels. Imagine if that were the case for A-levels. If it is not all right for A-levels, why should it be all right for T-levels?

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will continue.

There is also no guarantee that business will continue to be involved in setting those standards. I am afraid that public and business confidence is set to be eroded—rightly, because everybody knows that the easiest way for the Government to increase the numbers of people doing anything in education is to erode standards to get more people through.

I believe the Sainsbury report was—and still is—a good blueprint. Of course, the Government are entitled to evolve it, but they should recognise that the principles remain sound. With T-levels, it was always going to be hard to get sufficient industry placements and to overcome powerful objections that we need to change the system rather than just add to it. With apprenticeships, there will always be, as there always have been, firms that try to game the system. We can argue about what the levy should or should not cover, but it is a good thing and it needs to be designed and maintained to encourage a net increase in investment in this area and to deal with the free rider problem.

There will always be some cost and downside when the bar of minimum standards is raised, as we did. We need to remember where we started, with the need to increase productivity and have higher expectations for all in the interests of social justice. We need to maintain those minimum standards to keep apprenticeships and T-levels equivalent, with the same levels of knowledge, skills and behaviours.

Finally, the independence of the body that sets the standards, working with and for business, is key. The Government will obviously keep Skills England, but I ask the Minister to build into its design proper, full independence from her Department, and a proper, full guiding role for the businesses these occupations need to serve. I want Ministers not just to say that, but to write it into the legislation.

14:49

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate on the pivotal role of apprenticeships and T-levels in our national industrial strategy.

As we face a significant skills gap, particularly in science, technology, engineering and maths fields, those pathways are critical for equipping our workforce with the expertise needed to drive innovation and economic growth. T-levels and apprenticeships bridge the gap between education and the workplace, combining classroom learning and practical experience. T-levels provide substantial industrial placements, while apprenticeships enable individuals to earn while they gain real-world skills. Together they address shortages in key sectors, such as manufacturing, construction, healthcare and beauty, ensuring that students are job ready from day one.

Dudley College of Technology in my constituency exemplifies excellence in this area. The college offers a wide range of T-levels across many disciplines, blending academic and practical learning. Its commitment to apprenticeships is equally impressive, with over 4,000 apprenticeships supported through strong partnerships with local businesses. Those collaborations ensure that training meets industry needs and contributes to regional economic growth.

The STEM sector remains the heart of the industrial strategy but continues to face persistent skills shortages. Apprenticeships and T-levels are vital to addressing those challenges and building a workforce equipped for careers in science, technology, engineering and maths. Institutions such as Dudley Tech play a key role in closing the gap, but we must focus on diversity in STEM. Women make up only 27% of STEM workers, but 52% of the country’s wider workforce. Meanwhile, only 12% of STEM workers, compared with 19% in the wider workforce, come from ethnic minority backgrounds. We will not see improvement unless we address this matter head on and break down barriers to apprenticeships and T-levels.

Measures by the previous Government were ineffective, with females aged 16 to 29 making up only 29% of the STEM workforce—a mere 1% more than the generation before them. Under-representation of women, minorities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds remains a barrier to unlocking the country’s true economic and technological potential on the global stage. Making apprenticeships and T-levels more accessible will attract a broader range of talent, enriching the STEM workforce and fostering innovation.

In conclusion, we must make apprenticeships and T-levels more accessible to attract a broader range of talent, particularly in STEM, and further promote their uptake to diverse audiences. By fostering partnerships between educational institutions such as Dudley Tech and industry, we can create a more skilled environment for all.

14:52

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate on such a critical issue for our young people. Today, I want to highlight a major concern among college staff and students: the need for certainty about the potential defunding of BTECs in favour of T-levels.

For years, BTECs have served as a trusted form of level 3 qualification, providing students with practical and theoretical skills in a format that staff are experienced in delivering. I have heard from teachers about the pride and joy they take in teaching BTECs and watching their students thrive as they apply themselves to often very practical subjects. In many cases, it is the first time that those children have ever felt passionate about learning and excited to go further. It gives them the chance to finally start down the path—a path I imagine all of us in the Chamber want young people to take—towards realising their full potential. That is why so many are concerned about the replacement of BTECs with T-levels, and why I hope that the Government address those concerns when they publish the findings of their review of the policy next month.

I have heard from teachers who say they will struggle with the suggested rapid adoption of new course structures and unfamiliar theoretical components across the whole range of non-A-level subjects. Staff at South Thames Colleges Group, which serves many of my local students, have expressed concerns about how those sweeping changes will be implemented effectively. Currently, around 58 courses are at risk of being defunded.

[Melanie Onn]

Is some of the concern coming from colleges not also about the timing of those decisions? Franklin college in my constituency has said that the earlier it knows, the better it can plan. It is already receiving parents and young people in for open days for courses next year.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Lady makes a point so good that I will be getting to it shortly—I completely agree.

Staff worry about having to adapt their curricula to align with the new T-levels, which will involve updating course content, revising teaching methods and redesigning assessment strategies to meet the new required standards. There is no way to do that without enormous, time-consuming upheaval, which they will need as much notice as possible to prepare for. Teachers deserve a definitive answer on what will happen next.

It is not just teaching staff; students have been left in the dark, too. Approximately 380 students planning to enrol at a college in the South Thames Colleges Group are affected by the confusion surrounding the implementation of T-levels. Those currently completing GCSEs and planning for their post-16 education face uncertainty about what their courses will look like in September 2025. They fear the removal of the element of choice in the system.

BTECs formerly offered the option of a professional placement, but T-levels are geared specifically to placements. That leaves those who may not be academically suited to A-levels but do not wish to begin a T-level course, 20% of which is effectively a job, with no real support. On a visit to Carshalton college, I was told that there were 120 applicants for a diploma in childcare but only seven for a T-level in childcare. That could create a shortage in qualified staff coming through the system. The impact is felt disproportionately by those with special educational needs and disabilities, many of whom need extra support to explore their options before entering adult life, and for whom entry into the world of work may not be the right option so early in adulthood.

Nobody is denying the merit in reviewing periodically the way we train our young people for the future, but forcing students to choose exclusively between A-levels and T-levels could represent a narrowing of their options. I fear that this is a poorly managed top-down change for teachers to implement, and a gamble with the opportunities of a generation of young people who, let us not forget, have already had their education severely disrupted by the covid pandemic. With September 2025 rapidly approaching, I urge the Government to provide clarity to all those affected so both students and staff can plan for the change ahead. The Government must also think again, and give colleges and students flexibility to choose the appropriate qualifications for them and their communities.

14:57

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

Making sure that our young people have access to a wide range of educational opportunities that can lead them on to high-quality, well-paid and secure employment is vital to the health of our economy. In fact, it is critical to towns like Mansfield, which are to some extent facing a brain drain due to poor investment in employment opportunities and a weak private sector. They also have the difficulties with productivity and gross value added highlighted by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds); those are a real challenge in constituencies like mine.

In July, I was elected with a mandate for change locally. I stood on a platform to focus on five local missions that I thought would have a significant impact. One was to do everything I could to facilitate a stable and growing local economy and good-quality jobs for everyone in my constituency. Of course, a critical part of that is ensuring that there is a wide range of high-calibre academic and vocational education opportunities. I therefore welcome the debate.

Without a highly skilled workforce, areas like mine cannot attract the investment we need, and we know that investment brings prosperity for our communities. I am delighted that the Government made additional money available in the Budget for further education and have announced reforms to the apprenticeship system, with a new growth and skills levy. I welcome the progress and know that the Government have aspirations to do more over the coming months and years. I want Mansfield to be part of that conversation.

I have had a number of discussions with West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University about their funding streams and ways they feel they can work together more effectively to bring exactly those types of opportunities in the further and higher education sector to young people and adults in my constituency. As part of that, we have seen a £6.5 million education investment from Nottingham Trent University in my constituency, which is delivering specialist teaching and learning facilities to support local people to upskill and to access and retain employment in the local area. That includes really important opportunities in nursing, aligned with the local health authority, and in engineering, business, criminal justice and sports science. I congratulate both those parties on their work to enabled all of that to come to fruition.

I see latent potential to build on that collaboration between HE and FE in my constituency, which might be called “the Mansfield model”, across further education. By cutting red tape and streamlining the effectiveness of funding, like in the West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University joint campus in my constituency, it would be possible to unleash the power of further education provision. Given the success in my local area, I recently wrote to invite the Secretary of State for Education to Mansfield. I would be delighted to host a Minister from the Department, so that they can see directly how the local model could be used as a blueprint to improve skills and attract important private sector investment into towns like mine.

15:01

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate. While I agree with him that much more needs to be done to encourage apprenticeships and technical education, when I think back to what I was deciding to do after secondary school, I envy the choices available to young people today. I left school in the era when, under Tony Blair’s target, 50% of young people were expected to go to university. That is what I did, but it simply was not the right route for me. On-the-job training, with the promise of a full-time job at the end, is a fantastic way for many young people to kick-start their careers. I am pleased that the previous Government did so much to increase the opportunities available to young people, with 5.8 million apprenticeships created and the overwhelming majority of occupations now able to offer the apprenticeship route.

I am proud of the work taking place in my constituency of Broxbourne as part of that. Hertford Regional College offers a wide range of post-16 professional and technical programmes and apprenticeships, with nearly 3,000 young people going on to these courses and getting the skills they need for their careers. At the end of their course, they are going on to full-time employment or further education at above the national average—we are very good at getting people into full-time employment after they go to the college. I am pleased that, from September 2025, free schools in the Broxbourne constituency will offer T-level pathways, but there is still much more to do.

Too many students are embarking on low-quality university degree courses, with little prospect of finding good employment opportunities relating to their degree when they graduate. Industries from hospitality to the trades are rightly calling for greater flexibility in the delivery of apprenticeships and more freedom in how the apprenticeship levy can be spent, enabling more employers to offer better opportunities for young people. I want to see wider changes to the education system, so that it is much more geared towards preparing students for the world of work.

The Government claim to want economic growth, although their actions are not exactly matching their words at the moment. To achieve a faster-growing economy, we need to get more people into work and have a laser focus on developing the next generation of entrepreneurs. Young people need to know that there are routes other than university to success and full-time employment. I know that inspirational former apprentices are spreading the word to students across the country, but let us make it easier for them to make the case for apprenticeships. Let us make sure that every young person can choose the right path for them.

15:04

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. There are no ifs or buts about it; we just have to get further education right. I want to confine my remarks to three areas. First, we need more teachers. Secondly, we need more space. Thirdly, we need reform of both T-levels and apprenticeships.

We are running out of teachers in further education. Courses are closing, waiting lists are growing and colleges cannot pay enough to attract people from industry—the Association of Colleges calculates that there is an average pay gap of £9,000. Would the Minister consider presenting a medium-term plan to improve pay and conditions to get teachers into our class spaces? Furthermore, will she extend teacher workforce planning to further education, as the previous Education Committee advised?

Colleges do not have the space to train young people, so we need sustained capital funding in skills infrastructure. I feel blessed to have been able to visit the Poole campus of Bournemouth & Poole college, where so much more could be done to teach clean energy skills if there was investment in the right space. The college knows what space it wants to build the facilities in; it just does not have the sustained capital funding to make that happen. Will the Government appraise the needs of colleges and support them to access the spaces they need to provide apprenticeships and training in the skills that will fuel the growth of our economy, given that growth is our Government’s No. 1 mission?

I look forward to the Government confirming what the qualifications landscape will look like for school leavers, following the very welcome commitment to pause and review Conservative plans to defund unpopular qualifications such as BTECs, which rival T-levels. T-level courses, particularly in education and childcare, may include a substantial work experience placement. That might be a good idea in principle—I have been very lucky to visit Bournemouth & Poole college and learn about its world-leading health T-level—but just over one in 10 construction and engineering T-level students could not complete the required work placement. Student numbers are lower than planned; drop-outs are high; announced courses have been cut or thrown into doubt before they started; courses have not been funded for young adults aged 19 to 24, when our country needs them to be educated and in training; and the Conservative Government, which this Labour Government replaced, botched the roll-out. Will the Government increase support to employers taking T-level students?

There are high hopes that the reformed growth and skills levy and the lifelong learning entitlement will give workers access to high-quality training in higher-demand sectors. I invite the Minister to visit Bournemouth & Poole college—particularly the Bournemouth campus—where we have 2,000 apprentices in training, and an outstanding achievement rate of 8.4% over the national average. Huge economic differences are being made to local employers such as Sunseeker, which, together with the college, has launched a training initiative to address a national skills shortage affecting the marine industry. Its Skills Academy provides fully paid 12-week intensive boatbuilding skills courses across five specialisms. Following training, students join colleagues at the shipyard to achieve a nationally recognised qualification over 12 months. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether we need Skills England. The example of Bournemouth & Poole college working with Sunseeker shows how an organisation can find and fill gaps at a national level, and co-ordinate the funding and frameworks to grow our economy.

Octopus Energy is ensuring that we create more than 4,000 skilled jobs, including qualified heat pump installers, by 2030 to help our Government to meet their clean energy by 2030 mission. With the launch of the first employer-provided low-carbon heating apprentice scheme, Octopus is demonstrating how employer providers can create high-quality apprentice programmes. We need to ensure that apprenticeship funding rules requirements and the accountability framework reflect the needs of employer providers, rather than focusing mostly on the needs of colleges and training providers. Will the Minister consider creating employer provider-specific funding rules in order to streamline the reporting responsibility? As part of the reform of Ofsted, which I welcome, will she support joint working between technical experts and Ofsted inspectors so that the inspectors better understand the technical requirements during inspections? That is particularly key for Octopus Energy’s pioneering approach of developing skills driven by rapidly developing technology.

For years, the same thoughts have been swirling through my mind and the minds of many of my constituents, whose doors I have been knocking on over the past two years. It all comes down to this single question: why can Bournemouth and Britain not do better? Why can we not have the things we are entitled to? Bad things are not inevitable; they are the result of political choices, such as those that have been made over the past 14 years. We want to make different choices in Bournemouth and in Britain. We want young people to get on and have decent, well-paying jobs that mean presents under the tree, a meal out with loved ones, a new home and a new car in the driveway, and a sense of purpose and mission in the careers they choose. I very much welcome the Minister coming to this debate, and I look forward to her response. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for calling this important debate. I really call for a turning of the page, because for too long, too many people have been held back.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Before I call Jim Shannon, I will just say that there are five people wishing to speak and 20 minutes, so you can do your own calculations.

15:10

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am not a great mathematician, but I know that that means four minutes. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on leading this debate. I know he undertook a lot of work on apprenticeships and T-levels in his time as Minister, and he did exceptionally well. He is in a different role now but he still shares his advice and experience.

We must do all we can to expand education and employment opportunities for young people across the United Kingdom. In every debate I give a Northern Ireland perspective and speak on the things we do well back home. The Department for the Economy has released its yearly statistics on the uptake of apprenticeships, and it is good news that there has been a rise. As of October ’24, there were 1,756 people undertaking an apprenticeship in the electrotechnical field, 500 in health and social care, and 700 in plumbing, which the right hon. Member referred to in opening the debate. In addition, 10,500 were studying for a level 2 award and 3,700 for a level 3 award.

I have spoken before about the importance of apprenticeships and the role they play in teaching young people a unique skillset after leaving school. However, it is crucial that this is properly reflected in their pay. I know this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we have to ensure that apprenticeship pay encourages young people to stay on and finish their apprenticeships, as their colleagues and friends might be earning much more for stacking the shelves in Tesco or Asda. That is just one example. Apprenticeships are important, but young people need the time and money to get through them.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire has spoken before about ensuring parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes. There must be an understanding that the university route does not always appeal to young people, and an option to encourage them to get out into the world of work. I believe that the Minister is committed to that, so it would be interesting to get her thoughts.

From July to September 2024, there were some 513,000 unemployed people aged 18 to 24 in the UK, which is an unemployment rate of 13.7%. Unfortunately, that is a rise on the 11.6% in the previous year. Again, apprenticeships are critical to that. Let us get young people into apprenticeships and reduce that unemployment rate.

I hear what the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said about T-levels. There is no doubt success with this option. In 2022, the first T-level results were announced. Out of 1,029, there was a 92.2% pass rate, which is excellent. As far as I am aware, the T-level system is for England and does not apply to the devolved nations, so it would be great to know what the Minister can do to exchange thoughts with the devolved Administrations and see how we can extend that success.

Apprenticeships are a fantastic way to earn while learning and they allow for people to be fast-tracked into the working world. Apprenticeships are available in numerous sectors across the UK. We must encourage young people to see them as an option after they choose to leave school. Many associate the word “apprenticeship” with male-dominant fields such as mechanics, engineering or plumbing, but there are endless opportunities out there in a large range of sectors for people of all ages and with all interests, man and woman. A lady can do a job equally as well as a man. That should never be discredited in any way.

Job creation is an important issue for the entirety of the UK. To get individuals into the job market, encouragement and prospects must be there from school age. We must do more to encourage young people to think about their careers and futures. More importantly, we must make them aware of the options for what they want to do when they leave school. I look to the Minister to see if engagement is possible on expanding T-level qualifications to Northern Ireland and Scotland. Will the Minister commit to undertaking future discussions on this with the Department for Education back home? Equal opportunities for all young people should apply across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

15:14

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate.

Hartlepool is very lucky to be served by some outstanding providers, including Hartlepool College of Further Education, under the inspiring leadership of its principal Darren Hankey, Hartlepool Sixth Form College, where I was privileged to once chair the board of governors, and the Northern School of Art, with its international reputation. Diminished funding and demographic pressures have too often resulted in providers being in competition rather than collaboration. My first point to the Minister is that we must create an environment where providers in towns such as ours can collaborate effectively to deliver for young people.

On the 2017 reforms that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, part of the issue is that the levy, and its spend-it-or-lose-it mentality, meant that there was often a rush to spend it, rather than thought being given to proper workforce development. Indeed, £700 million ended up being top-sliced by the Treasury. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers said that this was money raised for skills but not being spent on skills. I welcome the new growth and skills levy and its greater flexibility, because the money it raises has to go into developing the skills of our young people, and too often in the past it did not.

We have to think about the parity of esteem. In principle, with T-levels I genuinely support the idea of creating that parity of esteem. The problem in places such as Hartlepool, which has already been referenced and acknowledged, is that we do not currently have the economy and the industrial placements to effectively support them. In the words of the principal of Hartlepool College of Further Education, the 2017 reforms and the rush to T-levels taken together have actually resulted in fewer opportunities for younger people in constituencies like mine. Unfortunately, Hartlepool has one of the highest levels of those not in education, employment or training in the country.

Another point has to be raised, but it is a difficult one. While I absolutely understand the principle of the functional skills element in those qualifications, there is a genuine concern in industry that the element is acting as a blocker to some of our young people’s accessing the skills, training and careers that they would like to have, because they feel unable to get past that barrier. I ask the Minister to give that some consideration.

In the round, we have to think about the agenda from an immigration perspective. I marvel at the fact that the FE college in my constituency, which has seen a 10% cut in funding, trains bricklayers, and yet we are importing bricklayers from abroad. I have a constituency with one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country. It is not hard to square that circle. Let us train our own and fund our skills properly, so that we do not have to rely on immigration from abroad.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire made the point extremely well that in this country we have been obsessed with supply-side reform for far too long, with the numerous different qualifications and the constant changing of what offer there is. We have to move to a demand-side approach. If we get industry and jobs into places such as Hartlepool to drive the industrial growth that we want to see, the skills will follow. That is the change that we have to see, and I would like to see it delivered in constituencies like mine.

15:18

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am immensely proud of my upbringing in a modest town in Northamptonshire. I grew up in a single-parent family with my mother, and she instilled in me the work ethic and morals to learn more, to find out more about the community, and to get a trade or skill—to give me the aspiration to succeed. That is what really interests me in this debate. I believe that apprenticeships, technical training and on-the-job training does instil the aspiration in individuals to better themselves, their community and their families. That is why I am so interested in this debate.

From personal experience, working from an early age brings countless benefits. It is a disgrace that Governments have allowed NEETs to increase to the current level. How can it be right that we have 900,000 people aged between 16 and 24 not in education, employment or training? We are watching the next generation not pursuing their next step in life, which is to aspire to something better for themselves and their families.

The default answer from Governments over the last 20 years has been to funnel young people through higher education. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the arbitrary targets, such as that set by the Blair Government to get 50% of school leavers to go to university. But there is another option: apprenticeships and on-the-job training. I am immensely proud of the success of the Conservative Government, who delivered 5.8 million apprenticeships across the country. Those apprenticeships offered young people opportunities for employment. Indeed, 70% of those young people were placed in occupations after training. I also agree wholeheartedly with our manifesto commitment to create 100,000 extra highly skilled apprentices every year over the next Parliament.

However, what has gone wrong? While there have been many achievements, it is disappointing that there has been stagnation in that area over the past few years. The challenges that have been outlined in concerns about the Budget will, sadly, not help the situation.

I have had representations from bodies such as EngineeringUK and Multiverse, explaining that the crux of the issue lies with the apprenticeship levy. The standards involved in setting up apprenticeships are far too cumbersome, and the funds from the levy are being redirected from employers to classroom training and assessments. It is no wonder that those bodies are moving away from that type of scheme towards academy-based training in-house, in their own companies and organisations.

What should we be doing instead? Much concern has recently been expressed, particularly by Opposition Members, about changes to national insurance contributions. I do not see those changes helping the situation. I believe we should be encouraging employers to take on more employees, including by the apprenticeship route, so that when they finish their apprenticeships they can stay within those organisations. Recently in my constituency, a number of small and medium-sized employers expressed to me concerns about the changes in employers’ national insurance contributions, saying that they would incur thousands of pounds in extra costs. They will have to consider that sort of thing when they look at their forward planning and recruitment.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Bedford]

No; I have limited time. I urge the Government to reconsider the proposals.

Finally, I think the tone needs to change from the top. Over many years, there has been a perception, at least, that apprenticeships and technical training have not been on a par with university education or other academic routes. I went through the academic route and my brother went through the apprenticeship, work-based training route. He is now earning far more money than I am. He left school without any qualifications, but he went to night school, trained himself, got an apprenticeship and went through the right route. He learned a skill and is now very successful.

In conclusion, I hope the Government take on board the arguments I have put forward.

15:22

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, in an incredibly important debate about the future of our young people. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on his tenacity on the issue. I remember his time as Secretary of State for Education in the Government of Mrs May, and he had a genuine passion for the issue. To see him still banging the drum many years later is testament to his character.

I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said over the many years that he has been talking about the importance of technical education—that is, about the need to understand that technical education is not the younger sister of A-levels and academic qualifications. It is not the less important member of the family of opportunities presented to young people.

I declare an interest. I am the governor of a sixth-form college in my constituency, which provides T-levels—one of the outstanding providers in the west midlands. I also have a daughter who will soon be thinking about GCSE options for next year, so where she goes and what she does is very much on my mind.

As the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) said, it is incumbent on us all to say to young people who are looking at their options that whatever they choose to do, the routes available will help them to be the best they can be—whether through A-levels, T-levels or the remaining applied general qualifications, once the pause and review process is finished. We sometimes find ourselves in a false dichotomy of talking about academic studies on one side and vocational and technical studies on the other. Actually, we present a breadth of opportunity to our young people, in a simplified and accessible way, which will be the determination of whether they are successful or not.

I have two colleges in my constituency—City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and Stoke-on-Trent college. Under the leadership of Mark Kent and now Lesley Morrey, City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college provides region-leading qualifications, including T-levels, BTECs and A-levels. Under the former leadership of Lisa Kapper, and now interim principal Antoinette Lythgoe, Stoke-on-Trent college demonstrates what can be done at all levels of potential learning.

A city like Stoke-on-Trent—not that dissimilar to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—is a city that has challenges. The opportunity provided to young people at FE can be the greatest social mobility driver there is—it can unlock their potential—but there is a challenge in making sure that they are on the right path.

T-levels have been excellent for my city—again, I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on the programme that he brought in when he was Education Secretary. That is about not only the uplift in funding for each young person, which better reflects the necessity of the work from the excellent staff, but the capital funding available for those institutions in the first wave to take T-levels up, which has allowed us to expand our college to create new and incredible facilities that mean that the learning experience for those young people is brilliant.

I believe that the Government are right to continue looking at this breadth, but I would say to the Minister—I have written to her noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Smith of Malvern, about this—that, while the pause and review is doing a job of work in looking at what BTECs are available, the colleges in my constituency are now trying to plan what they can offer in September 2025, much as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). They do not currently know what they can offer. They have been asked to submit their projected T-level enrolment numbers now, but they do not know whether they will be offering an equivalent BTEC for the same course. Therefore, they are having to either overinflate their numbers and worry about in-year clawback, or worry about lack of lagged funding for the AGQ. I would urge the Minister to take that back to the Department.

In the remaining time that I have left, I will say that, while this debate has been excellent for talking about young people, there is a conversation that we have to have as a nation about adult education and ensuring that people in places such as Hartlepool and Stoke-on-Trent having to change careers because of changes in the way that industries work have the same opportunities as others to retrain, get new skills, get those well-paid, secure and hopefully unionised jobs that come with that, and make a meaningful contribution to where they live and to our country.

15:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Christopher. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), whose speech was really interesting. I also praise him for his tenacity, expertise and seriousness on this subject.

I will restrict my remarks to the issues of T-levels and apprenticeships in tourism and agriculture, which are two huge employers in my constituency and around the rest of Cumbria—some 60,000 people in Cumbria work in tourism and there are 1,500 farms in my constituency alone. Those are hugely connected, without a doubt. For example, something like 20 million people visit the lakes every year, and we know that many of them come because of the beauty of the landscape, which is maintained by our farmers.

In terms of our workforce, 80% of the entire working-age population living in the Lake district already work in hospitality and tourism. Therefore, if we do not do something to bring people in, to create more affordable homes, to build our workforce, or, specifically, to train and retrain our young people so that we do not carry on losing over a third of them every single generation, we are in serious trouble.

When it comes to T levels, there is no doubt whatever that employers in the tourism economy of Cumbria strongly believe, as I do, that T-levels are an important potential source for boosting the pipeline of skilled workers, and that offering level 3 qualifications will enhance young people’s employability and enable progression to higher education, linking, for example, with the University of Cumbria’s excellent graduate apprenticeship programme.

Those employers recognise, and strongly believe, that the previous Government delayed and took too long to introduce the T-level in catering, and are pressuring this Government on that. I met Baroness Smith of Malvern just last week to raise that point directly with her, and I ask the Minister to look at this issue again. Please will she consult employers within Cumbria to make sure that the T-level in catering, and other equivalent level 3 and level 4 qualifications, is made available so that we can qualify our children for this important area of work? Some 85% of employers who host T-level students—when that is available—report improved access to skilled talent, so I ask the Minister to take this seriously.

I will quickly switch over to apprenticeships in the agricultural sector. The total number of apprenticeship starts in agriculture in Cumbria for the year before last—the last year that we have data for—was 140. Only 70 were completed and no higher-level apprenticeships, at level 4 and above, were accomplished. We have 1,500 farms; that is far too few people coming forward as potential entrants. We have had all the discussions this week about succession, which is so very important, but the decline in new farm entrants threatens the sector’s long-term viability.

The future of the farming sector is also exacerbated by the loss of educational infrastructure. The previous Government failed to intervene to save Cumbria’s agricultural college, Newton Rigg, and although Kendal college and other FE and HE institutions around the county are doing their best to fill the gap, we still seriously feel that loss.

The UK provides 55% of its own food. Apprenticeships and succession in farming are crucial to our food security. The agricultural policies of this Government and the previous one have disincentivised farming production, which is fateful and foolish. This week we have seen the complaints, quite rightly, about the inheritance tax changes, which will lead to more farmland moving into ownership of equity and large corporations, and not being used for food production. Our failure to grow the workforce is also enormously significant.

I ask the Minister to look closely at higher-level apprenticeships in agriculture, to address the gap in advanced agricultural training at level 4 and above, and to develop leadership skills among future farmers to sustain the sector and the rural economy as a whole. Will she also introduce agricultural degree apprenticeships, in partnership with the University of Cumbria and local colleges, to create a pipeline for agricultural leadership? I will leave it there at four minutes.

15:30

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for introducing it. I am sure we all agree that we owe it to our young people to ensure that they have access to all education and training options, and that those options are of the very highest standard. That is not always the case in the present system, which is having an impact not just on young people and their futures, but, as has been said, on the country’s economic development and prospects.

Apprenticeships, vocational education and skills are all vital if the Government are serious about their growth mission and breaking down barriers to opportunity. I think we all share those ambitions, but the system needs reform across the board, starting right at the beginning by ensuring that all young people are fully aware and informed of all their options—many thousands, as it may be—post 16 and post 18. We need to see an improvement in the quality of careers education, information, advice and guidance in schools to support them making those decisions.

[Clive Jones]

Many residents in my constituency of Wokingham are concerned about the uncertainty around T-level courses and other existing level 3 qualifications. Students in Wokingham have been looking at courses and colleges to apply to, and some colleges are currently unable to confirm existing level 3 courses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the current lack of clarity about the implementation of T-level courses is causing unnecessary stress to parents, students and teachers?

[Ian Sollom]

I absolutely agree, and I will come back to that point later.

The services that inform and offer guidance need to be informed themselves about the local and national job market, which industries and sectors are growing, and which skills are in demand in order to support students into top-quality jobs. We know that there are skills shortages, and giving higher-quality, useful information will be essential to plugging that skills gap.

On apprenticeships, the Lib Dems recognise that we not only need more apprenticeships, but that they need to be more attractive to young people. Guaranteeing that an apprenticeship pays at least the national minimum wage would be a good place to start. The Chancellor announced a welcome increase in the apprenticeship wage in the Budget last month, but even after those changes, that amount is still only just over 60% of the national living wage. That is quite a disincentive for young people to take up an apprenticeship.

We have also heard today that the apprenticeship levy is not working as well as it should, and that employers often cannot get the funding they need to train staff. In 2023-24, the levy raised £3.9 billion for the Treasury, but the apprenticeship budget, which is separate, awarded only £2.7 billion. Although £500 million goes to the devolved nations under the Barnett formula, as it should, that still leaves a shortfall of £700 million, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). That money has been paid in through the levy, and therefore to the Treasury, but does not reach employers; as was said, it is raised for skills but not spent on skills. That is at a time when the Government say they are keen to encourage businesses to invest in skills. We need that to be directed to skills.

Furthermore, the system was designed so that levy payers do not spend all their levy funds and so that small businesses can access the levy to fund apprenticeships. That said, 98% of the apprenticeship budget was spent each year for the past three years, and if large employers spend all their levy funds, there would be no apprenticeship funding remaining for small businesses. We know that small businesses are crucial to the apprentice system. Non-levy-paying employers recruit more apprentices each year than levy-paying businesses: last year, that was 42,000 apprentices under 19 compared with 35,000 by larger recruiters—a difference of 7,000. We are waiting for more details on the Government’s new growth and skills levy, but if they are serious about pivoting the apprenticeship system towards young people, they need to sort out apprenticeship funding.

On T-levels, the Liberal Democrats welcome the ambition to achieve equal value between academic and vocational routes—that has been a common theme across many parties for a considerable time—but we do not agree with the previous Government’s decision simply to scrap dozens of BTEC courses. Those qualifications are a middle pathway that allows many students, including those who find the T-level entry requirements simply too high, to benefit from a combination of academic and applied qualifications. Research indicates that BTECs significantly improve university entry rates for both white working-class and black students.

Many parts of industry are concerned about T-levels. For example, the hospitality sector prides itself on having no barriers to entry to those with no industry experience, and opens its doors to people with low educational attainment. That encourages a more diverse, inclusive and accessible workforce. However, the hospitality T-level requires 16 to 18-year-olds to have 5 GCSEs of grade 5 and above. That excludes a whole host of young people with many non-academic skills and talents, who could make successful careers in hospitality. It is important that we keep BTEC routes for those people.

As other Members have mentioned, there have been problems with the roll-out of T-levels, and concerns have been expressed by education providers and employers about their ability to deliver industry placements. A report by the Education Policy Institute this year highlighted issues with student retention, with nearly a third of first-year health and science T-level students dropping out of their programme. Until the new T-levels are well established, understood by students and employers, and proven to be successful, rolling back BTECs, which are successful, would be a huge mistake. The Government’s decision earlier in the year to review the defunding of BTECs was welcome. Now, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, the delay in the outcome of that review is affecting planning for the next academic year and the opportunities available to young people. So, I urge the Government to get on and publish the outcome of that review.

Finally, with a lot of issues around skills at the moment, it seems that the answer is “Skills England”. I will echo the words of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire in his opening remarks that the King’s Speech referred to a Skills England Bill, whereas the Bill that is in the other place does not refer to Skills England at all. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss Skills England when we consider the actual legislation.

15:40

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this super-important debate. All Westminster Hall debates are equal, but some are more equal than others, and when I saw the title of this debate and that it was being led by my right hon. Friend, I knew that it would be a good one.

I have not been disappointed at all, nor have I been disappointed by the excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm); by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and by the hon. Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash); by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). There was also a rare appearance in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which I am sure we all savour. [Hon. Members: “More!”] More indeed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire did a superb job in giving us the fruit of his many years of experience and his multiple periods of service in public life, including two stints in the Department for Education, regarding this issue. He talked about the alphabet soup of organisations and qualifying bodies, the traineeships, the apprenticeships, the modern apprenticeships, the City & Guilds, the GNVQs, the NVQs, the Skills for Life, the diplomas, the BTECs and now the T-levels. The question now is this: will T-levels just be another element added to this alphabet soup, or will we actually realise the vision of what we have called the Sainsbury routes and rationalise the system? My right hon. Friend asked big questions about where the Government are going with traineeships, the apprenticeship levy and Skills England, and it will not surprise him that I will pick up on those questions.

I have several questions for the Minister. First, do the Government have a forecast for the number of apprenticeships that will start over the course of this Parliament? Such a forecast has certainly existed in the past; I saw one when I was in government. Do the Government have such a forecast? If so, will they publish it? What is the forecast number of apprenticeships that will start over the course of this Parliament? I ask that question because unless we know that baseline, we cannot ask sensible questions such as “What will be the impact of the growth and skills levy on the number of apprenticeships?” Without the baseline we cannot have a debate about the trade-off between one desirable thing, which is more flexibility for businesses, and another desirable thing, which is more apprenticeships.

Is it still the Government’s policy to allow 50% of levy funds, rather than a specific number, to be spent on non-apprenticeships, or will it be perhaps another percentage now? What is the impact of the national insurance increase, first, on the number of apprenticeships —that is why we want to know the baseline number of apprenticeships—and, secondly, on the FE sector more generally? The national insurance increase is focused laser-like on lower-income workers, which particularly hits apprentices and people in the FE sector, so there is every reason to think that it will be particularly impactful for those two groups. Will the FE sector be fully compensated for the national insurance increase, or not?

I echo some of the excellent questions that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East asked about college funding. As the Minister knows, colleges are now classified as part of the public sector, but unlike other parts of the public sector they are not exempt from paying VAT. Is it the Government’s intention to change that situation or not?

The other day, Baroness Smith of Malvern said that college staff were “rightly” disappointed that they were not given the same pay increase as schoolteachers. She implied that the Government would seek to close that historic gap; it has existed for many decades. I am not asking for miracles from the Government; this is a very long-standing challenge that everyone says is a problem. It has become slightly worse in the first pay round under this Government; the gap has grown a bit more. Is it the Government’s long-term aspiration to close that gap between sixth-form college teachers and teachers in schools? I am interested in whether that is the direction of travel.

Will the Minister also answer some structural questions? The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill is obviously going through the Lords at the moment. We have already raised the question about Skills England and—as the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire said—the powers are being taken not into a new independent body but directly into the Department. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, it would be pretty extraordinary if the Ministers set their own standards for A-levels, so why do we think it would be okay in technical education? What is the Government’s game plan after the IfATE Bill? What is the plan to restore independent standards setting, rather than having it in what is only an agency of the Department?

I also want to ask a really specific question. This is a genuine question because I do not understand the decision. Why did the Department refuse to share the terms of reference for the short review of 16 to 19 qualifications with the wider world? I know that FE Week certainly put in a freedom of information request to get it, which is a pretty extraordinary thing to have to do. Normally, when there is a review, the terms of reference are published. That review is not a secret. We know what the Government are looking at—a known question about BTECs and what will happen. Why did the Government not publish it and will they now?

On one last structural question, my sympathies are entirely with the Minister and the Government as there is a big question here, and this is not a straightforward challenge. We have heard the case for BTECs from various Members—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a passionate case in favour of them. I should declare an interest as I worked on T-levels before they were called T-levels, when they were still called the Sainsbury routes. Lord Sainsbury, Gordon Brown, Nick Boles and others did a huge amount of work to bring them to that point in trying to rationalise this alphabet soup. T-levels are our best hope: they are a more demanding qualification, they have a higher level of funding and they use a lot more time in industry. They are a better qualification that is bringing parity of esteem and higher quality to the FE sector, and they are our big chance to rationalise this issue that everyone agrees is a problem. How far will the Government go towards replacing some of the existing qualifications, and what is their overall strategy and vision for how this will pan out?

15:47

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

It is a privilege to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for sharing his wide and comprehensive knowledge of past and present qualifications and awards. I am also grateful for the challenge that he and many other Members have brought to this debate. This Government are ambitious for young people, and we are excited and optimistic about what can be achieved.

As Members have rightly stated and spoken about, apprenticeships, BTECs and T-levels can offer incredible opportunities for young people. We have heard from many Members about the superb colleges and students in their constituencies, such as the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Dudley (Sonia Kumar). My hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) both mentioned an invite to their respective colleges, and of course I will pass those on to my noble Friend the Minister for Skills.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Minister also take back an invitation to Stoke-on-Trent to our noble Friend?

[Janet Daby]

Very smart and clever indeed—I will of course pass on that invitation to Stoke-on-Trent as well. We have also heard from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford)—it was great to hear about his brother’s achievements, so I thank him for that. There were contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), and the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien).

Members have spoken about many issues in this debate, such as greater diversity in the workforce, including both women in STEM and the representation of people from diverse backgrounds. Concerns have also been raised about BTECs, apprenticeships and T-levels—for example, the apprenticeship levy, the teaching of further education, the reform of qualifications, and colleges needing certainty in the future about specific courses. I hope to address as many of those and other remarks as time allows, including the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire.

It is this Government’s mission to drive and increase opportunity for young people across the country. Working with Skills England, it is also this Government’s mission to support employers to train people up and identify and develop the skills they need to grow, helping to kick-start economic growth. Early investment in young people pays off for employers. We want young people to be enthusiastic, energised and passionate about learning and developing in their work. That will benefit employers, industry and our wider economy, which will be galvanised by a new generation who are willing to work hard and progress in their careers.

It has been concerning in recent years that young people have seen their apprenticeship opportunities disappear. We ask ourselves, “Why is that?” It may be helpful to remind the shadow Minister that following apprenticeship reforms made by the previous Government, including the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017, apprenticeship starts by young people under 25 fell by almost 40% according to the Department for Education’s published data. It is also concerning that so many workers and employers have told us that they find it difficult to access the skills they need. UK employers report that more than a third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skill shortages. That is what we have inherited.

According to a stark statement from the OECD, 26% of the UK workforce are underqualified for their job, compared with an OECD average of 18%. There are widespread skills shortages in areas such as construction, manufacturing and health and social care. We desperately need workers in those areas. That is why meeting the skills needs of the next decade is central to delivering our Government’s five missions, which, I remind everybody, are economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy.

This Government will create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system with a culture of businesses valuing and investing in training that supports people of all ages and backgrounds, breaking down the barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth. We are bringing forward legislation to enable Skills England to work with key stakeholders. Skills England will make sure that we know where our skills gaps are to ensure that a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications is aligned with those skills gaps and the needs of employers.

I have heard concerns that Skills England will not have the independence or authority it needs. I would like to dispel those concerns today: Skills England will have an independent board that will provide leadership and direction, as well as scrutiny to ensure that it operates effectively and within the agreed framework,

Growth and skills are essential. We have listened to employers, who have told us that the current apprenticeship system does not work. We must do more to support them in accessing the training they need to fill their skills gaps and spread opportunity. Our growth and skills offer will provide employers and learners with greater flexibility and choice and create routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries aligned with our industrial strategy.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I am going to make progress, and then I will take some interventions if I can.

We are introducing new shorter-duration apprenticeships and foundation apprenticeships as a first key step towards greater flexibility that will benefit employers and, indeed, students. We recognise that some roles need less than 12 months’ training and employers are currently locked out of offering apprenticeships. We want to support sectors that make use of fixed-term contracts or have seasonal demands or specific recruitment timetables. We will engage with employers via Skills England and introduce that flexibility where the justification is clear. Our new work-based foundation apprenticeship will focus on ensuring that training is directed towards real vacancies. It will offer young people broad training with clear and seamless progression into other apprenticeships. Unlike the last Government, we will work closely with employers and providers. This Government will make sure we get it right.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister talked about introducing flexibility where appropriate—it sounded like perhaps only in some sectors. Is it still the intention for all employers to be able to use 50% of their apprenticeship levy for things that are not apprenticeships?

[Janet Daby]

The area the shadow Minister mentioned is currently being reviewed. As that information comes out, I am sure we will make him aware of it.

To open up the growth and skills offer and to deliver opportunity where it is most needed, we will ask more employers to step forward and fund level 7 apprenticeships themselves, outside the apprenticeship budget. Of the 2.5 million workers in critical demand occupations, the vast majority—more than 80%—require qualifications lower than degree level, so it feels right that we focus our support on those at the start of their working lives, rather than those already towards the top of the ladder.

The Government believe that all young people should have access to high-quality training that meets their needs and provides them with opportunities to thrive. That is why we are committed to making a success of T-levels and extending the opportunity they provide to as many young people as possible. We have introduced three new T-levels this year, opening up more opportunity for young people in the areas of craft and design, media, broadcast and production, and animal care. It was great to see an overall pass rate this year of nearly 90% and to learn that 83% of T-level students who applied to higher education secured a place.

At the end of the last academic year, more than 30,000 young people had taken a T-level, and we want to ensure that many more have the opportunity to study them, but we know that some changes are needed if we want to make that a reality. That is why we are looking at the delivery of current T-levels to ensure that more young people are able to enrol and succeed in them. Our review of post-16 qualifications reforms will ensure that there is a range of high-quality qualifications at level 3, alongside T-levels and A-levels, to support the skills needs of employers and the needs of learners.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Government agree to publish the terms of reference of that review?

[Janet Daby]

I have heard the shadow Minister mention that already, and I believe he has already received a response. [Interruption.] No, the shadow Minister has already received a response.

[Neil O’Brien]

Is that a yes? Will the Minister—

[Janet Daby]

I am sorry—I have already answered.

Last month’s Budget saw a good settlement for further education and skills, including £300 million revenue funding for further education and £300 million capital investment to support colleges to maintain, improve and secure the suitability of their estates.

Each one of us here knows the importance of high-quality skills training for young people, and I am grateful for the considered contributions of everyone who has spoken. When we look at the statistics, it is clear that for too long, young people have been locked out of the opportunities that can benefit them most. The actions I have outlined today will give us a real sense of how to make a difference for learners and employers. That is at the heart of the Government’s mission to spread opportunity and drive economic growth across all parts of our country.

15:59

[Damian Hinds]

It has been a good debate. I thank everyone who took part for bringing their own perspectives. There is just one thing I want to say. We cannot legislate for parity of esteem; we can only earn it. High-quality apprenticeships and T-levels can do that, because young people know that the standards have been set by employers, and they are right for the levels necessary for success in those sectors. Crucially, to have confidence in the integrity of qualifications, they need to be set independently and, in the case of these qualifications, they need to be set with business. The Minister has an opportunity with a Bill going through Parliament at the moment. When the IfATE transfer of powers Bill comes to Committee stage in the Commons, please will the Government table an amendment to write that independence and the involvement of business into law?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.

Government and Democracy Education

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

16:00

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered government and democracy education in schools.

It is appropriate that I have secured this debate during Parliament Week. I want to put on record my praise for the education and engagement team for their brilliant work. Unsurprisingly, I am going to argue that there should be more education about government and democracy in our schools. I am not the first to make that case and I will not be the last, but of course it would be great if I were.

Making this case fits into the category of not needing to be a rocket scientist—namely, it is obvious that for a democracy to function well its citizens must understand how their government and democratic system works. As with many things, though, just being obvious is not enough to ensure that it happens.

Why is this important? The House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement put it well in a report in 2018:

“By underpinning democratic engagement and reinforcing the effective working of civil society, active citizenship contributes to a healthy and functioning society.”

In my view, we should teach about government and democracy for the same reason that we teach other subjects: to equip our young people with the skills, knowledge and attributes that will enable them to be the architects of their future, and not merely inhabitants of a future designed by others.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate on a subject that I agree with wholeheartedly. Ahead of COP29, I held a student conference of the parties with three high schools in my constituency, where the students passionately debated climate issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that initiatives like that underscore how integrating government and democracy education into the school curriculum can empower young people to become informed, active citizens who are engaged with the challenges we are facing?

[John Slinger]

I agree. I will come to that when I complete my remarks. We are talking about empowering our young people to set the agenda in their schools and, we hope, in their lives.

Learning standard subjects, such as history and science, enables young people to develop core skills, imbibe relevant knowledge and hone the powers of critical analysis that will empower them to thrive in future, whether in study or work.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I agree that it is important for young people to have an understanding of democracy at an early stage, especially in schools. My youngest staff member studied government and politics. There were 28 students in their class in the first year, but that went down to 11 in the second year. They then did a further course comprising 14 students, which included only two girls. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a disconnect between young people and the political system that needs to be addressed, possibly as a mandatory module through learning for life and work?

[John Slinger]

I agree that we need to embed this learning in our system in a far more concrete fashion.

To truly empower young people we must go further than merely teach standard subjects. We must ensure that they both understand and value our government and democratic system. For example, young people draw on their knowledge of standard subjects at work, but an enhanced understanding of government and democracy would make them aware of how the economy, and hence their job, is affected by the decisions that politicians take in this House.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He will know that one of the most successful areas of the economy and politics in this country is co-operatives and mutuals, but it may also be the case that within the wider subject, it is the area about which knowledge is lowest. The Co-operative party and the co-operative movement are keen to see co-operatives as part of young people’s political and economic education. Does he agree that that could help young people to meet their potential to learn about different models of ownership and of democracy that can help our communities thrive?

[John Slinger]

I should state that I am a proud member of the Co-operative party. Indeed, should more learning about our democratic system take place, I would hope that it would include more information about the co-operative movement and the co-operative models that I believe will help us to build a better Britain.

To add practical experience of our democratic system would be a catalyst for increasing the agency of our young people. In its submission to the Government’s ongoing curriculum review, the Association for Citizenship Teaching sets that out clearly:

“Citizenship education fosters critical competencies, such as information evaluation, deliberation, advocacy, and oracy, which are vital for civic engagement.”

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

I declare a deep interest: I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on political and media literacy, and I believe these issues are very important. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the education of young people in and of itself, but about how people go on to engage in our democracy later in life, and that that is about not just voting but engaging with confidence and clarity with elected representatives? For example, as a new Member of Parliament, I have reflected on the fact that a number of residents say to me, “I’m not sure who to go to—is it you, a councillor or somebody else?” Would enhancing political and democratic education not serve to enhance our entire political system, ensuring that people get the support they need, from the person they need it from, when they need it—and that they do so with confidence?

[John Slinger]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is a point I had to excise from my speech because I did not think I had the time, but it is very important. As new Members, constituents often bring issues to our attention that would be better dealt with by a councillor or another arm of the state, so it is an important part of the process that we clarify, educate and inform better than we are doing at the moment.

I will complete the quote from the Association for Citizenship Teaching, which goes on to say:

“Re-prioritising this subject in the upcoming review is vital, as it contributes directly to the health of national democracy and the wellbeing of citizens.”

We have a long way to go. Electoral Commission data shows a lack of democratic engagement and understanding among younger audiences, and at a time when the Labour party has pledged to introduce voting at the age of 16, only 16% of 16 and 17-year-olds are on the electoral register and 19% of 16 to 24-year-olds are not confident that they know how to register to vote. Some statistics from the commission are staggeringly worrying: 39% of 16 to 24-year-olds say that they are not interested in politics, and 33% say they do not know very much or anything about politics in the UK.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Those who measure trust in politics tell us, as we regrettably know, that that trust is at its lowest point in over 40 years. Part of rebuilding that trust is very much about engaging with the curriculum and ensuring that people know who we are, what we do, what the media who report on us so much do and how those institutions work. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the current curriculum and assessment review is a fantastic opportunity to ensure that steps to improve political literacy are built into our future education system?

[John Slinger]

I will come to that point, because I think that the review is a golden opportunity.

The commission confirmed what I and others here know: too many young people do not understand how to participate in our democratic processes, and their lack of motivation is due to a lack of knowledge about parties and candidates. If we want young people to engage more in elections, for their sake and ours, we must work harder to ensure they understand and value our democracy.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that this is UK Parliament Week. Last week, I was delighted to visit Great Baddow high school in my constituency to speak to students who were preparing for a debate that they would be taking part in as part of UK Parliament Week. They asked me lots of wonderful questions on diverse subjects. I have often been into local schools to talk about government, but it often becomes apparent that students do not know anything at all about local government, and yet local government affects their lives on a day-to-day basis—sometimes much more than this place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local government, alongside central Government, should form part of this education?

[John Slinger]

I wholeheartedly agree. It is critical that we educate our young people about the different tiers of government and the responsibilities of elected representatives within them.

I will touch briefly on the history of citizenship in our education system. Since 2002, citizenship has been a statutory foundation national curriculum subject at key stages 3 and 4. Luke Brown, a teacher at Lawrence Sheriff school in Rugby, told me:

“A big concern is the increasingly limited time given to Citizenship and, therefore, politics.”

Citizenship remains a non-statutory programme of study at key stages 1 and 2—or primary, to use the old parlance—where, as teachers tell me, a similar situation ensues, and other priorities all too often drown out citizenship. According to the 2018 Lords report, citizenship peaked between 2009 and 2011, and declined particularly under the last Government’s curriculum review in 2013. The report found that

“citizenship was never fully embedded into the education system”.

The same happened with other subjects that were, in my view, wrongly regarded by the previous Government as subsidiary. The English baccalaureate, introduced in 2010, did not include citizenship. Furthermore, there has been a substantial decline in the number of students studying the citizenship GCSE and the number of specialist teachers.

With our new Government’s curriculum review, we have a golden opportunity to put that right. Like all MPs, I make a big effort to visit as many primary and secondary schools as I can. The biggest privilege and—dare I say it?—challenge of being an MP is not speaking in Chambers like this one but answering questions from young people in schools. When I visit schools, I find that young people are generally interested in politics. For example, the children of Paddox primary school in my constituency were hugely excited about the competition that staff are running about politics, with the prize being a tour of Parliament. A constituent of mine, Ian Dewes, the CEO of the Odyssey Collaborative Trust, said that Parliament’s education team “were fantastic” and pointed out that such visits helped to

“break down class and social barriers.”

When children of Long Lawford primary school welcomed me and the early years Minister for a visit, it was clear that their teachers had educated them well about the political system. Those are exemplars of best practice, but they should be standard across the whole country.

I would be grateful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about how her Department will ensure a more coherent, better resourced system that gives these subjects the higher priority that they deserve. I hope, first, that she will consider confirming citizenship as a statutory subject in the national curriculum at all stages, not just key stages 3 and 4; as with literacy, the younger we start, the deeper the understanding. Secondly, will she provide guidance to all schools about what they are expected to teach and resources to do so, including lesson packs and training for non-specialist teachers? Thirdly, will she ensure coherence and common standards across the entire maintained sector? Fourthly, will she reform progress 8 to ensure that any new system of measuring schools gives the same value to citizenship as to other national curriculum foundation GCSE subjects? Finally, will she take action to incentivise the training of specialist citizenship teachers?

Another part of learning about government and democracy should, of course, be participating in it within school and the wider world, as other hon. Members have said.

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

As part of UK Parliament Week, I visited Ormiston Maritime academy, John Whitgift academy and Phoenix Park academy, and what struck me is that young people are very engaged in their local community and raise really important issues that reflect the society they are experiencing. They have an awful lot to tell us about the kind of country they want to grow up in. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we can be more responsive in this place, it will give them a much greater connection to the changes they can make and the influence they can have on their local representatives?

[John Slinger]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and thank her for that point. It is vital that we do everything we can in this place, and indeed in our constituencies, to listen to young people and empower them. We must not just listen to them but act on their concerns. Anything we can do, we must.

Primary and secondary schools that I have visited often run democratically elected school councils, which demonstrate to young people democracy in action and its role in enabling them to shape their environment. We must give our young people as many opportunities as possible to engage in that way. I will soon be holding a “pitch your policy” event in my constituency to encourage such engagement.

The importance of this topic cannot be overstated. We are fortunate to live in a secure but not invulnerable democracy. I met MPs from Moldova this week and asked about this topic, given the threats that their democratic system faces. They told me that it does feature in their curriculum and that they have school councils that are all about

“encouraging people to acknowledge their own power”.

These changes are about more than just a matter of curriculum rejuvenation, important though that is. If made, they can play a significant part in a democratic rejuvenation in our country. More broadly, to reinforce our system of democracy and government, we must have a campaign of education that goes far beyond our schools, with billboards, social media and mailshots.

I will end with some quotes from the most important people of all: young people. Austin Morris in year 11 said:

“Democracy isn’t just something we learn from a textbook; it’s a lesson we live every day at Rugby Free Secondary, where diverse voices, collaboration and fair decisions shape our school, and therefore shape the next generations of democratic society.”

A child from Paddox primary school said:

“Learning about democracy at school helps you to express your opinions and teaches you about wider topics related to what is going on in the world.”

Another said:

“It is also important to be able to have your voice heard in things that are important both at school and in the ‘real’ world.”

Another said:

“It is important for girls to vote in elections because they had to fight hard to get their vote in the first place.”

Finally—I like this one in particular—another said:

“If you don’t vote, you shouldn’t complain about things that happen because you didn’t use your democratic vote.”

I am sure that hon. Members will concur with that. Let us be inspired by those words and many others like them from schools up and down the country. Let us make sure that citizenship learning is a force that nourishes and defends our democratic system, and empowers our young people with the confidence to engage in it for the benefit of all.

16:18

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) on securing this timely debate on an incredibly important subject. He inspired us with his speech and the words of young people in particular. I know that education is a subject close to his heart, as he demonstrated clearly in his speech today. Having previously been a school governor and a trustee for Warwickshire Young Carers, I know that he shares our vision for ensuring that young people receive the right support to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.

I say that this debate is timely. It has been mentioned that we are celebrating UK Parliament Week this week, which is an incredible opportunity to get young people across the country to engage with Parliament and learn more about our democracy, our political system and how our country works. This Friday, I will be going to school assemblies across my constituency to speak to children about what I do as their MP and how they can engage in and shape their world. I am sure that many hon. Members will be doing the same. I had so many invites this year that it has been a real squeeze to fit them in. There are 35 schools from Newcastle upon Tyne North engaging in UK Parliament Week this year—I am not going to all of them—and it is fantastic that so many are getting involved.

From my own experience, some of the most powerful and persuasive engagement that I have had in my time in Parliament has come directly from children and young people in my constituency. I have lobbied previous Governments on their behalf on many different issues—the significance of now being on the receiving end of those requests is not lost on me. They have brilliant ideas that they express powerfully, so it is important that their voice is heard and their engagement supported.

[Melanie Onn]

The Minister is exactly right. In my visits so far this week, young people have raised serious and current issues, including knife crime, vaping and their impact on health. The idea that young people are divorced from the realities of society is not bearing out, but their connection with the political system is very separate. I am interested to hear her views on improving citizenship in schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The last Labour Government recognised the importance of citizenship and participation in our education system, which is why they introduced citizenship education to the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 for maintained schools. They set up a framework to prepare pupils to play an active part in society and a platform to discuss issues that are important to them, from conflict to poverty, climate change, crime and security in our society.

Although it is optional for primary schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby raised that as a concern—they are supported by non-statutory programmes at key stages 1 and 2, and the teaching of democracy forms a central part of the citizenship curriculum. That requires that pupils are taught about parliamentary democracy, the key elements of the constitution of the United Kingdom, the power of Government, how citizens and Parliament can hold Government to account, and the different roles of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and of course the free press. Pupils learn the skills of active citizenship through practical opportunities to address issues of concern to them and their wider community.

The Petersfield school in Hampshire and the Association for Citizenship Teaching delivered a joint parallel election project using real-life examples from the 2024 general election and involving nearly 30,000 students across 413 schools. It gave students hands-on experience of a democratic process—for example, asking them to work in teams to simulate election parties. It mirrored a real election, from analysing party manifestos to organising voter registration, holding hustings, holding elections and comparing the school results in the local constituency. Aside from that particular project, many schools will have engaged in the ’24 election in a similar way, which is fantastic.

It is right that schools have a statutory duty as part of a broad and balanced curriculum to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. The 2014 guidance supports schools in delivering that requirement. It acknowledges that people might hold different views about what is right and what is wrong, but a school’s ethos and teaching should support the rule of English civil and criminal law, and that means embedding those fundamental values of democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of people of different faiths and beliefs.

Schools embed those values most successfully when they do it right across the breadth of their provision. Whether they are taught specifically as part of a curriculum, reflected in behaviour policies, reinforced in assemblies or deepened through engagement opportunities—for example, experiencing the democratic process—we know that real experience can help young people to develop, engage in and assume those values in their own lives.

High and rising school standards are at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. We know that is how we can deliver the best life chances for every child, but we also know that too many young people go through their whole school lives without developing the communication and critical thinking skills that are so important for them to develop that democratic engagement.

That is why we are delivering our manifesto commitment with the independent curriculum and assessment review, as already mentioned. It is a good opportunity to look at how we deliver a curriculum that ensures young people feel represented, and helps them to develop the knowledge and skills required to thrive as citizens throughout their life. The review will look at the key challenges to attainment for young people and the barriers holding them back from opportunities and life chances. In particular, it will look at breaking down barriers for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or those with special educational needs and disabilities.

The review has put out a call for evidence, which closes this Friday, so this is a good opportunity to encourage anyone with an interest in the issue to feed back as part of the review, because we are interested in views and we want to hear from as many people as possible. Anyone can also join live events on gov.uk and have their say in the curriculum and assessment process. Live events are being held around the country, so I encourage people to engage. The review will not decide what to recommend formally until after the call for evidence closes. An interim report will be produced in early 2025 and the final recommendations will be published in autumn 2025.

Generally speaking, schools have the flexibility to organise the content and delivery of their citizenship curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils. That might include a whole range of issues, ideas and materials, including challenging or controversial subjects, but they need to ensure political balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby made a specific point about the co-operative movement. Political movements and parties are not listed as part of the current citizenship curriculum, but schools can choose to talk about them as part of their democracy discussions.

The Department currently provides a range of support to the sector, particularly through the Educate Against Hate website, to help teachers discuss some of the really tricky issues. Support for curriculum delivery also comes from resources from the Oak National academy, which launched new curriculum sequences for secondary citizenship earlier this month. Obviously, there will be a full package of support in autumn 2025.

UK Parliament does fantastic work running educational tours for pupil, youth and community groups to see how Parliament works in action. It also produces resources, which can be downloaded or ordered for free and tailored to different age groups. This really is Christmas for UK Parliament. I thank staff for the work they do all year round, but particularly this week as we celebrate the level of engagement. I encourage all schools to engage and make use of the resources for young people.

On supporting the teaching workforce, the initial teacher training and early career framework sets out the entitlement of every trainee to get the necessary knowledge and skills. It is vital that teachers get support to do that important work of engaging and teaching young people about these issues.

I will take my hon. Friend’s comments on board, and I thank him again for bringing forward the debate. It is great that it happened in this week of all weeks. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is vital that pupils have a sound understanding of the fundamental values upon which our society is founded and operates, including democracy, and their relevance to the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living in modern Britain.

Schools clearly have a critical role to play in supporting pupils to develop those skills and attitudes. We know that many schools really embed an understanding of democracy, but we also know that the curriculum and assessment review is an opportunity to see how we can do that even better. I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend again for his fantastic opening speech. In giving a voice to his constituents, he is clearly embedding democratic values within his local area. I am sure that every MP will take the opportunity to do the same during UK Parliament Week.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered flood preparedness in Norfolk.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am delighted to have secured this important debate on flood preparedness in Norfolk, and I am pleased to see colleagues from across the county and across the parties. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has long championed the issue, and I am pleased to join him in the fight. The challenges that we face are so significant and have such an impact that we have to come together to tackle them. I am pleased to be able to facilitate that today.

Norfolk’s seas and waterways are one of our country’s greatest treasures. Our rivers are enjoyed by many for swimming, paddling, kayaking and canoeing. The Norfolk broads are a much-loved national park: a unique waterway that nurtures flora and fauna, and keeps alive a great tradition of sailing and navigation. Our coastline and seas are precious for local residents and drive our tourism economy. They even brought a visit from the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who enjoyed a dip in the sea in Sheringham with me during the election campaign.

Norfolk’s landscapes are also low-lying and flat, filled with farmland and floodplains. While that combination of waterways and low-lying land contributes to Norfolk’s being the most beautiful county in the country, it presents a perfect storm for flooding problems. Hundreds of years ago, the Norfolk broads were simply a huge estuary. Work over the centuries has tamed the waterways into what they are today, but without continued work, nature will simply return our area to the North sea. In the words of my local water management director, we have to “make maintenance sexy!” The Romans began the work, and it would be a tragedy if this were the generation that finally gave up. Not on my watch.

There are very few areas of Norfolk that are not afflicted by flooding concerns. I hear worries from residents all over my constituency, from councillors and colleagues around the county, and from the agencies that work so hard to alleviate such problems.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

My constituency is a long way from my hon. Friend’s, but it is criss-crossed by rivers. Last month my residents suffered an inundation, when we had a month’s rainfall in one day. Does he agree that one of the challenges is the lack of co-ordination between the multitude of agencies that have responsibility for this area? Does he also agree that the legacy of the last Conservative Government was the underfunding of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and of local planning authorities, which affected their flood prevention activities?

[Steff Aquarone]

I agree with both of my hon. Friend’s points, and I will speak about them in a moment. My hope is that by solving the issue of joined-up working in Norfolk, we can transport that model to his constituency and elsewhere.

A key motivation of mine in securing a debate on this issue at this time was the important public meeting I chaired recently in Hickling. Nine different agencies sent their representatives to share the work they are undertaking to prevent flooding in the area. They also told us of their personal fears and frustrations. They spoke of the challenges with the funding system and our changing climate, and of the regulations and responsibilities that are stymying their ability to make change.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He is right that there are a multitude of agencies that have partial responsibility, creating a network of overlapping duties and responsibilities. We are lucky in Norfolk that we have the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, under the capable directorship of Henry Cator, a constituent of mine. Will the hon. Member take this opportunity to congratulate the alliance and Mr Cator, and will he focus on the absolute importance of strategic dredging, particularly in the Norfolk broads?

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his work on flood prevention, and I absolutely echo his sentiments. I will be quoting Henry Cator in just a moment. He was on the panel I mentioned, and I pledged to him and others that I would support them in tackling all of this. That meeting allowed the agencies to hear directly from local residents about their experience and knowledge of the area, developed over decades, and to factor it into their plans and ensure that the community and relevant agencies work in lockstep as they bring forward a more flood-resilient future for the affected broads villages.

Residents of North Norfolk have endless stories of how flooding has impacted them and their community. I heard from a business owner in the boating industry who has spent £40,000 fixing the impact of flooding on the marina that she manages. Another local business estimates that it lost out on £140,000 of revenue during a period when it could not operate because of flood damage. Even the most basic things are made harder: one resident apologised to me that their response to my invitation to the meeting I mentioned was delayed because their driveway was flooded and impassable for the postman.

In the short term, we must look at the fundamental issues across all levels of government that have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has. The agencies I met with are working incredibly hard, but they can only work with what they have. A major issue that many of them face is that their funding settlements are rarely delivered more than one year ahead.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I also live far away from Norfolk, but Somerset obviously has a record of flooding—in fact, it is named Somerset because it was the county where people lived in summer. Environment Agency data shows that 2,692 properties in my constituency are at risk of flooding, and unless basic maintenance is conducted on drainage and flood-defence systems, the figure will continue to rise. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the Environment Agency to have a £34 million deficit in its maintenance budget?

[Steff Aquarone]

I totally agree. Lots of money is already there, not to mention the stuff that is missing, but we have to use it in a more joined-up and strategic way. I could go on, but I will return to my speech.

The projects that need to be undertaken to make a real difference will take time, but they will have a huge payoff. Being forced into short-term thinking means that the responsible agencies cannot make secure plans to take the strategic actions they need to. I hope that the Minister will consider changing the arrangement to give the responsible agencies the ability to set longer-term budgets. That would be a huge boost to their medium and long-term planning, and could get off the ground so many vital flood-alleviation projects that are being stalled by the current funding set-up. As the chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance succinctly put it to me:

“Prevention is a lot less expensive than flooding.”

In fact, every pound spent on prevention prevents a further £14 of damage. I hope that the Minister will seriously reflect on that, particularly in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke).

Frustratingly, in many cases, it is not just the money that is lacking, but the necessary power to make change. The responsibilities and powers are broken up and siloed across councils, agencies and statutory bodies; all of them have expertise and experience, but it cannot be easily shared between them. I ask simply but kindly: why does it take nine months and two public meetings to decide what to do and how to spend the money we already have? I would love to tour my constituency bringing the kind of meeting I mentioned to every community, but that is simply not the most effective way of delivering the action that residents are crying out for.

The Netherlands has a Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management: a clearly responsible Department with the power to tackle an issue that is fundamental to that nation. We must accept that Britain floods—it always has done. A joined-up approach, with a clearly responsible body, is the only way we can ensure that powers are collected sensibly to allow for funding and direction decisions to be made in the best interests of communities.

Let us take a look at how flood prevention actually functions in the area that I and my Norfolk colleagues represent—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a Norfolk county councillor. Norfolk county council is the lead flood authority, but it does not have the money to tackle the issues that it reports on. The council’s scrutiny committee considered that just yesterday, and concluded that there needs to be a focus on legislation to make it fit for purpose. After every serious event, it writes useful, sensible and impactful flood prevention reports, which outline how to prevent flooding from happening again, but once it finishes its reports, it has nowhere near the necessary money to implement any of its own recommendations.

That set-up would be utterly farcical if it were not so serious. It seems that my residents need all the stars to align to make anything happen, and that will not cut the mustard as water pours into their front rooms and destroys their belongings.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving some excellent examples, particularly from the Netherlands, which is wonderful at water management. Like him, many across my constituency have to deal with the impact of flooding year after year. Does he agree that to tackle flooding, we must improve the management of land upstream, including the restoration of peatlands, heathlands and native woodlands, and that our farmers are great allies in this quest?

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In my experience as a county councillor over the past seven years, I have seen changing attitudes in the farming community, with farmers having moved from wanting to get the water off their land and into the river system as soon as possible, to wanting to build attenuation methods upstream and upland to help prevent flooding further downland, but they face planning barriers and all sorts of other hurdles that make that practically unviable.

I want to touch on the issues faced by our farmers in North Norfolk. As well as talking to me yesterday about inheritance tax changes, many farmers raised concerns about how flooding impacts their land. Access to the farming recovery fund seems, to my farmers and me, to be scattergun and confusing; the restrictive criteria mean that some are receiving payouts for land that has hardly been touched by flooding, while not receiving anything for land that has spent months underwater, simply because they are either lucky or unlucky with DEFRA criteria and algorithms.

William, a farmer in my constituency, told me yesterday that he had 30 acres of potato crop waterlogged for months on end, and totally unharvestable. He lost £100,000-worth of potatoes, but received no payout because he was told his land was not eligible. We know that our farmers operate on the slimmest profit margins to feed our country, and flooding is yet another challenge hammering them and their businesses. Norfolk’s farmers feel that they are being punished by the quirks of the system, and are in the dark about how to get the help that they need.

The Minister has heard me raise a lot of problems so far, but I want to reassure her that the Government can achieve some quick wins. There are some things with simple solutions. First, we need to ensure that the insurance landscape for flooding is viable. I am appreciative of the Flood Re scheme, but we must ensure that it will achieve its mission to create a risk-reflective pricing model by the time it exits the market in 2039, and that it covers all types of flood risk, including coastal erosion, which rapidly eats away at the North Norfolk coast.

I also feel that we need to place a greater duty on our insurers to carry out the actions in flood prevention reports after incidents occur. Insurers currently put properties back to the state they were in before the flooding, rather than being required to support residents to ensure that the flooding cannot happen again. For example, why are insurers replacing ankle-height sockets in properties they know could flood again, when logic would dictate that they need to be moved higher up to protect them in the future? My residents have been left in a scenario where they know what needs to happen to prevent future flooding, but the actions are not forthcoming. It is totally unacceptable, and I hope the Minister will indicate that she is open to reviewing this area of law, if that is the reform we need to fix these issues.

There is a very real human impact of the failings of this set-up. I have spoken with one of my constituents who has been flooded twice, forced to move out of her home for months, and still struggles to secure the changes she needs to avoid yet more flooding. Anglian Water is responsible for increasing the drainage capacity, the highways department is responsible for trying to redirect the water flow off the road away from her property, and her insurers have to help her piece her life back together again. All those agencies and organisations have been unable to secure funding or have been limited in their powers. She will want to hear from the Minister today an assurance that she will not carry on falling through the cracks and being a repeat victim of predictable problems, and will finally receive the long-lasting solution she needs and deserves.

Whenever we discuss damaging floods, which are becoming all the more regular, we must address the elephant in the room that is man-made climate change. It is no coincidence that we see more extreme weather events, storms and flooding when our climate is being so drastically damaged. If we do not deviate from the course of climate crisis, resilience measures will become obsolete as the emergency worsens. The current modelling on what we need to prevent and alleviate flooding looks backwards at data and trends from the past, but climate change is bringing extreme weather and flooding that we have never seen before. If we cannot handle what has gone before, we do not stand a chance of tackling what has yet to come. We have to incorporate the climate emergency into our thinking on this issue far more realistically.

Norfolk is proudly at the cutting edge of the green energy transformation that we need to fight climate change. We are proud to be playing our part in saving the planet, but if the homes of those working on these projects, and the businesses and suppliers for them, are flooding, and the infrastructure itself is at risk of flooding, we cannot help. We want to play our part and we need the support to do so.

I hope the Government can think holistically when tackling the challenges of flooding. It is not just an environment issue; it impacts our local economy, our emergency services and our health systems. I fear the cost of failure here simply is not understood, but I can assure the Government that they cannot afford it. While we are talking about Norfolk today, improving flood preparedness across the country will positively impact so much more than just the people whose homes and businesses are flooding today.

This challenge is immediate. The time for waiting around and delay has long passed and we are staring down the barrel of a tough—and possibly disastrous—winter. This is not about just protecting the highest possible number of chimney pots, but preserving a beautiful, historic natural landscape and a way of life that has served Norfolk for generations. I hope that as the Government listen to the contributions in this debate and consider their future actions as a result, in the forefront of their minds are the affected residents and business owners, villages such as Hickling and Potter Heigham, and the communities begging us not to carry on with the status quo.

16:46

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate. Next door in Suffolk we share the same coast and many of the same problems, being so low-lying. I am sad to say that in Lowestoft we are not adequately protected against severe flooding such as we experienced, to devastating effect, in 2013. Prior to the installation of flood wall protection measures last year, Lowestoft was the only coastal town without any formal tidal flood defences, and we remain very much at risk.

We had a flood barrier project ready to go, one that would have protected 1,500 residential properties and 800 businesses and was an excellent example of partnership bidding. However, East Suffolk council was forced to abandon those plans earlier this year because the Conservative Government had delayed and delayed a funding decision for so long that it was no longer possible to continue. They avoided paying £100 million to complete a project that would have protected our town for 100 years and seen a return of £700 million a year in gross value added. The previous Government ran out the clock on the scheme and kicked the can down the road, as they did with so much else. With Lowestoft due a flood on the scale of 2013 every 20 years, residents are rightly worried. Resurrecting that scheme immediately is sadly not possible, but I am determined that we find a viable way forward.

Without our flood barrier, the advanced plans we have for the regeneration of the area around Lake Lothing are jeopardised, hugely increasing costs for the redevelopment of the former JELD-WEN factory site, which would help us to meet the Government’s ambitious house building targets by adding up to 500 homes. However, the growth benefits of flooding protection measures are not reflected in how our flooding funding formula works. The formula as it exists now effectively protects wealthier areas and leaves poorer areas such as ours to fend for themselves. As such, it essentially bakes in inequality.

I would be grateful if the Minister could look into a review of the current flooding funding formula. We need to factor in the potential for growth, for unlocking house building and for industrial progress when it comes to allocating funds. If we are able to do that, not only can we save what we already have, but we can build for a better future.

16:48

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on bringing this debate to the House. It is great to see so many colleagues from all parties. If ever there was an issue that unites us all, it is this. At the beginning of my fifth Parliament, I have never seen so many all-party parliamentary groups set up or seen them so well attended—most struggle to find enough Members to be quorate. I have been to four, each with about 30 people from all parties in the room. I welcome what the Minister has said about properly reviewing and getting to grips with this issue and wish her well. She will find a lot of parliamentary support for bold reforming action, which is long overdue.

For me, this began in the inland constituency of Mid Norfolk—the clue is in the name. It has no coast and is largely Breckland; it should be dry. So why am I leading the charge on flooding? It is because in 2020, I and many of my constituents spent the Christmas period using mops and buckets in our houses as great rains swept through. In so many parts of the country, areas that have not traditionally been affected by flooding suddenly are. We set up the Mid Norfolk Flood Partnership with 13 villages, and we set up the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance. I pay tribute to Lord Dannatt, who set up the alliance, and Henry Cator, who now runs it very well. We were in the process of convening Norfolk’s first inland flood summit, which was postponed because of the election. It is very important.

There are 36 organisations in Norfolk alone tasked with and sharing responsibility for dealing with flooding. None of them are able to take responsibility properly. I will be kind, but the buck gets passed. People have had enough. We need a summit in which we, the representatives of the people of Norfolk, can gather with those agencies and get on top of where the flooding is happening, where it is becoming more intense, what is being done about it and prioritised for our county, and the short, medium and long-term plan.

I have prepared a private Member’s Bill to support the Minister; I will be introducing it shortly and I hope it will contribute to the reforms that she is considering. I hope it will be good enough that she decides to incorporate it into her reforms. I will speak in a moment about what that Bill sets out to do but, as with so many public policy problems, it is worth being clear about what the problem is and what is causing it.

First, I want to suggest climate change. Earlier this year, we had the wettest seven months on record, and we have had the wettest past few years on record. That is what is driving the problem.

Secondly, in my part of the world, that problem is compounded by a huge amount of housing. The boundaries changed because about 10,000 extra houses have been built in Mid Norfolk in the past 14 years. Many of them are built on the outskirts of villages, without proper drainage infrastructure, which has meant plugging modern drains into Victorian village drain infrastructure. When there is intense rain, it all merges and sewage starts rising through people’s gardens and lavatories.

Thirdly, I mention riparian rights: we have seen huge confusion about who is actually responsible for maintaining ditches. Fourthly, there is contract farming, or an increase in outsourcing farming to contractors. In the old days on our family farm, in quiet months we would clear the ditches and mend the fences. These days, that kind of stuff is not always in the contract. Ditches are being neglected because of the reality of modern contract farming.

Fifthly, Anglian Water has been focusing—and I will be kind—on supplying water to the east and on mitigating leakage. It is investing billions. Ten years ago, the problem was loss of water, and that is still the case in the summer months. However, in winter, we have a massive problem. We need to make sure that our water companies are investing in the problem in the latter half of the year, as well as dealing with the shortages in the summer. Of course, catchment geography, habitat, and water maintenance and retention link those two issues.

Sixthly, there is huge confusion about responsibilities. Nationally, the responsibility sits with the Environment Agency, and I think its budget is just over £2 billion a year. However, try ringing the Environment Agency about a problem in Norfolk—or, I dare say, in Suffolk; it is lovely to see the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) sneaking into a Norfolk debate to support us. I am talking about organisational responsibility at the top, in an agency that has many other responsibilities, some of which directly go against the interests of getting water off the land and down rivers fast. I am also talking about the situation on the ground. Responsibility for dealing with, mitigating and handling flooding is unfunded, so the local flood authority really has no budget in Norfolk. It has a few powers, which it cannot enforce, and no budget to do it properly.

Seventhly, the real heroes of flood management in this country are the internal drainage boards, who—as you will know, Sir Christopher—have been successfully doing proper local watercourse management since about the 15th century. They have seen their powers reduced and their funding removed. As is so often the way in modern Governments, powers go upstream, to higher and higher levels, with less and less real, practical support on the ground. Those 15 or 16 areas—district councils that are most on the frontline of flooding—are now having massively to support internal drainage board infrastructure investments. We are charging taxpayers hugely in the high flood areas to pay for infrastructure that we are all funding. An Association of District Councils special interest group has been set up to tackle that, and it is helping me with my Bill.

Eighthly, the IDBs are funded by precepts, which is not appropriate for the scale of infrastructure that we need today. Ninthly, there is a huge lack of proper monitoring: one of the things that we will find at the first Norfolk flood summit is that we do not have a map—or certainly no live digital map. Where are the flood hotspots in our county? We are not properly capturing the data, which means that the Minister will not have proper data to support her policy making and the Cabinet Office resilience unit does not have proper data on where that growing inland flood risk is.

There is then flooding on the ground, as we had last year; I will cite one example, at Mill lane in Attleborough. Four people who live next to a culvert have been flooded every year for the past 10 years, and their lives are misery. Last year, for the first time, 100 other houses were flooded because the culvert has been allowed to silt up gradually. Anglian Water handed over its riparian rights when no one was looking about 12 or 15 years ago, and no one was aware that those rights now sat locally in the town. The land-use practice upstream meant that the water was not being captured properly on the farm, and with a whole lot of new housing and climate change, there was then a big problem. It has taken a huge amount of work to set up the local Mill lane flood prevention group, and the community has cleaned out the ditches and dredged the river, with 70 tonnes of stuff taken out. It has been a huge project, for which I pay tribute to the local councillor, Taila Taylor, and others.

We cannot afford to do that in every single place around the country; far better to invest in prevention in the first place. Of course, people who have suffered flooding then hit the next problems: how do they insure their houses? How will we compensate people who cannot sell their houses? How will we ensure that, as others have said, the Flood Re scheme is fit for purpose? This is a huge issue and I know the Minister has gripped it. My Bill sets out four main clauses and four main reforms—I believe I have sent the Minister an early draft, but I will send her a better one. I thank all those colleagues who are helping with it.

Clause 1 sets out responsibilities and makes clear that we need to cascade them down to the ground, as well as making it clearer who is actually responsible for prevention and mitigation. Clause 2 looks at funding and says that some of that £2 billion-odd with the Environment Agency has to cascade down, and we have to support the IDBs and the local flood authorities properly. Controversially, clause 3 looks at liabilities. I want to suggest that, when house builders dump large quantities of housing on the outskirts of villages, it is not good enough just to pipe the drains into the old Victorian architecture. They have to upgrade it, and I think the only way they will do so is if they are on the hook for any downstream flooding that might occur. Clause 4 looks at data monitoring and accountability.

I close by sincerely welcoming the Minister’s very quickly committing to reviewing this issue properly. As well as listening to her officials, who I know will have 101 reasons to take it gently and to be cautious and steady, I urge the Minister to listen to colleagues across this House. I think she will be a hero—there will be culverts named after her for decades to come. I hesitate to suggest this, but it will be one of the biggest issues of this Parliament for our constituents, and the Minister has the chance to grip it right at the beginning and put right something that has been neglected for several decades.

16:58

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this hugely important debate. I have had the pleasure of serving alongside him not just here in this place but in Norfolk county council, of which we have both been members for a number of years. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as both a serving Norfolk county councillor and a Breckland district councillor. The issues are the same—we are talking about flooding in this case—but the setting is somewhat different.

Flooding is a significant concern in Norfolk, as has been mentioned, and I have been left so frustrated about flooding incidents in my local communities. The time taken to look into some of the causes of flooding and the recommendations for mitigation is woeful. In some cases, it can take up to two years, and often residents are repeatedly flooded before we have seen the reports on the initial incident. It must be said that local councils are woefully under-resourced. They must be given additional resources and powers to respond to the increasing flood risks. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for mentioning internal drainage boards, which I have already raised in Parliament, because they are an increasing concern for many councils.

In my constituency, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council now contributes the equivalent of 43% of all its council tax income to funding IDB levies—that is incredible. I am delighted to say that, since Labour has taken office, we have seen progress, with additional funding of more than £250,000 for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council alone. I also welcome the new flood resilience taskforce launched to turbocharge flood preparedness and the delivery of flood defences. I was delighted last week when an extra £50 million was announced for internal drainage boards, which have been neglected for far too long. I am pleased that the Government recognise their vital contribution, which shows Labour’s commitment to the challenge.

I pay tribute to Welney Flood Watch in my constituency. The team play a vital role, helping residents to know whether the A1101, which is appropriately named the Welney Wash Road, is passable. I was delighted to meet one of the volunteers, Ken, yesterday in Parliament. Without that intervention, residents often get caught out by the changing and unpredictable water levels in that area. That is a fine example of community spirit, but we cannot leave it solely to volunteers to fix the cracks that are so evident in the system and that will become more common because of climate change.

I believe that we in this room have a moral obligation not to leave the planet in a worse state than we found it in. We must protect the here and now. Failure to tackle the root causes and the imminent threats of flooding will cost us socially, economically and environmentally, as has been pointed out. We need only look at areas such as Valencia over the past few weeks to see the devastating impact of flooding, the damage to livelihoods and housing and, in that case, the tragic loss of so many lives.

I know that the Minister understands the importance of the issue; I have spoken to her about it on several occasions. The task at hand could not be clearer. The Environment Agency states that up to one in six UK properties are now at risk of flooding, and it is going to get even worse. It cuts across numerous constituencies, and not just in Norfolk. I am in South West Norfolk, the county’s furthest constituency from the coast, but it is still a huge challenge.

After 14 years of Conservative neglect and underfunding and the forgoing of the scientific warning signs, communities up and down the country have been left unnecessarily exposed to flood damage. The previous Government slashed resources for the Environment Agency, the key agency tasked with flood preparedness and response, by two thirds from 2010, leaving families and businesses to pay the price of extreme floods.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk for securing this debate and raising this important issue. It is now up to Labour to protect our local economy and the national environment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have to call the Front Benchers at 5.10 pm, so I hope that the two Norfolk Members who are standing can share the remaining seven minutes between them.

17:02

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I hope that other hon. Members understand the need to prioritise Norfolk Members in this debate on Norfolk flooding, though I know we share concerns about the issues. I will try to summarise my remarks.

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this crucial debate and for highlighting the underlying issues to be tackled, including maintenance and understanding the climate risks and the reasons for these problems. I also thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his comments; I look forward to the first Norfolk flood summit.

Like other hon. Members, I have countless examples in my constituency. On Mill Lane in Needham village and in Shelfanger and Winfarthing, residents have been significantly affected by flooding in recent years; some have been unable to return to their home since Storm Babet. There were 14 homes badly flooded in a single night, which highlights the extreme impact. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) will be pleased to hear that I also have examples from the Suffolk part of my constituency, because we need to ensure that we look at the issue region-wide.

To expand on other Members’ contributions, I will focus on nature-based solutions, which have a big part to play in addressing the issue upstream. Slowing down, capturing and storing rainwater brings additional benefits, improving biodiversity, sequestering carbon, enhancing soil life and creating valuable wildlife habitats.

The River Waveney Trust in my constituency is doing fantastic work on projects in places such as Diss and Gissing. It is using funding from DEFRA to carry out work that restores floodplains, plants trees, creates ponds and installs leaky dams. Such things are having a practical impact in reducing flooding and flood risks, but at the moment those works are often carried out by excellent but small charities fighting over pots of money that are not big enough. The DEFRA funding of £25 million needs to be much bigger if we are to tackle the problem at scale across the country. I know that the Minister is committed to addressing the issues and is listening, so I am looking for more funding.

I highlight my private Member’s Bill, the Nature-based Solutions (Water and Flooding) Bill, which would require public bodies and water companies to allocate at least 10% to 25% of their budgets to nature-friendly management schemes, ensuring more widespread adoption of nature-based solutions. I hope that the Minister will consider it among the reforms that are being looked at, and that it will get some support from colleagues in Norfolk and beyond.

To ensure that others can speak, I will conclude. I hope that the wide-ranging concerns that have been raised today are taken seriously, that adequate funding is put in place, that we ensure that there are joined-up solutions to addressing maintenance, that there is no more buck-passing, and that nature-based solutions get proper focus and attention.

17:06

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate. My constituency has a magnificent coastline, as well as some of the precious chalk streams that our country is lucky to have, and we face significant flood challenges that need to be addressed. Sadly, with the record-breaking rainfall that we have had, many villages, homes, gardens, streets and businesses across North West Norfolk have felt the awful impact of flooding. Last winter, I helped many constituents in the Burnhams, the Creakes, Pott Row, Roydon, Grimston and many other villages. The high water levels and groundwater levels mean that that risk is here once again.

Dealing with the problem needs better co-ordination. As we have heard, Norfolk county council is the local lead flood authority, but it cannot direct anyone; it does not have the funding. It cannot even require people to co-operate with it or deal with the culverts and riparian issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned. That means that even when they have the equipment and are ready to step in to do the maintenance work, they cannot do so, for legal reasons. That is why I supported the creation of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, which is doing good work.

I helped to get multi-agency groups set up to deal with some of the issues in the villages that I have named. That has seen investment in dealing with the infiltration and inundation that causes the flooding and the unpleasant consequences. We need more of that investment to deal with the issues, to improve pumping station capacity and to make other improvements, and there is a need for far greater clarity. That is why I will strongly support the Bill that my hon. Friend will be introducing imminently.

We also need to make better use of local knowledge. When I am out with constituents, they understand the way the rivers and the flows go together. That can be very helpful, particularly when the Environment Agency does not have many people on the ground or who understand the catchment. That is something that can be tapped into more broadly.

An area that has not really been touched on is our need to improve the welfare support when things go wrong. I have been to the homes of elderly and vulnerable constituents who have been unable to use their toilets, sinks and showers for many weeks, and all they have been offered is a portaloo at most. That is completely unacceptable. Far better co-ordination is needed. My constituents do not really care who is responsible; they just want people to take responsibility. The Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance has put together a working group to look at that, but obviously it is an issue that can be dealt with across the country.

Finally, I want to touch on the importance of coastal flood defences, particularly in the area of my constituency between Snettisham and Heacham, which is made up of a natural shingle bank and stretches of concrete defences. The Environment Agency has begun a review of the Wash East coast management plan, which is there to protect the properties, the holiday homes and the agricultural land, which is very important. I recently met the Environment Agency, because there is concern locally that it says that it does not need to do the periodic recharging project and that, if it did, it would not have the funding or technical capability to do so. We cannot accept the managed decline in this area. We need to hold the line; that should be a common cause. There need to be funding and support for the shoreline management plan for 2025 and beyond.

Fundamentally, these issues are about working together. The inaugural flooding and drought summit in January, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk referred, will provide a forum to do that. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the invitation that I believe has been extended to her to come and hear about Norfolk and the plans that we have to solve these problems.

17:09

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher, for chairing this important debate on flood preparedness in Norfolk. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech highlighting the many challenges to flood preparedness in Norfolk and across our region. Indeed, I congratulate all hon. Members from Norfolk and our region, and from other places in the country, on their speeches and the points that they have made. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which I note that I am a member of East Cambridgeshire district council.

This debate highlights the region’s ongoing struggles with flooding, which are compounded by its low-lying landscapes and extensive waterways, and the impacts of climate change. The area’s rivers, broads and coastline are rightly cherished. When managed well, they mitigate and reduce flooding, but when under-managed they contribute to significant flooding risks. This issue, which has existed for centuries, requires sustained, co-ordinated efforts to prevent further damage, but without adequate long-term funding, local authorities and agencies are unable to implement effective long-term solutions.

Many Members have raised their constituents’ personal experiences, including the substantial financial losses faced by local businesses as a result of flood damage, and the stress facing people at risk of flooding. They have highlighted systemic issues, including the limited funding for agencies, which is allocated on an annual basis, preventing them from planning long-term projects. This debate stresses the need for a number of changes in Government policies, such as moving to multi-year budgets for flood prevention efforts and closer co-ordination between responsible bodies.

The fragmented approach to flood management, with responsibilities spread across various councils and agencies and some private individuals, is another significant barrier. Members have pointed out the inefficiencies and lack of co-ordination, calling for a more unified approach, much like that of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management in the Netherlands. We have even heard that Norfolk county council, despite being the lead flood authority, faces the absurdity of crafting detailed flood prevention plans without the financial backing to implement them.

The difficulties faced by local farmers, who struggle to access flood relief funds because of confusing and restrictive criteria, have also been raised today. Farmers already operating with slim profit margins face further hardships as flooding damages their crops or even prevents planting or harvesting.

Beyond the financial and logistical challenges, the mental health impact of flooding is significant. The constant fear of future flooding takes a toll on residents and on the workers involved in flood management. I share Members’ calls for more holistic support for both flood-affected communities and the people working to mitigate these issues.

As we have heard, the last Conservative Government slashed flood protection plans for homes and failed to invest in flood defences, leaving communities to fend for themselves. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to bring forward £5.2 billion of flood defence spending to ensure that flood defences are built more quickly, and to ringfence funding allocations for flood risk management that works with nature.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It heartens me to hear Members across the House acknowledging the impacts of climate change on flooding in our constituencies. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking that the Government’s national planning policy framework accounts for areas prone to flooding, keeping our remaining floodplains undeveloped?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree that we need to make sure that as we are planning and building, we take flood risk into account and ensure that we are properly mitigating it.

In her 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor committed £2.4 billion over the next couple of years for flood defences, but she added that significant funding pressures on this Budget meant that it would be necessary to review the plans for 2025-26. It is crucial that this funding is committed in the long term to allow communities to create sustainable flood preparedness plans for years to come.

The Liberal Democrats support the Climate and Nature Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), because it will restore the natural environment through the large-scale restoration of peatland, heathland, native woodland, salt marshes, wetlands and coastal waters. That will absorb carbon, protect against floods, improve water quality and protect habitats. The Liberal Democrats would also implement new planning powers to require sustainable drainage systems to be installed.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I cannot order the hon. Lady to sit down, but we should comply with the convention for one-hour debates: Opposition spokesmen should have five minutes each and the Minister should have 10 minutes to respond.

[Charlotte Cane]

I am sorry, Sir Christopher. I will draw my remarks to a close.

17:15

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate and Members from both sides of the House on all their contributions. There is a large degree of cross-party consensus on this issue.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of a joined-up approach to this issue and said that prevention is much better than treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has shown great leadership in this area with his Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about the importance of welfare support for victims, and that was echoed by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) when it comes to the mental health impacts of flooding.

As we face more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. In the last 12 months or so, we have seen the terrible effects of Storm Babet, Storm Ciarán and Storm Henk all within a few weeks of each other. I sympathise with anyone who has ever been flooded. We know the huge impact it has on people, homes, businesses, farmland, animals and so much more. It is heartbreaking. We must not forget that the mental health impacts on at-risk communities are huge, from the anxiety about being flooded to the trauma of being flooded itself.

We must support our communities long after the floodwaters have subsided and the blue lights have left. I pay tribute to the amazing efforts during floods of Environment Agency staff, the emergency services, first responders and local volunteer groups. In serious floods, I have seen at first hand the importance of all that these folk do to help people in awful and sometimes tragic circumstances.

I also pay tribute to the mental health charities that Members present will be familiar with: You Are Not Alone, or YANA, in East Anglia, as well as RABI, Yellow Wellies and the Farmers Community Network. I ask the Minister to set out the steps the Government are taking to provide the holistic support that flood victims need to get back on their feet, and particularly to address the mental health consequences that flood victims face, too often in silence.

The last Conservative Government had a strong record on flood preparedness. They published a policy statement to make England more resilient, with 40 actions and five ambitious policies stemming from it. Between 2015 and 2021, the last Government invested £2.6 billion in flood defences, which better protected 314,000 homes all over England. Furthermore, in March 2020, it was announced that the flooding budget would be doubled to £5.2 billion over the next six-year spending period, to deploy more flood schemes.

While the new Labour Government have sadly shown their hand and cruelly disregarded farmers with their heartless family farm tax, the previous Government backed the farming sector and introduced several schemes to introduce climate or environment benefits and to compensate farmers simultaneously. Environmental land management schemes paid farmers to increase our resilience to flooding through nature-based solutions and natural flood management techniques such as tree planting or re-wiggling rivers. That rightly rewarded farmers with public funding for providing public goods, on which we all rely. I urge the Government to move forward in these areas.

The last Government also provided £50 million to expand the farming recovery fund to ensure that farmers on farms of all sizes across the country who are hit by flooding and exceptional wet weather receive support. The Labour Government have been very slow in getting some of that money out. I know that things have moved in the past few days, but I urge them to get that money out the door. We have to reward our farmers both for producing food and for their stewardship of the environment. Yesterday’s protests in Westminster showed the passion of our farming communities. I urge the Government to think again and reverse their cruel family farm tax.

As we have heard, the flooding budget is under review. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not cut it when they review it in the coming years? We must invest in flood defences, given climate change and the extreme weather events that are upon us.

The Minister will be familiar with the Flood Re scheme. There are concerns that it supports homes and not businesses. I urge the Government to consider expanding it, because many people who live above their businesses are not covered. We have also heard about the importance of the IDBs. I urge the Government to ensure that that vital service is maintained.

In summary, communities at risk of flooding need certainty and holistic support. They need prevention measures and response when flooding arrives. I hope the Minister will outline how this Labour Government will provide that.

17:20

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate and in particular the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing it in the first place. We are in danger of an outbreak of unity, which is always quite dangerous in Parliament, but I must say that every contribution has shown the importance of tackling flooding and why it means so much to each and every one of us.

A number of Members mentioned mental health. To be honest, one of the reasons I was so attracted to this brief to begin with is that I represent an area that suffered tragically from floods in 2007. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), is quite right to point out that, long after the flood water has receded and the blue lights have left, the mental health impacts continue. I should also welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. I have listened to his contributions to debates on environmental, farming and rural affairs issues, and I recognise his expertise, especially on veterinary issues, so it is a genuine pleasure to see him on the Front Bench.

A few Members mentioned the tragic situation that we have seen in Spain, which is a sobering reminder of how devastating flooding can be. I also thank the Environment Agency and everybody involved in addressing flooding.

I have been scribbling frantically, so I hope that I will cover as many points as possible and do that dangerous thing of actually answering some of the questions that have been asked. To begin with, am I going to make maintenance sexy? Well, I will do my best to make it sexy, and one thing we should look at is the flooding formula. We published a written ministerial statement just last week about how we allocate money for flooding, one aspect of which is looking at maintenance. Previously, the focus has been on the number of new properties protected, such that maintenance has, I think, been neglected. I urge hon. Members to look at that statement if they have not already seen it.

When we talk about the budget, I am very keen to talk about building new defences and maintaining existing defences. As for natural flood management, I love it. One way to get on my good side is to start talking about SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—or natural flood management, so I am feeling very happy now. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) is quite right about how they deliver in terms of affordability, nature and flood protection. I am a huge fan.

The Environment Agency will shortly publish an update to “Working with Natural Processes—Evidence Directory”, which will provide access to information that explains the benefits of natural flood management. The Environment Agency is also working to develop a natural flood management benefits tool that aims to provide a nationally consistent way of assessing both flood risk and the wider benefits of NFM projects. In the past, one of the difficulties in getting these flood projects off the ground has been in calculating the benefit of NFM. If we can agree a consistent approach to how NFM will work, hopefully we can encourage more people to get involved with it. The Environment Agency plans to publish the high-level method and assumptions on which the tool is based soon, so watch this space.

Insurance has also been mentioned. I urge the hon. Member for North Norfolk to look at Build Back Better, because people who frequently have to claim on their insurance should be able to receive an extra £10,000 from their insurer through Build Back Better. If someone’s insurer is not offering that, because they are in an area that is frequently flooded, their insurance is probably underwritten by Flood Re, and therefore they should be entitled to that.

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

Homes built since 2009 are excluded from the Flood Re insurance scheme, leaving many people without affordable insurance or indeed any insurance at all. When the Deputy Prime Minister talks about unlocking house building, the Minister will understand why my constituents are concerned that that means they will see more building on flood plains. Does the Minister agree that that would be farcical?

[Emma Hardy]

Well, no, because the Government are currently updating a lot of the planning rules for building homes. SUDS, which I mentioned earlier, will ensure that when building new homes, there is not increased flood risk either for the new homes being built or for existing homes in the area. That is why SUDS are so crucial.

Build Back Better should not just be available for people who have Flood Re; rather, it should be available for all insurers or people who are getting insurance. I want to make this mainstream. One of our concerns is that not many people know that they are able to claim this money or how to claim it. There are difficulties around some of the products, but the example that the hon. Member for North Norfolk shared—about why we would put plugs back in a low place when the property will get flooded again—is exactly where the Build Back Better money could be used: to put the plugs into a different place. I am more than happy to give more details on that.

We have mentioned the importance of mapping. I have good news. [Interruption.] Again, Sir Christopher, there is an outbreak of unity. The good news is that fairly soon we will launch something called NaFRA2, which is basically maps for the whole of England that look at the flood risk for all different types of flooding, including, for the first time, surface water flooding—previously, it has just been river and tidal. Importantly, it will look at future flood risk—so not only the risk of flooding right now, but how the flood risk will change according to climate change. That is incredibly important, so watch this space.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). She has met with me a few times, championing the needs of her constituents, and I know how welcome they will find her consistent lobbying. I hope that she will look at the flooding formula review and how it can impact areas such as Lowestoft or areas that have coastal erosion, and feed back to me on that.

I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) that if there was ever an issue that unites us, it is this—how good to hear that. I am quite interested in having a look at his Bill, and definitely at catchments as well. The independent review will have a look at catchments. It will look more at water quality but, of course, looking at a catchment solution helps with flooding. I will come back to internal drainage boards. I have been promised a culvert named after me if I do something good on this—

[James Wild]

Multiple!

[Emma Hardy]

Sorry, I have been promised multiple culverts. I have two challenges then: I need something named after me and I need to make maintenance sexy. This is indeed a good debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about the importance of drainage boards. I spoke at the Association of Drainage Authorities conference recently, and I was pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the £50 million we are giving to them. We recognise that they would have been unable to spend the £50 million by April, so we are splitting that money over two years, which is one of the things that the IDBs wanted to pursue. We are also looking at how internal drainage boards are funded—a piece of research is currently looking into that. I agree that they are incredibly important. I was interested to hear about the Welney Flood Watch team, which was a great example of what volunteers can offer and how much they do in this space. A number of Members mentioned the importance of volunteers.

I have not been able to use the speech I wrote, but never mind. I would encourage people to please get in touch with their local area directors from the Environment Agency. If people give their personal phone number, I promise that they will not be spammed, but the agency will get in touch. If there is a flood, it is guaranteed to be at 8 pm on a Friday night, when people have had a glass of wine, so please pass that on and make sure that they can get in touch.

I want to reassure Members about funding. We are investing £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience by maintaining as well as repairing and building flood defences—so maintaining is in there too. I reiterate that the Government are committed to delivering the oversight and long-term strategy needed to ensure that flood resilience is effectively delivered.

We have already taken decisive action by allocating additional funding for asset maintenance, as well as £50 million to internal drainage boards and £60 million to eligible farmers. The really good news for farmers is that the money should be arriving in many of their accounts tomorrow. That is a positive message to take away. We are taking the first steps to review the outdated funding formula and creating the new multi-agency flood resilience taskforce. I am afraid I do not have time to speak about the flood resilience taskforce, other than to say that many different agencies are involved in the taskforce to co-ordinate preparation ahead of the winter flood season.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered flood preparedness in Norfolk.

17:30

Sitting adjourned.