Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Critical Minerals: Domestic Production
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the domestic production of critical minerals.
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to have secured this debate on a subject that I believe is yet to achieve the public and pollical prominence that it deserves, but that is fundamental to the UK’s energy transition, economic security and industrial growth—especially in areas of high deprivation.
What are critical minerals? Strictly speaking, critical mineral is a label given to materials that are deemed to have economic value and that are vulnerable to supply chain insecurity. The term was first used by the United States Government in the 1940s to describe materials crucial to military technologies. In our modern economy, transitioning to net zero to mitigate the existential threat that we all face from climate change, the new generation of critical minerals such as tin, lithium and tungsten are crucial as the global economy shifts from a fossil fuel intensive to a material-intensive energy system. Last week, the British Geological Survey published its critical minerals list, finding 34 different materials crucial to our economy.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the critical minerals list; it is my view that the list needs to evolve to keep up with the increasing demands that we face, and to account for the production of minerals that we have in this country. In my part of the world we produce polyhalite, a fantastic crop nutrient fertiliser that has huge potential for our food security. Would he agree that the critical minerals list needs to account for minerals such as polyhalite, so that we can ensure our economy is growing into the future?
Perran Moon
It is essential that there is an ongoing dialogue about the critical minerals list. I attended a conference yesterday with the British Geological Survey, at which it explained how it came up with the critical minerals list. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to focus on those minerals that are crucial to the development of our economy. Those minerals are essential for our batteries, cars, wires, consumer devices and defence applications.
To be clear, critical minerals are the cornerstone of the clean energy revolution—the lifeblood of electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and cutting-edge electronics. In a world where demand for technology grows ever stronger, critical minerals stand as both our greatest challenge and our most brilliant opportunity. Demand is set to massively increase over the next few years and decades, as more consumers buy electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.
I have framed critical minerals as a great challenge as well as an opportunity. That challenge arises because at the moment the UK imports almost all of its critical mineral demand. A number of countries dominate the upstream supply chains, with the top three nations dominating well over three quarters of global output, according to the International Energy Agency. That concentration of production is even higher when it comes to refining operations, where China dominates. By 2030, 85% of lithium will be refined in just three countries. That level of supply chain domination is distinctly undesirable for our decarbonising economy and is much higher than the production concentrations of fossil fuels.
We must diversify our supply chains to achieve greater resource security, including the development of domestic production capabilities. Other large economies such as the US, Canada, Australia, and the EU are working to secure their own critical mineral supply chains, and we must not be left behind in the race to supply security.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I apologise for being late, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I agree that the market of critical minerals is intensely concentrated in China. Therefore, for security reasons, for economic opportunities and to achieve net zero, it is vital to secure the domestic supply chain. Does he welcome, as I do, the recent memorandum of understanding between Cornish Lithium and LevertonHELM, which produces speciality lithium chemicals, in my constituency? That will help to secure a domestic supply of lithium to support the development of the UK’s battery sector, which in turn will help to maintain the competitiveness of our automotive sector.
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and wholeheartedly agree with him. As I will mention later, although I am Cornish and focus on Cornwall, there are benefits to be had throughout the United Kingdom.
Relying unreservedly on international supply chains increases our global carbon emissions and means we cannot ensure a higher level of environmental care and social standards in the extraction and processing of these materials. To mitigate that dependency and build secure localised supply chains, including for electric vehicle batteries, investment in domestic extraction and processing is essential. Establishing our domestic industry would also aid our export capabilities.
Our significant lithium reserves could be upstream of a developed battery industry, in turn feeding into the demand for electric vehicles, which is predicted to increase by 30 times up to 2050. The EU is the main export market for UK cars. In 2027, EU rules of origin will come into force, mandating that 65% of the value of a battery must originate in the EU or UK, or there will be significant additional costs. Developing domestic industry will keep our exports compliant with those rules and will keep us protected against any other rules on environmental credentials.
Let us consider the critical mineral resources that the UK possesses. From my own constituency in the heart of Cornwall to Pembrokeshire in Wales, County Durham, Cumbria, County Tyrone in Northern Ireland and the central highlands of Aberdeenshire, the UK is littered with critical mineral potential. Most significantly for the green transition, we find reserves of lithium, tin and tungsten in economically viable quantities.
We should also appreciate that those key areas have been mined historically and are all areas of significant socioeconomic deprivation. If we can create an environment for a domestic industry, there is significant potential for wealth to be held in those communities in the form of good, well-paid jobs. I would like to discuss the particular opportunities in Cornwall, with which I am most familiar.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, not just for the national security implications of critical minerals, but for the welcome huge economic benefits. Given that, does he welcome the Government’s commitment to bring forward a new strategy for critical minerals security? Does he agree that that would bring benefits, not just for the regions blessed with the minerals in natural supply, but for companies such as Panther Metals in my constituency, which will be able to deliver a big part of the national supply chain in future?
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree, once again, with the desire for the Government to focus on critical minerals, hopefully developing the critical minerals strategy as a core part of the UK’s overall industrial strategy. I will talk more about that later.
Beneath Cornwall lies a mass of granite rock called the Cornubian batholith—that is harder to say at 9.40 am than one would think—in which lithium-bearing mica was discovered in 1825. In recent years, the extraction and processing of that resource has been developed by two enterprises: Imerys British Lithium and Cornish Lithium, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). Significantly, the UK lithium demand is projected to be 80,000 tonnes a year by 2030, with geological reserves in Cornwall covering a significant proportion of that demand over the next few decades. I point out that even though demand is projected at 80,000 tonnes a year, we currently have no domestic supply.
Both companies have received significant investment, and just this year Cornish Lithium opened its first processing facility, refining battery-grade lithium hydroxide, locally in Cornwall. These companies constitute not potential on the horizon, but enterprises employing hundreds of people, generating wealth, developing technologies and working with communities and academics.
The potential in Cornwall is underpinned by a rich depth of mining heritage over thousands of years, with an economic peak in the 19th century, when tin was mined on an industrial scale, before the price collapsed and jobs moved to other places around the world. The last tin mine closed at South Crofty, in the heart of my area of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, in 1998. When it did, the following words were graffitied on the closed gate:
“Cornish lads are fishermen,
And Cornish lads are miners too,
But when the fish and tin are gone
What are the Cornish boys to do?”
Today, a firm called Cornish Metals is working to reopen South Crofty tin mine; it is draining it of water as we speak, so that work can start again to meet the severe supply shortages of tin worldwide that the global economy now faces. I have been down South Crofty mine myself and, although it must be said that I am not a geologist, I am convinced that the objectives of Cornish Metals can and must be achieved. Lithium gets a lot of deserved attention because of its use in lithium-ion batteries, but tin is as crucial to modern technologies and electrical infrastructure such as solar panels. Cornwall hosts the third highest-grade tin deposits in the world, and it is the highest grade of tin deposit that is not currently mined.
South Crofty and much of Cornwall more generally represent a unique blend of ancient mining heritage, geological reserves and community support. That comes alongside a cluster of companies and expertise in and around educational institutions such as the world-leading Camborne School of Mines and the University of Exeter, based in Penryn, which has more top 100 climate scientists than any other university in the world.
The UK’s burgeoning critical minerals industry could be a game changer, helping to relieve pressures on communities such as mine and generating jobs and wealth. With those communities in mind, it is fundamental that domestic production works for local people and the natural environment, so that we do unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), I am in close contact with the industry. We attended the Critical Minerals Association conference yesterday and will attend another industry conference on the future of mining later this week. Industry leaders have made it very clear to me that there is a serious gap in the midstream supply chain for batteries, including magnet development. Much focus is on the upstream, but those gaps must be plugged as well.
Industry is crying out for domestic production guaranteed by the Government, whether as a set tonnage or as a percentage of demand on a sliding scale. That would reassure mining finance, which is relatively risk-averse. In that vein, I ask the Government to consider implementing de-risking financial instruments such as price floors, as well as considering mineral-extraction projects as part of the enterprise investment scheme, which provides tax reliefs for investors supporting small and growing enterprises. The industry suffers from a long development timescale and high up-front costs, both of which need to be considered as the Government tackle this country’s industrial and planning issues.
Giving more support to this industry will increase its credibility as a possible career path in the education system. Camborne School of Mines, the UK’s only dedicated mining college, and perhaps the world’s most famous, offers sector-specific undergraduate courses, but we require greater focus on STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—at GCSE and A-level, alongside apprenticeships. To conclude—I am sure hon. Members will be relieved to hear that—
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Australia is the world’s largest lithium producer, but nearly all its lithium is exported to China for battery production there, and there is very little domestic battery production. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK, if it follows the path that he wants it to, should not fall into the same trap? We need to have the upstream demand as well as the mining production.
Perran Moon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned, the risk is that we have a small number of dominant players from areas of the world that are potentially geopolitically sensitive for the UK and the west. It is crucial that we focus on our own domestic critical mineral production, so that we have that security going forward. I entirely agree.
To conclude, critical minerals are the elephant in the room when it comes to energy transition. We must capitalise on UK domestic potential. How we extract the materials, how we capture supply chains and how we develop technologies to recycle critical minerals will only become more important. I have focused on the cluster of businesses in Cornwall, but Northern Lithium, Green Lithium and Weardale Lithium in the north of England represent other acorns of industrial potential that we must support. Northern Lithium is targeting production of over 10,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium from brines, having secured mineral rights over 60,000 acres. Only last week, Watercycle Technologies from the University of Manchester developed new technology for producing battery-grade lithium from UK source brines.
We have to acknowledge the scale of the challenge at hand in order to generate a rising tide that will lift the whole industry. Critical minerals must form a core part of the Government’s industrial strategy, alongside investment in housing in deprived communities, infra- structure around and within key sites such as Falmouth port, and commercial infrastructure such as rail for freight transport and a tin smelter at South Crofty. Currently, tin produced in the UK would have to be shipped to east Asia to be smelted and then shipped back, creating extensive carbon emissions through shipping and offshoring the jobs and infrastructure in the supply chain that we need domestically.
With all that in mind, I ask the Minister: what is the state of the Government’s ongoing dialogue with the industry? Do the Government recognise the current geopolitical risks of a world shortfall in the supply of tin, and will the white heat of the UK’s critical mineral industry form a key part of the Government’s strategy? If we overcome these challenges, we will deliver the UK’s critical mineral security, create thousands of jobs in deprived communities and accelerate our drive towards a fossil fuel-free future.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to stand if they wish to speak during the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am sorry I missed you yesterday, but I am back in line today. It is really nice to be here.
I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for leading the debate. He made the case for critical minerals enthusiastically, with the evidential base that he clearly has from his constituency. This may not be the most sexy debate, but it is a vital one, because it raises important issues that are often forgotten or not acknowledged. The hon. Member has done the House a service in introducing the debate, and we thank him for that.
I am aware of the minerals within Cornwall, and the fact that a range of critical minerals are required for numerous industries within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Minerals such as lithium, cobalt and graphite, which have a high risk of supply disruption, are the centre of debates on this issue. It is truly great to be here to give a Northern Ireland perspective, to enable us to play our part as well. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned County Tyrone. He said beforehand that he would mention Northern Ireland, and he did. I will refer to Country Tyrone, and a few others, to add to the debate and hopefully enhance the scope of what we are trying to achieve.
The British Geological Survey published a report in 2023, which identified numerous areas around the UK as prospective areas for critical raw minerals. For Northern Ireland, those areas were in mid-County Tyrone. These critical minerals are essential for the transition to the green economy. Some people think we can ignore the green economy, but we cannot. It is important that it should be central to our policy as we move forward. It is essential for the creation of jobs in the tech, defence and automotive industries.
There are numerous critical minerals that are found in Northern Ireland and have been mined there historically, including iron ore and coal. In 2021, the Department for the Economy back home in Northern Ireland commissioned research into the economic, social and environmental impacts of mineral exploration and mining in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister is assiduous in her job, so perhaps she would tell us whether there have been any discussions with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment back home, and if so, what they have been about. We can do this together, and it enhances our great Union when we do things together.
The research helped to provide key information on the mineral life cycle in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it can allow us to work alongside partners in the mainland on the production of critical minerals, which are so important today. We need to exploit—I am loth to use that word, but it is possibly the best—or certainly take advantage of what we have. In addition, salt has been produced at the underground salt mine in County Antrim, and historically lead has been mined across Northern Ireland, including in the Newtownards area in my constituency of Strangford, which I have the pleasure and privilege to represent.
The regional, national and global demand for certain critical minerals has increased dramatically and rapidly, and we face ongoing challenges because of that. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth emphasised that clearly in his opening contribution. The extraction and processing of certain minerals has been highly challenging, and can lead to supply constraints and prices rapidly rising. The importance of the issue cannot be underlined enough. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of mining in Cornwall, specifically lithium, which will be paramount to the UK’s transition to a better net zero policy and away from fossil fuels. The Minister responded to the hon. Gentleman’s question in the main Chamber by stating that the Government are currently looking at the critical mineral strategy. When the Minister responds today, perhaps she will indicate just what that strategy is, and how it encompasses all of this great United Kingdom.
It is understood that there are certain areas across the UK that are more prominent in relation to critical minerals, but I would be grateful if the Minister and relevant Departments committed to undertake discussion with their counterparts in the devolved institutions to ensure that areas with potential mineral production, such as mid Tyrone and others in Northern Ireland, can be used to increase UK production. We must do this together. Numerous companies have received Government support for the sector through the automotive transformation fund, and the UK supply chain has a share of up to £1 billion of funding, but the market for these industries remains increasingly competitive. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what could be done to enhance that.
To conclude, it is all about maintaining and building sustainable industries across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I spoke in the main Chamber on critical minerals before the general election. I very much look forward to hearing what commitments the Government can make to Northern Ireland to ensure that we all have equal opportunities to succeed. Perhaps the Minister will give consideration to engaging with counterparts back home in Northern Ireland on this issue within this governmental mandate. We in Northern Ireland can and wish to be part of this very exciting opportunity. It is potentially exciting for all of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. None of my Scots Gaelic cousins are here, but I can say honestly that we are always better together, and that is the truth.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and to speak in a debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), with whom I often joke about critical minerals. Honestly, it is funny. I had thought that if I were to put a pound into a jar every time that my hon. Friend mentioned tin, I would be financially challenged, but after today’s debate, I would be bankrupt. I thank him for calling the debate.
As the MP for Bournemouth East, I belong to the south-west, so I have a particular interest in seeing that region develop and strengthen its green economy so that the people I represent can thrive and prosper. As the first ever Labour MP for Bournemouth East, I am particularly proud to be speaking about a region that has the largest concentration of Labour MPs in a very long time. When local people vote for Labour, they do not just get an investment in critical minerals development but in clean energy infrastructure and the jobs of the future that will help people to have a better way of life.
The south-west has a remarkable mix of nationally significant critical minerals, which will be vital to the UK’s energy security and industrial resilience, especially in the advanced manufacturing sectors, which rely on a supply of lithium and tin. I am pleased that the south-west is home to the world-renowned Camborne School of Mines at the University of Exeter, which has received £4.5 million to establish a green economy centre to accelerate the mining of lithium, tin and tungsten in collaboration with local businesses and Government bodies. I hope that there will be a role for Bournemouth University in the development of this project.
Critical mineral extraction was once a major industry for Cornwall—also in the south-west—and its rejuvenation must be a key component of our green economy. When the Labour Government came to power, they inherited a very difficult cost of living crisis. Because the Government we replaced had left the country exposed to fossil fuel dictators, we saw inflation rise to 10% and 11%. A third of that was driven by the gas shocks prompted by the invasion of Ukraine. The cost of living crisis has been a disaster for Cornish constituencies and constituents of mine, with typical energy bills nearly doubling in the space of a year and family finances in a mess for so many. The previous Government were forced to spend £94 million to support households with the cost of living crisis.
We need to achieve clean energy not just to create the jobs of the future but to ensure that our country is no longer exposed to the whims of fossil fuel dictators. The last Government ducked and dithered and delayed some difficult decisions on critical minerals, which has left us in this difficult place. Every time they ducked and delayed, they denied our country the clean energy infrastructure we needed. The Climate Change Committee report, published two weeks after the Labour Government came into office, laid bare the true reality, and said that
“last year…the previous Government signalled a slowing of pace and reversed or delayed key policies…The…announcements were given with the justification that they will make the transition more affordable for people, but with no evidence backing this claim.”
The Climate Change Committee’s assessment was that only a third of the emissions reductions required are currently covered by credible plans.
I welcome this debate in bringing to the fore critical minerals and the contribution that Cornwall can make to our clean energy revolution. The faster we go, the more we will be able to secure and create jobs and tackle our climate crisis. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth for calling this debate, and I thank all Members for contributing. Together this House will have the solutions we need so that we can all be in a better place.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this vital debate and for his thorough introduction to critical minerals. I must begin by declaring an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals. In my capacity as chair, I hope to champion the UK’s critical minerals sector and encourage the Government to use all economic and educational levers available to support UK domestic production, stimulate growth and ensure that we exploit the sector’s vast untapped potential.
In my constituency of St Austell and Newquay, we are privileged to sit atop the heart of the largest lithium resource in Europe. It is a vital mineral for the green energy transition, as we have heard. For those not familiar with the properties of lithium, it is a key component in batteries that power electric vehicles, as well as being essential for the renewable energy storage that we need. It is key for many other crucial technologies that will be part of our low-carbon future.
The distillation of raw materials in Cornwall, with our unique geology, present an unparalleled economic opportunity not seen since the 19th century when we dominated the global mining market in tin and copper. Let me stress the magnitude of that opportunity and what it potentially means for Cornwall. Lithium mining offers the chance to revitalise that legacy in a way that stimulates Cornwall’s economy and turbocharges our country’s clean energy mission. It is therefore imperative that the Government support the development of this burgeoning sector and work with cutting-edge businesses like Cornish Lithium, which is pursuing environmentally responsible lithium extraction from geothermal waters and hard rock with pioneering technology. By doing so, Cornwall can emerge as a leader in critical mineral production globally, with benefits cascading across local and national economies.
On a broader scale, securing the domestic supply of critical minerals is not just a matter of economic opportunity for local people in my constituency, in Cornwall and beyond; it is a matter of national security. Currently, the UK is over-reliant on imports from nations such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Many of the countries in the supply chain sit squarely within either the Chinese or Russian spheres of influence. That dependence exposes us to significant risks, including geopolitical instability, ethical concerns surrounding the supply chains, and the potential for resource monopolies. I suggest that if we are to go globetrotting for our critical minerals, we should trot very carefully indeed and prioritise our domestic powerhouse of production.
Investing in domestic production, especially of lithium, will strengthen our energy security, reduce vulnerabilities and ensure that the transition to renewable energy is underpinned by a resilient and ethical supply chain. Cornwall is uniquely positioned to contribute to this national ambition. We are also able to spread the wealth that will come from a production epicentre in Cornwall across the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
For the industry to flourish, we must address the skills gap. Institutions such as the Camborne School of Mines, which we have already heard about, and the Truro STEM centre are at the forefront of educating the next generation of workers for the industry. I look forward to the forthcoming investment in Cornwall college in the next year or so, as historically it has been an excellent source of talent for further education. The potential is immense: more than 100 degree-level apprenticeships could be offered at Camborne alone, and a similar number of mineral processing apprenticeships are available in Truro. Each major player in the critical minerals industry forecasts the need to train around 300 staff just in terms of direct employees, not to speak of the vast supply chain required. That makes it ever more crucial that we harness local talent to plug into the supply chain.
To achieve all that, we must provide the necessary resources for the teaching institutions, including incentives to attract and retain skilled teaching staff who may work in very lucrative industries and find it difficult to justify coming back to teach the next generation. The Government should consider additional measures in terms of funding or salary enhancements to ensure that educators are not drawn away by the competitive salaries offered overseas in the industry itself. Further education deserves parity of funding and esteem, given its vital role in growing this vital industry. It is crucial that we align Skills England’s methodology with the reality of emerging industries to capture the nascent but fast-growing demand for skills. A forward-thinking industrial strategy, informed by the business-level and project-level data, is essential to anticipate and meet the needs of the sector.
On our infrastructure challenges—there are many in Cornwall in particular—Cornwall’s potential to lead in the production of critical minerals will be realised only if we address the intertwined challenges of housing, transport and, of course, the grid. Cornwall suffers from a protracted housing crisis, with the proliferation of second homes resulting in a severe lack of affordable housing for local people. The Government’s drive to build social and affordable homes must therefore be accelerated in Cornwall to ensure that our local talent pool, which the industry is so keen to unlock, is not driven out of the region, as so many have been before.
Similarly, transport links must be drastically improved. The woeful state of the road connecting St Austell and Newquay offers a prime example of the difficulties of getting goods, services and people to flow around our county. It is essential that efficient, sustainable transport for workers, businesses and supply chains functions correctly. The current state of our infrastructure is dire. It is a critical component of creating the conditions for success in the sector, so I welcome the Minister’s visit in the spring, when we can go further into the specifics of an investment plan for Cornwall.
Finally, funding remains a significant hurdle for critical minerals exploration in Cornwall. The current funding landscape presents a huge challenge, and the schemes available for smaller projects are far too limited. The gap must be addressed if we are to enable early-stage mineral production projects, for example, and to progress the commercial viability of the small and medium-sized enterprises that will form the backbone of the Cornish mining supply chain. I therefore urge the Minister to consider reforms to the funding structures.
The EIS has been mentioned in the context of supporting critical mineral exploration. It is a great shame that we have some of the world’s finest overseas development export and offtake finance institutions but our ability to support home-grown mining companies with offtake and other specialised financing agreements that support the UK’s energy security is not good enough. By providing tailored financial support, we can unlock the sector’s potential, ensure that domestic supply chains are robust and self-sustaining, and bring prosperity to our proud clay country villages in Cornwall, and to the country more widely.
In leading the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth underscored how vital it is for our national security, energy resilience and climate goals that we secure the domestic production of critical minerals. With its rich mineral resources, skilled workforce and the support of the Government, Cornwall is uniquely placed to succeed in the sector and to be at the epicentre of the critical minerals revolution. By seizing that opportunity, we can not only transform Cornwall into a global hub for sustainable critical mineral production, but inspire a model of regional regeneration that places communities and climate action at its heart. Let us ensure that the rewards of the industry are shared as widely as possible, secure a thriving future for Cornwall and set the standard for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), not only on bringing this issue to the House’s attention, but on the manner in which he introduced it, emphasising its importance.
There have been a number of contributions to the debate, in the form of both interventions and speeches. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) emphasised the importance of keeping the whole strategy under review. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), who is no longer in his place, emphasised the importance of the strategy and of ensuring that our national security is protected in the manner in which our policy is produced.
The hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who is also no longer in his place, emphasised the huge potential economic benefit to this country of further developing the strategy. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) also contributed and, of course, the ever-present hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a telling contribution, making the vital point that although Cornwall is the epicentre of activity as far as critical minerals are concerned, other Celtic regions in the United Kingdom make an important contribution, as indeed do other locations throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), whose constituency is within the Government zone of the south-west, as I describe it, emphasised the importance of taking a wider regional and national view on the integration of the various component parts necessary to developing a strategy. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals, again emphasised the importance of the sector to the British economy.
It is important to establish a clear strategy and, to be fair, the previous Government established a strategy in 2022, on which the current Government can build. They also established the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre, which is run by the British Geological Survey and is another building block on which to develop a future strategy. And the strategy does need to be developed; it cannot be left where it is.
It is important to emphasise that the industry is vital not only to the country’s intention to address climate change but to the integration of climate change and nature conservation. When one looks at the extraction of any precious component or metal, such as lithium, from Cornwall’s remarkable geography, one has to consider the consequences for nature conservation. I find it particularly pleasing that, in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, there is a strong working relationship between Imerys and local nature conservationists. For example, only recently it was detected that the little ringed plover, which is a particularly vulnerable species, is now breeding in what was originally the clay wastes of the clay country, and within the area where lithium is likely to be extracted in the future. In other words, it is possible for those extractive industries and nature conservationists to work together and accommodate each other within the same environment. As we go forward it is really important that that conversation goes on.
Like the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, I went down South Crofty, below 3,000 feet, but before it closed in 1997. I certainly agree with him and hope that the mine will open again soon so that it can make a major contribution to the Cornish economy. There has been a lot of reference today to refining the products themselves, and one only has to look in the constituency of the hon. Member, as well as where I live in Hayle, to see the consequences of smelting for the environment. It was certainly known in the 19th century, when a lot of smelting went on in the town, how it impacted the health of people in the area.
We have only to look at what is known in the area as scoria stone, which is an incredibly heavy and extremely brittle stone that was the by-product of the smelting process, to see the environmental impact of the process. It is really important, therefore, to use modern technologies in the UK to ensure that it does not have those detrimental impacts, on both the health of the people living nearby and the environment, if the UK is to achieve the objective proposed by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth to avoid the necessity of exporting the minerals extracted in the UK to the other side of the globe for refinement.
The technologies need to be developed. As the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and others have emphasised, there is a great deal of skill, both academically and in terms of training, available in the local economy and through local colleges to develop those technologies, and to improve our chances of being able to take full advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead. They are exciting opportunities that I hope the Government will do their best to encourage.
The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to develop a new industrial strategy to tackle the big challenges of our time—supercharging the green economy, boosting living standards, addressing regional inequalities and creating the conditions for sustainable growth. We would rebuild business and investor confidence by committing to fiscal responsibility, respect for international treaties and the creation of a stable business environment. We would effectively communicate the objectives and tools of the industrial strategy to industry, and provide clear signals for investment, as well as consistency and confidence for future business decisions.
We would create broad access to training and skills for the purposes of developing apprenticeships. We would set up incentives for research and development, decarbonisation and the take-up of digital technologies, especially among SMEs. We would ensure that the UK’s regulatory, research and development, and tax frameworks are geared towards fostering innovation.
We would set up a plan for investment in key infrastructure to enable the industrial strategy, covering areas including rail, building insulation, the national grid and electric vehicle charging. We would create a thriving manufacturing sector by investing in the skills of the future; promoting zero carbon transport and energy efficiency; harnessing affordable clean energy; and adopting an ambitious international trade policy. We would re-establish the industrial strategy council and put it on a statutory fitting to ensure vital oversight, monitoring and evaluation of the industrial strategy and to explore ways in which to improve interdepartmental work across Government.
One business in Cornwall told us that the national wealth fund’s minimum project size is too high to suit mining exploration—the exploratory stage—which might have a detrimental impact on exploring new opportunities for mineral extraction in places such as Cornwall. If mining exploration does not happen, the much bigger extraction and processing projects cannot come forward. I therefore urge the Minister to look at that issue.
The critical minerals strategy says:
“We will reduce barriers to domestic exploration and extraction of critical minerals”
and
“Carry out cutting-edge research and development to solve the challenges in critical minerals supply chains…We will promote innovation and re-establish the UK as a centre of critical mineral and mining expertise.”
But Cornish mining companies say that they face years of bureaucratic hurdles simply to get the Government to recognise their status as R&D-led companies, which is vital to their application for EIS tax relief. Does the Minister believe that the Government are doing all they can to enable that kind of research and development in the sector?
I am delighted that the Minister will be coming to Cornwall next year; we will certainly give her a very warm welcome when she comes. We look forward to having very constructive and productive talks with her.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this important debate. As he set out, critical minerals are essential for our transition away from fossil fuels while offering economic opportunities in areas where extraction is undertaken, such as Cornwall. I remember many family holidays to Cornwall—coming from Norfolk, we did have to get away sometimes—and enjoying visits to the Poldark tin mine, which I believe is in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).
Clearly, a lot of focus has been on Cornwall, but—as has been mentioned—this is an opportunity across the country. The International Energy Agency has stated that the world in 2040 is expected to need four times as many critical minerals for clean energy technologies as it does today, so as a nation, we need the right materials if we are to make that clean energy transition. We need the lithium, cobalt, and graphite for electric vehicle batteries; the silicon and tin for our electronics; and the rare earth metals for electric cars and wind turbines. While we will always rely on international supply chains, we have to maximise where the UK can produce domestically and make our supply chains more resilient. As has been said, that will also boost our energy and national security.
A strong case for increasing the domestic production of minerals has been made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who referred to the importance of skills. I hope that he would acknowledge the work that his predecessor, Steve Double, did in pushing that agenda in the last Parliament. I admire the passion that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has to go more fast and furious; I wonder if his constituents will share that when they see not the promised £300 cut in energy bills, but the pylons being imposed on communities without proper consultation, particularly in my constituency and across the east of England.
We are moving to a world powered by critical minerals and demand is increasing. Indeed, the UK’s 2022 critical mineral strategy, to which the hon. Member for St Ives referred, stated that global demand for electric vehicle battery minerals is projected to increase by up to 13 times over the next decade or so, exceeding the rate at which new primary and secondary sources are being developed.
The UK has 18 metals and minerals on its critical raw minerals list, and another six are classified as having elevated criticality. China is the biggest producer of 12 of those minerals. Despite the significant deposits of lithium, particularly in Cornwall, and the tin, manganese and tungsten across south-west England, Cumbria, Wales and Scotland, we are almost wholly dependent on imports for our critical minerals, as has been mentioned.
Many of the UK’s vital sectors rely on those minerals, which is why last year we launched a task and finish group on industry resilience, particularly focusing on aerospace, energy, automotive, chemicals and other sectors. While we were in government, we adopted a comprehensive approach to critical minerals, engaging readily with our foreign partners and allies, as well as with industry. That is why we published the first ever critical minerals strategy, which was then refreshed last year to reflect the changing global landscape and the pace of change we need to see.
In partnership with the British Geological Survey, we launched the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre to help to monitor the supply chain risks and assess the importance of different minerals over time, a point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). We also ramped up work through the Critical Imports Council in April, so there is a lot for this Government to build on.
We know that critical minerals supply chains are complex and vulnerable to disruption, and that production is centred and highly concentrated in certain countries. In some cases, single nations are responsible for half of worldwide production, and are often vulnerable to aggressive debt regimes implemented by states with which the UK directly competes. The level of concentration is even higher for processing operations: China’s share of refining is about 35% for nickel, 50% to 70% for lithium and cobalt, and around 90% for rare earth elements.
All those issues present challenges to the UK’s security of supply, so we must accelerate the growth of our domestic capabilities and back UK critical minerals producers to take advantage of opportunities along the whole length of the value chain. Cornish Lithium, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, is enjoying successes in extracting lithium from granite. Weardale Lithium is also exploring the potential for lithium extraction and geothermal energy from water. Green Lithium, which has also been referred to, has plans to build and operate the first UK merchant lithium refinery in Teesside. There are opportunities around the country.
The UK is also well placed to lead on midstream processing, including refining and materials manufacturing, building on the globally competitive chemicals and metals sectors that we enjoy. That is why the previous Government invested in critical minerals programmes and explored regulatory mechanisms to promote battery and waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling. As of April, there were 50 projects at various stages of development to mine, process and recycle critical minerals domestically.
The UK is a pioneer in recovering critical minerals from waste. Companies such as Altilium, which has operations in Plymouth, are working to develop battery recycling capabilities, so that the raw materials can be extracted and can re-enter the supply chain. That will become increasingly important because, by 2040, recycling is expected to account for up to 20% of battery mineral demand for electric vehicles.
Critical minerals will become ever more important as we seek to bolster our energy security and domestic resilience. There is particular demand for their use in electric vehicles. As has been referred to by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, in government, we took the decision to push back some of those targets: we moved the target for ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, bringing us in line with the major car manufacturing countries around the world. Yet this Government have tied themselves in knots about their policy on mandates. Can the Minister provide some clarity on the Government’s policy to address the uncertainty facing supply chains, including those in the critical minerals sector?
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Weardale Lithium, which is in my constituency, as is Northern Lithium. The regulatory framework for companies trying to invest in lithium is not supportive, and they face waits of one or two years for planning approval from the Environment Agency.
I will also say that Nissan in Sunderland is not at all happy: it already had a plan in place to hit the 2030 target for electric vehicles. It is going to stick to its original plan, but it wants a Government that will match its ambition.
James Wild
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman— I hope he will forgive me; I did not realise that Weardale Lithium is in his constituency, otherwise I would have acknowledged that. He is absolutely right about the regulatory issues that we face. Every MP will know of the difficulties that the Environment Agency causes companies due to its slow decision making and the fact that there is often a lack of certainty. Different car manufacturers, even just in this country, have different views. I acknowledge Nissan’s point, but other companies in this country take a different view.
The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, who secured the debate, said that we need to elevate the importance of this issue and give it a much higher profile. I do not disagree, although I would say that we have set out quite a strong foundation for doing that. Given the centrality of the issue, I was surprised that there was only one passing reference to critical minerals in the Government’s industrial strategy, published a month ago, which is supposed to be the Government’s blueprint for growth. Given that passing reference, are critical minerals really a priority issue for the Government? I hope we will get some reassurance from the Minister on that.
Business confidence has plummeted as a result of the Budget. Although there is an abundance of minerals in the ground, especially in areas that need investment and more jobs, does the Minister recognise the damage that has been done to the UK’s attractiveness to investors as a result of the measures in the Budget? Apparently the Minister will announce that the Government are launching a critical minerals strategy next year—wow. Given the importance of the issue, why is there not more urgency from the Government to do that? That strategy joins a long list of other consultations and commitments that will come in that year. Labour Members have had 14 years to get ready, but they do not seem to be.
Industry needs certainty about what the plan is to ensure that our critical minerals supply chains are strong, sustainable and resilient for now and for many years to come. Let us hope that the Minister can offer that security.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and a pleasure to speak in such an important debate. I congratulate Parliament’s official tin champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), on securing this debate. I thank him for the conversations we have already had about tin in particular and critical minerals more broadly; it is a joy to have someone with such enthusiasm, passion and knowledge joining us in Parliament.
My hon. Friend has already done much in his time in Parliament to support critical minerals—tin, in particular —in his area, and he is an active member of the all-party parliamentary group, to which he brings genuine passion. I look forward to visiting his constituency in the spring or the early part of 2025 to talk more about what can be done in his area. His speech summed up the challenges and opportunities very well. He spoke about what more we can do, and how that will impact on economic deprivation and help our country’s security. He pointed to many interventions that he thinks the Government should be looking at, which I will come to later. We are developing a strategy that will cover a lot of the issues.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland and the engagement that the UK Government should be having with colleagues there. He is right that a UK strategy could not be developed without engaging our partners—and I can absolutely give him that reassurance. He talked about mining in Northern Ireland, and about salt. I recommend that he reads a book called “Material World: A Substantial Story of Our Past and Future” by Ed Conway, if he has not already done so; it includes a whole chapter on salt and how important it is for the world, which is fascinating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked sensibly about the south-west and the opportunities that can come from critical minerals. He talked about the Camborne School of Mines, and about what more we can do on skills. I will come to that later.
The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), made a thoughtful speech, a lot of which I agreed with. I think he will be pleased with what we have done. He referenced, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the previous Government’s strategy. That strategy was brought in by Kwasi Kwarteng—remember him?—who a couple of months later became the ill-fated Chancellor of the Exchequer; he probably looks back on that strategy with some wistfulness about what he managed to achieve.
What I would say about the previous Government’s strategy is that it included a lot of, “We would like to do more of this”, “We want to do a little bit more of that”, and “We would like to encourage this”, but it did not set any particular targets, or have any deliverables or accountability. In fact, the Foreign Affairs Committee criticised it for its lack of ambition and progress; I think that speaks for itself.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk made a slightly bizarre speech, in which he referenced the 18 critical minerals. There was an announcement last week, which has been referenced by several Members, that there are no longer 18 but 34 critical minerals. I know it is difficult being in opposition—there is a lot less support than there is in government—but I would expect the shadow Minister to be up to date on these things.
The shadow Minister also raised the electric vehicle mandates. To be clear, the previous Government pushed back the ultimate target from 2030 to 2035, but did not push back any of the stage posts by which car manufacturers had to reach that target. He said that this Government have tied themselves in knots, but the reality is that we have inherited those knots; they are the problems that we are now dealing with. We are having to consult on and look again at some of the issues, because the car manufacturers are crying out for support.
Everybody who has spoken talked about how important critical minerals are for the industries of tomorrow and how much more we will need them in the future. Whether it is in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence or digital technologies, we know that we will need more. Last week, the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre published its latest list of critical minerals, increasing the number from 18 to 34 and adding the likes of nickel, aluminium and titanium to the UK’s criticality list. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth was very pleased that tin is now on the list as well. I thank the British Geological Survey, which runs this process, for the task it undertook, and for its vital work looking at the volume and variety of materials and minerals needed for our economic growth and clean energy ambitions.
Economic growth is the absolute driving force of this Government, which is why we have published our industrial strategy Green Paper and will publish the final industrial strategy in the spring. It will bring stability and a long-term plan, and will break down all barriers to growth, including skills, technology and R&D. It will be the blueprint for growth in our most important sectors. If growth is the vehicle that gets us to a pro-innovation, pro-worker, pro-jobs economy, then critical minerals is the fuel at the heart of that strategy.
I am pleased to confirm that the Department for Business and Trade will publish a critical minerals strategy next year, which will support the industries of tomorrow, explicitly target UK strengths, articulate the impacts on people’s lives, deliver for businesses and create new jobs across the country. The strategy will be ambitious. I want it to set targets. It will cover domestic production, the circular economy, the UK’s future demand, international partnerships, and responsible and transparent supply chains. In partnership with our stakeholders, we will consider the best way to track progress to ensure that we can be held to account for delivering on our promises.
Starting with domestic production, I know that in Cornwall and Devon we have several promising lithium, tungsten and tin mines seeking to restart commercial production, which we have talked about at length. Since coming to power, we have seen progress made across multiple projects, including Imerys British Lithium, Tungsten West and Cornish Metals. Already we have seen interest from overseas, with like-minded allies partnering with UK projects, as represented by Rio Tinto’s strategic partnership with Green Lithium, the low-carbon lithium refinery in Teesside.
One key tool is the national wealth fund, which we announced within days of coming to office. The national wealth fund recognises the importance of a secure supply of critical minerals and has a clear mandate to support them, as evidenced by its £24 million investment in Cornish Lithium.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister; it is enormously helpful to hear her respond to these matters. She will have picked up the question I raised earlier about the national wealth fund and the fact that smaller projects, particularly those at the critical exploration stage, feel that they cannot take advantage of it. Is the Minister prepared to investigate that further?
Sarah Jones
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention. Yes, I have been making a list of issues to look at as we go through the strategy; that is certainly one, and there are several more.
With our new strategy, we want to see more success stories right across the UK, from Cornwall to County Durham and beyond. Indeed, as I have said, the new strategy will represent all four nations of the UK. In Wales, the Royal Mint can now recycle electronic waste to recover critical minerals. In Northern Ireland, Ionic Technologies delivered a successful feasibility study for its rare earth oxides facility in Belfast. In Scotland, we have seen a resurgence in mineral exploration for nickel, lithium, manganese and more.
As has been said, the UK boasts some of the largest lithium reserves in Europe. Industry forecasts reveal that by 2030 the UK may be able to produce 50,000 tonnes of lithium every year for 20 years. To put that into perspective, that would meet over half of the UK’s demand for electric vehicle batteries. Beyond lithium, the UK possesses the world’s largest platinum group metal refinery in the form of Johnson Matthey in Royston, as well as the only western source of rare earth alloys in the form of Less Common Metals in Cheshire. I hope that paints the picture of the growth potential for critical minerals. Unlocking this potential will require policy support as well as private investment, which is why our strategy will seek to attract billions of pounds in international investment.
We all know that we cannot refine or mine our way into meeting the huge quantities of minerals that not only the UK, but the whole world, requires. That is why the strategy will place greater emphasis on making the most out of the minerals that surround us—in other words, recycling critical minerals for industrial batteries and wind turbines. Analysts say that EV battery recycling alone could provide almost half the required battery minerals by 2040. We have set up a critical minerals ministerial group, which is jointly chaired by me and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Our new critical minerals strategy will drive ambitious reform to promote recycling and the retention of critical minerals within the UK economy.
In the meantime, I am delighted that the recycling of battery minerals is now in scope of the automotive transformation fund. It is great to see innovative businesses like Altilium benefiting from that funding by working to bring critical minerals recovery from lithium-ion black mass to the UK. Beyond battery minerals, the UK is building on its world-leading R&D strengths. In September, Innovate UK awarded £3.5 million to nine UK projects, working to increase the security of supply of rare earth elements as part of the climates fund.
Our strategy will be underpinned by data, mapping out UK industry demand for critical minerals. DBT is partnering with the Critical Minerals Association, the Materials Processing Institute and Frazer-Nash Consultancy to evaluate the opportunity for increased recycling and midstream processes to take place on these shores. We will also make use of the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre and its forthcoming foresight studies detailing demand in key technologies.
Even with increased domestic production in the UK, the reality is that we will still need diverse and resilient international supply chains to drive industrial growth, and we have debated this morning the impact of a small number of countries providing the vast majority of our supply. We will deepen our international collaboration through a more targeted approach, working with big trading partners, like-minded mining nations and producer countries. We also intend to work through multilateral initiatives, including the Minerals Security Partnership, to secure the critical minerals needed to realise our growth mission. In that context, I welcome the fact that UK Export Finance has had an expanded mandate since the Budget to finance overseas critical minerals projects that secure supply for the UK’s high-growth export industries. We must be mindful of the importance of responsible mining. Apart from anything else, a responsible supply chain is a much more resilient one, and that must be embedded into everything we do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth and I are both speaking today and tomorrow at Europe’s largest conference on critical minerals, which is taking place right here in London. That is no surprise, because the UK is the global hub for mining finance. The UK’s markets are some of the strongest and deepest globally, and the Government are committed to building on those strong foundations to ensure that they continue to deliver for firms and investors, supporting growth, including through our reforms to the UK listing rules. We will continue to work with our friends and partners in industry to ensure that the city plays a leading role in promoting investment into clean critical minerals projects at home.
I praise my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for his speech. He chairs the all-party parliamentary group and brings a huge wealth of knowledge to this place. In particular, he focused on skills, and on the importance of Skills England and ensuring that all the strategies are joined up. The industrial strategy, Skills England and our critical minerals strategy all need to feed into the same outcome: to secure jobs and growth for our communities and our people.
In conclusion, the Government are serious about the opportunities that critical minerals will bring to our country; they will fuel the next 10 years of innovation, clean growth and economic renewal. I look forward to working closely with industry—which I am already engaging with and talking to—and academia, as we develop our strategy and make our ambitions a reality.
Perran Moon
Thank you again, Mrs Harris, for chairing the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have participated. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) made excellent points about the critical minerals list. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) highlighted the importance of critical minerals for green economic transition. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) unsurprisingly banged the drum for lithium in the clay country, but also importantly highlighted the supply chain insecurity that forms the basis of the debate.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) commented on working with local conservationists. Further to the example he gave, I draw his attention to the Red River in my constituency, where water being removed from South Crofty mine is being cleaned, with the alkaline content altered slightly, and then pumped back into the river to improve the quality of the water and the ecology. I also draw his attention to modern smelting practices, which are completely transformed and do not have the same levels of environmental risk as they did back in their heyday.
It is unrealistic to expect domestic resources to meet all the UK’s demand for critical minerals. I do not seek to suggest that we can. What I advocate, and will continue to work towards, is the maximisation of what we have. We must build industry to improve the security of the supply chain, underpin our energy transition in a responsible and environmentally-friendly way, improve our export position, and provide good, well-paid, long-term jobs for local communities across some of the most deprived areas of the UK. We cannot afford to wait. If we do, the opportunity will pass us by. Supporting this industry today will ensure that it becomes a beacon of success for the UK economy. On the other hand, failure to support the industry now exposes us to a multitude of risks.
Unquestionably, critical minerals are central to the Government’s overall economic ambitions, and I am delighted to support those ambitions in any way I can. I thank the shadow Minister for his exhibition of whataboutery in introducing pylons and the OZEV mandate into the debate. I think this debate is a little bit more important than whataboutery. I simply ask him whether he admits that the UK is over-reliant on and vulnerable to foreign supply. What on earth have the previous Government been doing for the last 14 years?
I thank the Minister for her commitment to critical mineral production, and for the time she has given to allow me and others to explain the opportunities that exist in our communities. I am delighted that a critical mineral steering group has been established, and I conclude by thanking again all Members who have participated in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the domestic production of critical minerals.
Leisure Services: West Lancashire
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I will call Ashley Dalton to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered leisure services in West Lancashire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Today, I will focus in particular on the future of swimming in West Lancashire, and I start by acknowledging the research by Swim England and Swimming Nature on swimming and communities.
Everyone has a relationship with swimming. Some people love swimming—they get to the beach and run for the sea, because they love water and being in it. That is just as natural to them as walking on solid ground. But other people’s relationship with water is far more complicated. For people who are not confident swimmers, like me, or for people who cannot swim at all—like me, sometimes—being in water can be scary and even panic-inducing. Swimming is far more than a hobby or something we watch at the Olympics every four years; it is a life skill.
Park Pool in Ormskirk and the Nye Bevan Swimming Pool in Skelmersdale have both served the communities in West Lancashire for over half a century. Over the decades, Ormskirk and Skelmersdale have boasted more than just swimming pools. The Park Pool and Nye Bevan Swimming Pool have taught thousands of children how to swim. They have been a place for friends to meet, as well as a place to meet new people, and they have also given older people places to remain active in retirement.
However, as the children who first learned to swim in West Lancashire’s pools now reach retirement age themselves, our swimming pools are also ageing. Park Pool and Nye Bevan Swimming Pool have both given so much to our community, but are reaching the end of their usable lifespan. They struggle to cope with modern demands and need major refurbishment or replacement. West Lancashire is not alone in this regard. Nearly two thirds of leisure centres in the UK need urgent investment, and there has been a growing fear that the industry could completely collapse in the coming years. Understanding the importance of our pools, in 2019, West Lancashire borough council announced detailed plans for new health and wellbeing hubs in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is outlining the issue that clearly exists and the critical need to improve swimming facilities. However, she has also talked about the importance of leisure, physical activity, social interaction and wellbeing. All those things are critical for her constituents, and my constituents have the same problems that hers clearly have, so when it comes to the improvement of pools, it is important that health and wellbeing are part of that.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I agree that swimming pools and leisure facilities more broadly are crucial for the mental and physical health and wellbeing of all of our communities.
West Lancashire borough council recognises the importance of our pools, so it has issued plans that include replacing the leisure centres in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk, and relocating facilities while keeping the existing provision open during construction, to prevent any reduction in services for local people. However, since 2019, and the pandemic, the energy crisis and the huge rise in interest rates under the last Government, the project costs have risen by more than 30%, from £36.6 million to £49 million, and it is not just the costs of building new facilities that have increased. The cost of simply keeping the doors open at Nye Bevan Swimming Pool and Park Pool have also increased, not to mention the fact that both facilities continue to age.
All of this means that plans to replace our pools in West Lancashire are now at risk of failure. Although West Lancashire borough council remains committed to delivering new pools for the community, it also has to empty bins, provide housing support, and look after our parks and green spaces. Local government finances have been squeezed to the bone over the past 14 years. Councils were once able to undertake large capital projects, in order to invest in the future of their communities, but the rug has been pulled from under their feet. The council has been left with no choice but to open a public consultation on the future of our pools in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk. That consultation ends tomorrow.
Since 2010, more than 400 swimming pools have closed in Britain, with deprived areas taking more of a hit than affluent ones. The number of pools in local councils with the highest levels of health deprivation fell by 14% over the past 12 years, while those in the least health-deprived areas fell by 6%. Only 45% of children and young people attending school in the country’s most deprived areas can swim 25 metres, compared with 76% in the least deprived areas. Among year 6 children, 25% cannot swim 25 metres unaided, while that figure is almost 50% in low-income families.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Lady that swimming pools are important. Like her, I am not a very confident swimmer, although I would love to be. When I was leader of Wokingham borough council, we opened the Carnival Hub, a multimillion-pound leisure centre that is enjoyed by residents from across the constituency. I agree that leisure services promote better health outcomes and build a sense of community. Does she agree that the Government need to fund local government properly, so that we can keep those centres opening, and that they need to set out the impact of increases in the national minimum wage and employer national insurance contributions on our leisure centres?
Ashley Dalton
I agree that the mechanisms for local authority funding need to be—and are being—addressed by the Government. I am confident that we will see announcements on that in due course.
We all know the value of swimming, especially for children. Learning to swim shapes the relationship we have with water, which stays with us. That relationship can literally mean the difference between life and death, sink or swim. Our children understand the value of that relationship. The school council at Crawford Village Primary school in Skelmersdale wrote to me last month. They are desperate for the pools in West Lancashire to remain open to the public, because they know that access to swimming brings health, as well as social and educational benefits to the community, as the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have mentioned.
The alternative to council-run pools is costly private leisure facilities. The Bannatyne health club in Skelmersdale is the nearest private pool to Nye Bevan. I looked at its website to see how much membership would cost. It states that subscriptions start from “as little as” £42.99 a month. For a family of five, that would be more than £200 a month. The council currently charges £15.99 a month per person to access all its leisure facilities across three sites.
People might not need a monthly subscription, but just want to swim for a day or two a week. Anyone wanting to swim at the Park pool or Nye Bevan can do so for £4.70. At private facilities, such as Bannatyne clubs, an individual swimming session would require a day pass at £25. Many of the people responding to the council’s consultation will be simply unable to afford anything close to that. We know that when leisure facilities become less accessible for the community, those from low-income households literally pay the price.
Those living in affluent areas, classed as middle-income families, have a higher chance of being able to swim than those living in a deprived area. Even if someone cannot swim, they have a better chance of attending a school that can foot the bill for swimming costs, which have risen dramatically in recent years. I know that the Government are committed to opening opportunities to children of all backgrounds. Announcements of investment in our schools—an additional £1 billion for students with special educational needs and disability, and free breakfast clubs—are transformational and will make a huge difference in outcomes for children leaving school.
We also know that education is far more than what we learn in textbooks. It comes from interacting with the world outside the classroom and learning life skills, such as swimming. West Lancashire borough council wants our community to have access to swimming and leisure facilities. It wants our children to form a positive relationship with water. It wants to create a more social community, and it wants a more active community. However, its hands are tied behind its back. It tells me that it needs the Government to bring forward plans for councils to restructure local government finance, so that it can invest in the big capital projects that will support our communities. I appeal to the Government to do that, and to help us to unlock the funding that will give our community access to the facilities it needs.
I know that my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be working with the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve our communities’ access to leisure facilities. I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what plans the Government have to support access to affordable swimming and leisure facilities for those communities that cannot access private centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on securing this important debate. The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does that through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools, sports halls, pitches and community spaces. Those assets can help to create a sense of pride in place and can improve community cohesion, whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons. We know they help to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. They help to combat loneliness, grow the local economy, and provide jobs and purpose.
My hon. Friend knows that, and she has made a powerful and passionate case for leisure facilities in her constituency. By securing the debate, she has illustrated her commitment. She has met with and spoken to her local council, which I understand is facing significant pressures after the past 14 years, about the issue. While local authorities are responsible for decisions on sport and leisure provision in their areas, we recognise the challenges they face. I will ensure that the specific points raised about the financial position of West Lancashire borough council are brought to the attention of my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as they look at the 2025-26 local government finance settlement.
My hon. Friend made some important points about swimming lessons. Swimming is a mandatory part of the primary physical education national curriculum. I will always remember my headteacher at primary school, Mr Kenny, saying that we all have to learn to swim because we live on an island. That stayed with me and I was lucky enough to have swimming lessons. As a former teacher, and as I look around my own constituency in Barnsley, I understand the importance of swimming lessons. The Department for Education works in partnership with Swim England, the Royal Life Saving Society UK and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to support schools to teach children how to swim and to know how to be safe in and around water. I will make sure my hon. Friend’s comments are reflected to that Department.
That said, my Department is responsible for the overall approach to leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually into some of the most deprived areas of the country to help to increase physical activity levels.
Since 2021, more than £5 million of funding has been invested by Sport England in the West Lancashire constituency. The Government recognise that high-quality, inclusive facilities help to ensure everyone has access to sport. We will continue to support grassroots sport, including the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which will bring about £123 million of investment across the UK this year.
Sport and physical activity are central to preventive health, and the biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive, or less active, to move more. Around 28% of people in West Lancashire are inactive. We still want to see that figure come down. Physical activity interventions contribute an immense saving to the NHS by preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. We are committed to working across Government to champion the role of physical activity in preventive health, ensuring it is a key part of the Government’s health mission. For public leisure that means looking at facilities’ potential to support communities on health needs in particular. We are looking at how co-location between sport and health services could help inactive groups. Sport England has taken a place-based investment approach, working with local authorities and active partnerships to encourage system-wide change.
I recently saw that in action in Essex, where local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit services together. They are building strong links between health and leisure sectors, including co-locating services so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. This means that people with, for example, long-term health conditions can access activities not only to improve their physical health, but that are fun and social as well. In some cases they contribute to getting people back into work.
I have seen the impact of leisure facilities in my own Barnsley South constituency. Your Space Hoyland, which I have visited a number of times, provides swimming, football, badminton, netball, basketball and a gym. The centre is not for profit and reinvests the money that it makes back into facilities. It is also home to a fantastic holiday activities and food programme in the summer, putting leisure at the forefront of the community. Sport and physical activity have a way of bringing people together—we all know that. There are multiple examples of similar work around the country.
GoodGym, for example, is adapting to tackle the increase in isolation and loneliness by offering opportunities to combine physical exercise with volunteering and providing ongoing support to individuals. As the Minister with responsibility for tackling loneliness, I am keen to see what more the Government can do in this space. I recently held a roundtable with organisations working on loneliness, and we will work to drive further progress over the coming months. More broadly, my Department will continue to look at ways to support such thinking as we look ahead to future policy around leisure facilities.
We appreciate the huge contribution that public leisure makes to health and wellbeing. We recognise the benefits of getting people active. My Department will continue to work with the sector to look at ways that health, wellbeing and leisure facilities can work more closely together and support people across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has made an important contribution today, championing her area, and I thank her for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Family Farming in Devon
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered family farming in Devon.
It is a great pleasure to have been able to secure a debate under your presidency, Sir Mark. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for attending.
With exquisite timing, the Conservative party has managed to list an Opposition day motion in the main Chamber tomorrow on exactly the same subject as this debate. Although I welcome that, I also welcome the opportunity of having the Minister much more up close and personal than is normally possible in the main Chamber for what I hope will be a relatively civilised debate—we do not always manage that in the main Chamber, perhaps, although one would hope we would. We are here to discuss not the general questions affecting the entire country in connection with farming, but questions most specific to Devon, although they share common themes and subjects.
I forget whether I have yet been able to induce the Minister to visit Devon, but we hope that he will do so in the new year because we are likely to have a Dartmoor forum, which he and I have already spoken about, in connection with an important development for the management of Dartmoor—the Fursdon review and its implementation. I will speak of those in due course.
To set the scene, in 2022 the economic output of farming in Devon was valued at £1.369 billion. More than 20,000 people are employed in farming in Devon on more than 1.2 million acres of farmland. By far the largest proportion of those acres are held and worked by modest-sized family farms of between two and 400 acres. No farming families in Devon continue in farming to grow rich; Devon’s farms are principally grazing livestock and dairy farms. They do it because it is a way of life, and because of the pride that they take in producing some of the finest food and produce on the planet.
Those families also do it because many, even most, of them have farmed in that place and within those communities for generations. The names of their forebears, engraved on the tombstones of their churches and chapels, bear witness to the continuity of which they are the stewards and custodians. It is that value, which is precious to the entire rural fabric of Devonshire, that I will speak of most acutely and strongly to the Minister.
There is a preciousness about farms, many of which have herds that may have been looked after and developed over dozens of years, sometimes even a century. There is all that cultivation and nurture and all those traditions that those farming families represent. Often a farm will support not simply one family, but several; I know of many surrounding my home. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—although I do not farm, I have farmland in Devon, and, depending on the vagaries of the sustainable farming incentive, I may well be a beneficiary of those schemes in a modest way. I tell that to the House and the Minister in candour before I start substantively.
I am familiar with my neighbours, my friends—those who farm near me, around me and throughout the whole of Torridge and Tavistock, which I have the honour to represent. As I have said, those farms sometimes sustain not just one family but several: there may be two or three brothers, with their families. Children on those farms may be hoping in due course to have the opportunity of farming themselves.
These people do not farm to grow rich; they farm for the reasons that I have given. But they also farm because they love that way of life—they have grown used to it, and know that they are following in the footsteps of their forebears. They farm because they are proud of the produce and the animals that they rear.
That is why there is a special value in farming families and family farms in Devon. True it is that the produce is the most important thing, of which they are most proud, but they also contribute to the fabric. The Minister would love to come to the rural shows—the Clovelly show, the Okehampton show, the Holsworthy show and all the shows that take place throughout the summer months in Devon. They are extraordinary events at which people—not just the farmers, but the ancillary trades that depend on them—get together. In a convivial setting they discuss their industry and trade and create the fabric of rural life, which is so precious.
Farm incomes have been falling. That is not a secret—the Minister will be well aware of the fact. From time to time, fortunately, farmgate prices have remained relatively buoyant, but average farm business income for the year 2023-24, to the end of February 2024, was lower for all farm types except specialist pig farms and specialist poultry farms. Almost all the farms in Devon, bar those relatively rare exceptions, saw falling average business income.
On dairy farms, following the two better years, when farmgate prices were relatively buoyant, average farm business income was 68% lower, with a fall in the farmgate price of milk being the primary driver. On lowland grazing livestock farms—beef, sheep—average farm business income fell by nearly a quarter, to £17,300. For grazing livestock farms in less favoured areas, higher fixed costs were only partially offset by an increase in output of £23,500, which was 12% lower.
From those falling incomes must be deducted the living of those who work the land. Those incomes do not take into account the unpaid labour of those who own or tenant those farms. Families who live on them—sometimes several families—must from that £17,300 or £23,500 take their own living. We can see that most people would not regard the figures we are speaking about, falling as they have been in the last year or more, as easy to live on, particularly for more than one person, for multiple families.
These farming families, of course, have to live with not only the hardness of their way of life but the unpredictability of the weather. They also, sadly, live with a different kind of unpredictability and a different kind of weather: the political weather. I would not be exaggerating if I said that these days those farmers in my constituency, and I suspect it is not much different in the rest of the county, probably regard the political weather as even more random and unpredictable than the actual weather itself.
I mean no party political point, because I accept entirely that the weather under successive Governments has always been relatively unpredictable, but recently the weather has achieved a combination that could be described, without too much poetic hyperbole, as a perfect storm. We have had the Budget’s accelerated cuts to the basic farm payment, the delinked payments. It is true that the progressive reduction to the basic payment was introduced in 2021. It is perfectly true that, across all farm types, the average net payment received in the reference year 2023-24 was approximately £18,300—but that was 21% lower than the year 2022-23. Nevertheless, that average of £18,300 still accounted on average for 40% of farm business income.
In the meantime, the environmental land management scheme, which includes the sustainable farming incentive, is not replacing the income lost to farms. Considerable progress was made this year to improve those schemes under the last Government, but, while across all farm types net income from agri-environment activities increased by an average of 14% to £10,600 on average, which is welcome, that is by no means sufficient to replace the 40% of farm business income that the basic farm payment still comprised in the year 2023-24.
As a result of this Budget, family farms will now experience a further 76% cut this year in the delinked or basic payment, with a cap of £7,200. For many families, that will represent a dramatic and unexpected reduction, for which farm businesses have been able to plan, and which will require readjustment and inevitable retrenchment of investment and employment. The payments will, of course —as they were always intended to—reduce progressively over the next three years, but farmers were entitled to believe that they would be reduced proportionately. Instead, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced them by 76% against the reference year, in a manner wholly unexpected to the industry.
Cumulatively, I will describe the additional problems that that has meant. There has been an inability to plan and an inability to adjust one’s cash flow. Halfway through potential investments on their farm, farmers find that the income they expected to have is not the income they will have. That is unhelpful. At the same time, the countryside stewardship higher tier scheme has been postponed, it is said possibly until mid-2025—I would invite the Minister to give us his view on when that scheme will be available.
The new, expanded sustainable farming incentive for 2024 does not appear to be readily available to all farmers, particularly to upland farmers, who have had so far very little access to that scheme. The countryside stewardship higher tier and the SFI 24, with the activities that are now coming onstream—or that will do, because I understand that some of the endorsed activities are still not ready—offered some prospect of mitigating the dramatic losses that the Budget has imposed, but the postponement has been a serious blow. Farmers are marooned in legacy schemes that are being extended in mirror agreements and cannot conceivably make up or mitigate the loss of direct payments that they are suffering because of the unexpected reductions.
The Ministry has also suddenly halted capital grants. The sudden closure of the capital grant applications has been a huge shock. Farmers are being asked to adopt measures to improve the environment, but have been left without access to the very grant schemes that would enable them to do so and help with their cash flow and their productivity. With applications timed specifically to fit in with the farming year and their enterprise activities, and no confirmation that all applications already in the system will progress, further uncertainty is caused to these businesses. Will the Minister comment on that?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
indicated dissent.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I saw him, in his characteristically civil and polite way, gently shake his head. Nothing would more alight the hopes of those I represent than if that gentle shake of the head meant something—meant that we were wrong to say that the capital grants had been ceased and meant that all those writing to me and colleagues, asking what to do now, have been living in an unnecessary nightmare.
I implore the Minister, if that gentle shake of the head meant anything, to let us hear it now. Let us hear him boldly strike out and say, “The capital grants will be resumed. They will not be postponed or delayed to 2025. Some relief is available to those who desperately need it.” Because they—the farming families of whom I speak—will also be affected by the increases in employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, and by the various measures, some quite small, that the Budget took in connection with those who pursue family farming.
In the meantime, like a slow and steady drumbeat gathering force, behind the ever more implausible rhetoric of support, they see and hear the concrete commitments of this Government. They witness the Government in action, not in words. They see how the Prime Minister at COP29 committed himself to a climate change target—a perfectly reasonable thing, some may argue, but the Climate Change Committee has told him that in committing to that target he will need to reduce the consumption of meat and dairy products by 20% over the coming five years.
These are the signs of the political weather, and so are the small measures—the small signs that, beyond the talk, indicate the revealed preferences and priorities of a Government. It is not about what the Prime Minister says when he stands at the podium and speaks to the National Farmers Union; we have already learned that we cannot trust that. What we realise, and what those listening today have begun to realise, is that it is in the small as well as the large measures that the Government are revealing their visceral and real preferences and priorities.
The small things include the reclassification of double-cab pick-up trucks. That might even have been missed in the Budget. Squirrelled away in the small print was a lancet aimed straight at hundreds of farming families in Devon, many of whom have a double-cab pick-up truck. Now, that is no longer deductible: it is not to be treated as a business expense simply because it has a back seat, when for years it has been so treated by the Revenue. The small measures reveal the real preferences and priorities of a Government. It is not the words, the rhetoric or the talk; it is what they do by which they are judged.
Of course, all those measures are outweighed by far by the subject that tomorrow’s debate will no doubt cover: agricultural and business property relief. The Government’s figures on the policy have now been widely discredited. The £1 million cap is not only on agricultural property relief but on business property relief. Both reliefs are used when a farm is passed to the next generation. As agricultural land prices have increased, a 200-acre farm, let alone a 400-acre farm, will almost certainly have a capital value, on the land alone, of more than £2 million. That same land often sustains multiple families—the brothers, the sisters and the cousins, all of whom farm that land—and from that exiguous amount of £17,300, or £23,500 in an upland area, they all have to take their living, provide for their children, pay for their energy and so on.
These farms are not wealthy; they are, as is so often said, asset-rich but income-poor. The Government say that the relief is doubled for a couple. However, bear in mind that a farm will have not just the land but other business assets, equipment and livestock, all of which require the business property relief to be deployed. And the business property relief, combined with the agricultural property relief, is now capped at £1 million.
As I said, the Government say the relief is doubled for a couple. But what about the 46% of farms that are owned by a single owner? If, for example, someone’s spouse has already died, they cannot inherit the allowance from their deceased husband or wife. The 46% of single owners of farms will receive no double relief—only the £1 million.
I say to the Minister that what is particularly wrong about this situation is—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I understand that there is a Division in the House, so the sitting is suspended for 15 minutes. We will add that time on at the end—do not worry.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. As everybody has returned, we can restart a little bit earlier than we had planned. I call Sir Geoffrey Cox.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I was dealing with the impact the changes agricultural property and business property relief will have on farming families, although that will be debated in greater and finer detail tomorrow.
Just this morning I was written to by a farmer in my constituency. She lives in Sheepwash in Torridge in Devon. I hope she will forgive me for mentioning her age, because she is 86. She has a dairy farm, milking 250 cows. As she says herself, the cows may well be worth £400,000, the young stock another £250,000, machinery perhaps £250,000 and the farm buildings—into which investment, toil and effort have been poured by those who have worked that farm for generations—worth perhaps £1 million in themselves.
The farm may have a dairy parlour. It may be automated. It may well be able to milk 250 cows, or these days even more. One can see the cows going round on the carousel—I am sure the Minister has seen them, but I can show him these carousels in my constituency. The cows come in, they get on to the carousel, they go round, they come off the other side and they are milked. Those automated parlours are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. All that would need to be offset against business property relief, which has now been capped not only for the value of those buildings and those business assets, but for the land, which is 400 acres.
To sell 20% of the herd to pay inheritance tax will, as my constituent suggests, not only severely deplete the profitability of a business that already operates on the wafer-thin margins of which we have spoken today, but cripple herds that have sometimes had lavished upon them 100 years of husbandry. They are closed herds, some of them; animals prized for their pedigrees and their quality, and prize-winning at the local shows of which I have already spoken and to which I have drawn the Minister’s attention.
But what she says next is the most compelling: she says, “At my age, I have very little time to plan. Even if I could give the farm away and survive the seven years that were necessary, I can’t, because I still need to retain a modest income from the business because my pension provision itself is modest. Taking out life insurance at the age of 86? Well, that is a non-starter. These changes and the implications for my family greatly worry me.” That is an understatement. Older farmers’ health and wellbeing are seriously at risk as we come to see ourselves as an impediment to successfully passing on the farm to the future generation, preserved for their generation to cultivate, to nurture, and to develop.
It is not so much the cap—although the cap is bad enough—as the complete failure of the Government to assess the impact on the basis of accurate figures. The Treasury figures are now widely discredited and different, as we know, from the Minister’s own Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is a complete failure to work out the impact it will have not only on businesses, but on people; a failure to consult them and to understand how these measures will impact the rural communities I have the precious honour of representing and speaking for this afternoon.
There is no time for those people to plan, and that makes them feel—up and down the length of this country and throughout the towns and villages of Devon—that they may be the impediment to the next generation. The same holds for the dramatic and unexpected cuts in the delinked payments: there was no income assessment, no consultation—it was all sudden. It is those small details, as is so often the case, that reveal the real preferences and priorities of the Government.
I want to talk about bovine tuberculosis. When I was first elected, that disease ran riot throughout the countryside of Devon. West Devon, Torridge, and parts of north Devon were some of the most densely infected areas in the country. For years, we banged our head on the brick wall of policy made by a previous Labour Government to get people to understand that the wildlife reservoir must be controlled. It was one instrument among the many that were unquestionably needed, including biosecurity, the development of vaccination and all those instruments, but we could not arbitrarily exclude the instrument of controlling the wildlife.
In the hills and fields of Devonshire I have watched badgers run between the legs of the cattle. One tiny, infinitesimal measurement of badger urine can create the bovine TB disease in cattle. It is impossible to prevent the infected wildlife reservoir in badgers, and for that matter in deer, from infecting the cattle, and it is widely understood by the veterinary community in Devonshire that wildlife is a vector in the disease. I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition Government, because it took moral and political courage finally in 2010 to agree, alongside the Conservatives, to introduce that single instrument that the Labour Government had declined to introduce for all those years.
I remember bringing the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) down to the village of Clawton on the borders of Cornwall and sitting him alongside 15 or 20 farmers to hear their experiences. Although he was, like this Minister, civil, urbane, courteous, mild, kind and polite as ever, he was implacable in his refusal to adopt the rational proposal being made to him by those farmers that targeted control of wildlife was necessary, and that in the end all wildlife must be controlled.
In Torridge and Tavistock that control has led to a 55% reduction in herd breakdowns. The chief vet says that it has been a causative factor in the downward trajectory of the disease. I applaud the Minister for announcing the refreshment of the bovine eradication strategy, and for announcing that there will be no immediate cessation of that important instrument. It is an instrument that must be used judiciously, and only as part of a wider group of instruments designed to bear down on the disease, but it cannot be excluded.
In the first five years of my election to this place I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that wrote the report that set the scene for the policy that the coalition Government introduced. My worry is that the refresh will prejudge the outcome. It has been already announced that the instrument will cease to be used at the end of this Parliament. That sounds like prejudging; it does not sound like evidence-led political decision making. It sounds like an ideological decision, not an evidenced one, when even the chief vet accepts that the instrument has been a contributory factor in the downward trajectory of the disease.
In my constituency, and I suspect in those of others in the Chamber, the instrument has unquestionably led to a dramatic fall in the incidence of the disease—a 55% reduction. I recall vividly that I could walk from one end of my constituency to the other on infected farms under restrictions. It is now quite impossible to do that, which is significant progress. There is a human impact of bovine TB. We do not need pyres 200 feet tall—as there were in Devon with foot and mouth disease—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Member that there are others who may wish to speak and, unless he winds up his remarks fairly soon, they are not going to have much time.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I will indeed, Sir Mark. We do not need pyres 200 feet tall to see the invisible toll of carnage that cattle slaughter after bovine TB entails. I urge the Minister to remain open minded.
Finally, I come to the Fursdon review. I know the Minister understands that none of my remarks are intended to be personal—on the contrary; he is a reasonable interlocutor with whom it is always a pleasure to deal, and who has always consulted on matters of constituency and other regional importance. The Fursdon review is one such matter. I urge him to implement its recommendations in full. The review was superbly conducted and has been an extraordinarily valuable exercise in how light can be brought to difficult situations.
I applaud the appointment of the chairman of the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group and thank the Minister for that—that is good. I invite him to come to Tavistock for the next Dartmoor forum, where we have several hundred attending: the NFU, Devon Wildlife Trust and all the environmental groups will come. It is an important moment when the actors, the players and those involved on Dartmoor can see how this Government are as engaged as the last Government were in finding solutions to the uplands problem on the moor.
I conclude with this plea: if it was not an intentional weather creation, leading farmers up and down the country and throughout Devon to believe that this Government have no interest, no regard and no care and are in fact callous and indifferent to their welfare and fate, it is up to the Minister today and henceforth to change that weather by sending the correct signals. I have to say he will have a hard job and an uphill battle to persuade them after the inheritance tax relief and the other measures of which I have spoken, but if anybody in this Government can do it, it is the Minister. I hope he will, and I wish him success in doing so.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I indicate that, because of the limitations of this debate, each Back Bencher should aim to speak for around five minutes, if possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Mark. I first of all thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for introducing the debate.
I am conscious of the key issues that affect farmers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, one of which is food security. I will refer to inheritance tax on family farms, but first I want to say that food security is important, because we need to be able to feed our people. For that, we need to have farms that are viable and farmers who are working.
The similarities between Devon and Strangford—indeed, across this great United Kingdom—are real. Farming is the same, no matter the number of acres. Farms in Devon are bigger than the farms back home, but none the less, the issues are the same. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock referred to the fact that, for those people who understand farming and who have lived farming all their life, such as my farmers and neighbours, farming the land is more than just farming the land; it is their very lifeblood.
I declare an interest: I am a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which is a sister organisation of the NFU, and I am the holder of a family farm. I highlight the fact that my holdings are among the very few that will fall, slightly, under the threshold—for this generation at least—and I speak wholly on behalf of those who have contacted me from across this great United Kingdom to speak about this “discounted” inheritance tax. Falling revenues and profits are ploughed back into farms. Farms are very clearly asset rich but pound poor, and the inheritance tax changes will impact farmers.
I know the Minister; he is a decent man, and I mean that genuinely. There is not one of us in this room who does not see him as a friend, but the fact is that these proposals are alien and they will affect farms across this great United Kingdom. Many farmers tell me that the best option in response to this 20% tax is to sell their land—that would lessen production, which we need to feed this great nation—and that, even with future planning, their farm would have less land with which to attempt to make enough money to ensure that there is cash available for their sons to take over the farm. The vicious circle starts again. The changes to national insurance contributions impacts all businesses, whether they are farmers or other small businesses.
I was talking to two food-producing farmers back home the week before last. The point they made was clear: the changes to national insurance contributions will impact each farm and each business, and prices will go up. Who ultimately falls for the national insurance contributions? The ordinary man in the street. It affects everyone, not just the farmers themselves. The farmers told me that we will see a 15% to 20% increase in food prices—that is an indication of just how important this is.
Another farmer told me that his farm consisted of two holdings, which two brothers manage. These men are still farming in their 70s. We should think of the impact on them. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock referred to that. Whether it is a single person or a duo working on the farm, they will have to pay the cost. The sons of both men have said that there is no point continuing with the farm because, even though they have a job outside, the impact on them will be great. The fact is that small farm holdings, whether in Devon, Strangford or anywhere else in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will be impacted greatly by what the Government are introducing. In Northern Ireland, we obviously have other important issues, but they are not for this debate—I will save them until tomorrow.
I have a meeting next Monday with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ulster Farmers Union to discuss the very issues before us. We will discuss in detail the impact on Northern Ireland, where 70% of farmers will be clearly impacted by the inheritance tax. When they sell off assets they sell premises or a family farm, and in a short space of time the result will be that every child in this country will depend on imports for food security. This cannot be. I stand with hon. Members here in begging for a rethink. We are not selling family silver—we are selling plots of potatoes, and without a harvest, we will all bear the brunt.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which my neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) introduced . Some farms that were once in his constituency are now in mine, so he may well recognise some of the stories that I will tell. He has done me a favour—I am making a speech tomorrow as well, so I will focus on a couple of key issues today. I will take the opportunity to speak directly about Devon while the Minister is in the Chamber, because tomorrow there will be a lot of voices in the farming debate.
My constituency of South West Devon has three types of rural landscape. We have land-based lowlands, coastal lowlands, and uplands, which are less favoured and include protected landscapes up on Dartmoor. Each presents its own challenges and opportunities, and requires special ways of farming, which is one of the values of family farming: a legacy is passed down from generation to generation, so that each one can share the stories, and keep those farms going. What I find most exciting about the constituency is that each of those farms now has farmers who are my generation, in their 40s or 50s, and whose parents are still alive in their 80s, so we have those long-term family farms, which are eager to keep doing their bit to keep Devon looking like Devon. It is worth saying that without our farmers, Devon would stop looking like Devon, because we need that rural landscape to complement the cities we have as well.
All those different farms are all family farms, and have overlapping challenges. It is worth briefly touching on those shared challenges. Our farms are generally smaller than they are in the rest of the south-west, let alone the rest of the country. The average farm in Devon is 16% smaller than south-west farms, which in turn are 34% smaller than farms across the country. That means that there are tighter profit margins. When we shout about agricultural property relief and capital grants programmes, it is because those farms are already tightly run. We are not the wealthy south-east; we are the south-west, and in particular, we are Devon. Farms are also more likely to be owned than tenanted, which is unusual compared with the rest of the country.
Turning to agricultural property relief, I want to briefly mention that for many ageing parents, whose children are often already involved in the farm if they have not taken over already, it has been a given that those farms would be passed down. There is a generation of people nearing middle age who expected to farm into the long term, but who are now rightly worried about what that will look like, both for them and for their children.
I want to talk specifically about the uplands that are now part of my constituency, but which once formed part of the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock. I have spent a lot of time at Greenwell farm, where a fantastic farmer, Matt Cole, is passionate about upland farming and farming on Dartmoor, and recognises what an opportunity he has. He has some key questions about land that is designated as moorland permanent grassland pasture, which currently falls through the funding gap. While it is better for the environment and for the soil not to disturb it, farmers often only get more funding if they do something to that land. However, Dartmoor, as has been referenced in the Fursdon review, is different. Matt is keen to see if a role can be found for heritage grassland, and whether we could look at a classification for that.
The environmental land management moorland SFI offer is a real challenge on livestock numbers. Under higher-level stewardship, farmers could have 0.3 livestock units per hectare; under SFI 21, that drops to 0.16 per hectare. To decrease livestock numbers unlocks those SFI options, but stocking rates do not represent the land stock on Dartmoor if we lower them, and it does not enable us to do what we need to do to protect that landscape. Where has DEFRA got to on moorland stocking rates? Dartmoor farmers are calling for flexibility on those stocking rates to reflect the findings of the Dartmoor review.
To conclude, I will make just a couple more points. The key issue for upland farms arises from the fact that DEFRA has promised a working group on uplands, specifically to look at this issue in future. What progress has been made on establishing that working group?
Finally, particularly regarding the coastal and lowland parts of my constituency, lots of other organisations feed into what farms are doing with DEFRA. Those organisations, including the Westcountry Rivers Trust and South Devon National Landscape, all receive money from DEFRA through other funding pots, which are all under threat. I believe that the plea of the farmers I have met in recent weeks is about the need for joined-up thinking. When we reduce one pot, for South Devon National Landscape, for example, that has an impact on farmers who might be struggling with their SFI funding.
Farmers are keen to ensure that they can produce, protect the environment, feed the nation, create and sustain good jobs, and generate economic growth, but they cannot do any of that unless they are allowed to get on with the job that they are keen to do.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark.
I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) who, I feel, could probably have spoken on this subject for another half an hour, with plenty more to add. He is a landowner himself, so we note his experience.
I will highlight the plight of people in mid and east Devon whom I represent and who are feeling a great deal of uncertainty about the future. I will do so by giving a couple of examples. The first example is of a family farm near Cullompton. I will read directly from the letter that family sent me, because their words are quite touching:
“We have been farming within a 5-mile radius of here for over 400 years. Unfortunately the family had to sell the farm…in the 1860s at the start of the Great Agricultural Depression. It has taken us 150 years to regain ownership of a farm and now the inheritance tax issue threatens us with the risk of losing it again.”
That illustrates that we are not talking here about some short-term business enterprise that starts up and fades, as if it were some sort of digital business. This is a farm that has provided a livelihood for generations of people. It is not about capital or assets; it is about the hard graft of the people who do it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock referred to the legacy of the previous Government and that legacy is worth examining. The cuts to the basic payment were one aspect of that. Another aspect was the Australia and New Zealand trade deal, which the Government’s own figures found had cost British farming £94 million. The proposed change to inheritance tax is but one more thing on top of all the other things that have given farmers a really torrid time in recent years.
I appeal to the Minister when he responds to the debate to take a look at this. We are talking about a Treasury benefit of perhaps £500 million in a Budget of £40 billion of new taxes. The sum involved is a small sum for the Treasury in Whitehall, but it will have an enormous impact in the countryside.
I will give another example: the Derryman family, including Peter, his brother, and now his son. In many ways, they are emblematic of the sort of people from mid and east Devon whom I represent. They represent thousands of farming families who work really hard, grafting day and night, contributing to the local society and local economy in Stockland. However, they are very concerned. They only own 120 acres, so people might suppose that they would not be subject to a tax that is proposed on only the first £1 million of combined farm and business assets. However, when we look at the value of the farmhouse, the machinery, the land and livestock, it all adds up to a potential inheritance tax liability.
The Government claim that 73% of farms will not be affected, yet the NFU claims that seven in 10 farms will be; those figures cannot both be right. On 19 November, I was lobbied by people I represent, who asked me to say to the Minister that we should seek to discriminate between the genuine farmers and the hobby farmers. We know that there has been a tendency to use land as an inheritance tax dodge, but the genuine farmers who spent the day in London—it is very unusual for them to put down their tools and come here—said that there has to be a way to discriminate between those who have bought a few cows as a tax dodge and those who earn their living from the land.
The reality is that these people are working unsociable hours, they are physically exhausted, and some have been plagued by mental health issues. Constituents have told me that this tax is cruel, because there are only 17 months until it is introduced in 2026; people are reflecting on what they might have to do to dodge or avoid that tax before it is introduced.
We are not allowed to use props in this debate, but I have a photo that was given to me by Peter Derryman. It is of his young granddaughter with a prized lamb at a show in Devon. I would say to the Minister: whatever the technicalities, this is a matter of the heart.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for securing this important debate. I grew up on a family farm in Devon, very near where he lives, and as a vet I have attended and been on duty for many of the agricultural shows he mentioned. If he has not yet been to the Chagford sheep-shearing competition, I definitely recommend it, and I extend an invitation to him to the fantastic Alresford agricultural show near Winchester, which has been going on there for over 120 years.
All of today’s speeches touch on the fact that farming is not merely a business; rather, the rural community is based on family farms. Those farms are not just farming and producing food; they also provide the governors for the local schools and do charity work. We need to keep family farms farming to ensure that the entire fabric of our rural communities survives and thrives into the next century.
Farming is a tough life. It is one of those professions: farmers can work all hours, in all weathers, and then—due to reasons completely out of their control—realise that they are either going to make money or lose a huge amount of money. Losses can be due to weather conditions, such as droughts and floods; disease outbreaks, like foot and mouth, bluetongue or avian influenza; or political events, as other Members have touched on, including trade deals. Farmers can do everything right in one year but, because of reasons completely out of their control, realise that they will struggle to make a profit and could make a significant loss.
The subject of mental health issues in rural communities has been well recognised, and was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Farmers who are dealing with uncertainty do struggle, and there is a high suicide rate among them. We have to remember that farms are not just businesses, but individuals and families who are directly affected by decisions made in this House.
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) touched on how beautiful the Devon countryside is. The Lake district, the Yorkshire dales, the shires in Devon, and the beautiful countryside in Hampshire around the Meon valley only look the way they do because they have been farmed for generations. Those are curated landscapes, created and cared for by generations of custodians. Although farmers might not make a direct profit from tourism, the only reason we have a booming tourism industry is because we have such landscapes. Their contribution should be recognised for the huge amount of GDP generated by foreign visitors coming to look at our green and pleasant land.
Earlier today, I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on food security, which included a discussion on illegal meat imports coming in through Dover. We heard about how the Dover Port Health Authority, Border Force and DEFRA struggle for resources. When they do spot checks on lorries bringing in products, they regularly pick up tonnes of illegally imported meat. That is a public health concern, because we do not know the origin of the meat or the standard it was produced to, and it is often not refrigerated.
Many of the lorries come from eastern Europe, where there are notifiable diseases of livestock, such as foot and mouth and peste des petits ruminants, that we do not see in the UK. That is a huge risk to agricultural livestock production and farming in the UK. I ask the Minister: how can we better resource our border and biosecurity? I am fully aware that that would cost a huge amount in money and resources, but it is much more cost-effective to prevent foot and mouth or similar diseases than to deal with an outbreak. That is a hugely concerning situation to be in.
Farmers and vets are hugely proud that we have the highest animal welfare and environmental standards in farming in the world. They were hugely disappointed when the previous Government—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. The time is up. I remind the hon. Member, who is new, that if he is not here at the start in future, he will not be called to speak. We now move to contributions from the Front Bench.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for securing this important debate, and for his lyrical introduction to the subject. It is clear from all hon. Members who have contributed that much is at stake for our rural economy.
In Devon, family farms are an essential part of our community and the economy, as they are elsewhere—I refer to the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who talked of their areas. In Devon, farms cover 1.2 million acres of land and employ more than 20,000 people. Agriculture is the backbone of our local economy. From grazing livestock to growing crops, Devon’s farmers produce not just food but the character of our rural landscape.
The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock spoke of the preciousness of our farms and the decades of heritage, of which we are rightly proud. However, the Government’s changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief are concerning. The Government claim that 73% of farms will be unaffected by the changes, but as the NFU has pointed out, those figures are based on historical claims and fail to account for the current state of the agricultural sector. For example, 66% of farms in England have a net value of more than £1 million, and 42% of farms are larger than 50 acres, so many will now be above the £1 million threshold.
The burden that that will place on farmers cannot be overstated, especially given the other financial pressures that they have faced over the past few years. They are struggling with skyrocketing costs, since energy and feed prices have risen due to the invasion of Ukraine. Many are still reeling from the Conservatives’ botched trade deals, which have placed further stress on the farming community. The recent increase in national insurance contributions and the impending carbon tax on fertiliser further compounds the challenges. I will read some quotations from local farmers who we surveyed, 86% of whom say they will be hit by the tax, while 50% of those farms are not owned by a couple, so they already lose out on a chunk of the potential tax relief:
“We are now in process of winding down all investment and food production on this farm in response to the budget. Producing food is difficult and carries lots of financial risk—we will keep farming but at a much lower level and look to pass the farm on early as lifetime transfer. Doesn’t sound like ‘growth’ to me…Our farming income for the last 2 financial years has been a loss (mainly due to weather). It feels so hard. This policy just knocks the confidence out…The policy as it currently stands will halve food production in a generation…If this rule stays what is the point of investing in your farm to improve efficiency. All our input costs are going to increase through labour costs and taxes…Through previous governments, we’ve been encouraged to diversify in order to augment our farm income and stay afloat. Now we feel we’ll be penalised for this as we have added value to our farm which will now be liable for Inheritance tax…I feel completely let down and saddened. This will completely destroy the rural community.”
Farmers will be forced to sell land—the very tool by which they produce food and earn a living—that has been in their families for generations—[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head, but every single farmer I have spoken to says that that is the case. The idea that neighbouring or tenant farmers will just buy up the land is a fantasy. Most will not be able to afford it, and land may well end up being bought by non-farming companies with no interest in food production and used instead for carbon offsetting or potential development.
One family now face the prospect of having to sell at least a quarter of their assets, including tractors, sheep and land, just to pay the tax. They tell me that, rather than investing and growing their business, they are now having to wind down their farm with a view to reducing their future tax liabilities. That is a deeply worrying trend, as it could lead to a broad contraction of the sector, harming not just farmers but the entire agricultural industry. The Liberal Democrat position is clear: the tax will disproportionately harm the farming community, and we call for the Government to rethink it.
But it is not just farmers. The impact on rural businesses that rely on the farming economy, such as vets, agricultural merchants and machinery suppliers, will be severe. Local suppliers of agricultural machinery and heavy equipment already face a significant increase in costs due to national insurance changes. Those businesses are vital to the farming economy. Again, a contraction of the sector will have a ripple effect throughout the entire rural economy.
It is crucial to note that the DEFRA budget for day-to-day spending is set to drop by 1.9% over the next two years, and the pause on capital grants is yet another worry, particularly for farmers who are doing their best to comply with environmental measures such as safe slurry storage. If the grants are not available to do that work, that makes sustainable farming even harder to achieve.
The sustainable farming incentive, which should provide support to farmers, has proven unworkable for many, and the transition from basic payments to ELMs has been complicated and unnecessarily slow—an indication of the lack of foresight and planning by the previous Government to prepare for a potential withdrawal from the EU. Even though I am no fan of Brexit, what could have given a real boost to both British agriculture and the environment has instead been a bureaucratic mess and a clear sign of how rural communities are so often the lowest priority for Government.
Talking of environmental payments, I want to take a quick moment to underline how important it is for the Government to make the schemes work. Unless we restore the health of our soils and the biodiversity that has been decimated across the UK, our farmers will find it harder and harder to produce quality food. If we are to mitigate flooding, increase water quality and combat carbon emissions, we simply must do this work. As the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) have mentioned, that is really important on Dartmoor, a small part of which also falls in my constituency. This will mean a complex conversation about farming, stocking levels and sites of special scientific interest. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try to find solutions.
Environmental payments are fundamental to the future of good food production. Lower inputs are good for everyone—for nature and the farmer’s back pocket. It is not an either/or—farming or the environment. We simply have to make this work.
Finally, I share something deeply troubling, which I heard from farmers in my constituency when they came to Westminster last week. Some talked about the need to hide shotguns in order to prevent older owners of the family farm from taking their own lives before the inheritance tax changes come into force. They now feel that they are worth more dead than alive because of the burden those taxes would place on their families. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth also touched on that topic. We know that poor mental health is already rife in the farming community, and the sudden tax change has placed an added pressure, which could prove fatal. No farmer should ever feel that their legacy and livelihood are so threatened that it would drive them to such despair.
In response to those challenges, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a £1 billion increase in the farming budget, and for the Government to reverse their decision on agricultural property relief. We understand the importance of ensuring that family farms can continue to operate and thrive. Family farms are not only vital for our food security and the preservation of our rural environment, but central to the history and heritage of our country. The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for the future of family farming, to ensure that our rural communities thrive, and to ensure that farmers’ voices are heard loud and clear in Westminster.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) on securing this important debate.
Devon is one of the farming heartlands of England. The rolling fields, so familiar to tourists and locals, are dutifully managed by Devon’s family farmers, over generations upon generations, producing the highest quality of produce. The county is renowned for the diversity of its farming, with a strong mix of dairy, beef and sheep, with some arable, accompanied by many a farm diversification.
Despite that, across the whole of the south-west, the average farm income is approximately £30,000 lower than the national average. It is vital, therefore, that the Government support those farms and family farmers to continue to deliver high-quality food produce, and to maintain our countryside for the future.
A subject on which the Government and I can find common ground is the money released via the Budget to improve the biosecurity facilities in Weybridge, which will help combat the challenges posed by bluetongue and other diseases. It is vital for farmers in Devon and across the country that we tackle any diseases and their threats early, not only to protect livestock, but to prevent costs spiralling out of control as a result of a fully-fledged outbreak.
Unfortunately, that is where the common ground ends. Since the Budget, the Government have chosen to levy a series of shattering changes on farmers, creating uncertainty. There has also been a failure to raise the overall farming budget, amounting to a real-terms cut in funding.
The rapid and unexpected delinking of payments from the basic payment scheme will see huge drops in the money received by farming businesses as soon as next year. For many farms, that change in their financial forecasting will be devastating, with long-term plans scuppered as Government support is pulled out from underneath them.
Likewise, we are still waiting for the Government to outline their transition process from legacy higher level stewardship—HLS—schemes. Although those schemes have been extended by a year, many farmers are still unable to look beyond that term as they do not know what the Government will expect of them as they move towards the sustainable farming incentive. Indeed, many farmers I have spoken to are deeply frustrated that the equivalent SFI options to HLS options have higher payment rates, yet the Labour Government have made a choice not to allow those locked into HLS agreements the ability to easily transfer into the equivalent SFI.
Just last week, we heard of the sudden closure of capital grant schemes, causing deep frustration and confusion to many applicants. Let us not forget that capital grant funds for farmers aimed to deliver environmental outcomes, not just improve business efficiency. However, that funding has been slashed. Farmers and growers are being asked to adapt, and to adopt measures to improve the environment, but they have been left in the lurch by the Labour Government, without having access to important grant schemes that would enable them to do just that.
Only a month ago, we were shocked to hear plans to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments. Yet, just last week, we heard the decision by the Government to remove capital grants. How on earth is a farming business able to forecast its plans with certainty? There are also the increased direct costs expected, such as the carbon tax on fertiliser, which is estimated to increase the cost of fertiliser by £50 a tonne and will undoubtedly have a direct impact on the cost of food and consequentially inflate food prices. Then, in the Budget, we heard of the increase in employers’ national insurance, coupled with the reduction in the associated threshold, an increase in the minimum wage, the double cab pickup tax—I could go on.
Of course, the biggest impact on our Devonshire farmers and on farmers across the country will be Labour’s family farm tax. The average size of a farm in the south-west is around 200 acres. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly outlined the points raised by his constituent who is a dairy farmer. If we take the size of a dairy business coupled with the value associated with the farmland—400 acres was mentioned—the cost and value of the dairy cows, machinery and feedstocks, not to mention the value of the farmhouse and farm buildings, and perhaps any farm diversification project that has been taken into account, we will almost certainly be over and above the cap of £1 million that this Labour Government have chosen to put in place. That applies to both agricultural property relief and business property relief.
As I alluded to, farms in the south-west are even more cash-strapped than the national average. For the many farmers across Devon, the only option under this Labour Government’s implementation of their family farm tax will be to sell assets. But what assets do they sell? Put simply, the combined assault from all measures within the Budget will be fatal for many farms right across the country. That is why the Conservatives want to see this tax reversed. We have forced a vote on that very issue on the Floor of the House tomorrow.
Unsurprisingly, not one Labour MP has contributed to this debate. I only hope that Labour MPs, and indeed this Labour Government, are listening to our British farmers and their constituents, who have raised these concerns time and time again since the Budget. That is why we pledged earlier this year to uprate and broaden the offering of SFI options. But we have heard from many farmers throughout the country that they are unable to get into those new options at the speed at which the previous Conservative Administration—and, it seems, the new Labour Administration—have been giving them out. I can only conclude that the Rural Payments Agency is acting slowly to create an underspend next year for the spending review, to see a slash in the farming budget next year. I hope that is not the case; maybe the Minister will be able to allude to the Government’s intentions.
I know for a fact that many of Devon’s stalwart farmers were alongside not only myself but my colleagues, in Whitehall just a couple of weeks ago, to protest against this Government’s shameful offering to farmers. I just hope that the Government were listening to their fury and their distress, and that they have listened to the comments that by Members from all Opposition parties in this debate, because it matters. The implications for health and wellbeing matter, and the mental health strain that has been put on our farming community matters. So I say to the Minister: listen carefully to what is being said to you; listen to the professional advisers out there. I only hope that you will change course imminently.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is always a pleasure to serve when you are in the Chair, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for bringing this debate in his characteristically forceful way. He seduces; he charms; he flatters. I particularly enjoyed his account of the centuries it has taken to produce the wonderful farms we see in Devon—centuries, of course, that preceded the current agricultural property relief regulations. I also enjoyed his account of the weather that the previous Government created, which left the farming sector in such a parlous state for the new Government to inherit. But he also encouraged me to visit Devon, and I can tell him that, actually, within my first 10 days of being appointed as Minister I had made my way to Devon, as I had done in opposition on a number of occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
However, I also frequently heard from local people that they were concerned about others coming to buy up land over the top of local people. I suspect that we can share our concerns on some of these issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referenced the excellent debate that he secured in this Chamber last year on the future of Dartmoor, which I will come on to.
Many important points have been raised, and I have listened carefully to all the thoughtful contributions. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I will go away and look carefully at her points about the moorland stocking rates, which I know my officials are looking at closely, and how they affect Greenwell farm. I always listen closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) also made important points. I was struck by the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), particularly around border controls. I remind him that one of the first things we did was to strengthen those controls, so I very much agree with him about threats at the borders.
We absolutely recognise that the farming sector is vital. Family farms are crucial: they produce our food, steward the environment and look after nature. We are all indebted to farmers across this country for doing that, and we all recognise the stresses and strains, the mental health challenges, which the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, and the pressures from the weather and from disease in the last few years. That is why this Government are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years—the largest amount ever directed towards sustainable food production, rural economic growth and the recovery of nature in our country’s history. That should send a powerful message to farmers about the value we place on all that they do. Within that, we have committed £1.8 billion for environmental land management schemes, delivering improvements to food security and biodiversity, tackling carbon emissions and improving water quality, air quality and flood resilience.
I will address the point about basic payments made at the beginning by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock. He is right: we are accelerating the end of the era of payouts to landowners simply for owning land, and the fastest reductions in subsidies will be for those who have historically received the largest payments. For example, it is true that the 4% who received more than £100,000 in subsidies in 2020 will receive no more than £8,000 in 2025, whereas the majority of farmers who receive less than £10,000 to start with will see a gradual reduction in their delinked payments, but they will all have access to ongoing funding through SFI and other schemes. That is the key point. We are speeding up that vital transition, which I fully recognise the previous Government set about initially, to get to a better place in terms of the environment.
The issue of capital grants is interesting, because I must tell the Opposition that there is no magic money tree. The reason why the capital grants have stopped is that they are oversubscribed. We have seen an unprecedented demand this autumn. The Rural Payments Agency received more applications for capital grants from May to November 2024 than over the whole of the 2023-24 financial year. They are also worth more—as of November ’24, the standalone capital grant applications were up by 45% compared with the whole of the last financial year. This is a basic problem that we inherited: there is no management of public funds. That is the core problem that the whole of Government faces with our inheritance from the Conservatives, and we will deal with those points.
I turn to the Dartmoor issues, which the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly raised. On 29 October, we appointed Phil Stocker to chair the new Dartmoor Land Use Management Group, which was one of the central recommendations of the Fursdon review. We are moving forward with David Fursdon’s recommendations to create a long-term plan for land use that preserves the cultural heritage of the area, recovers nature and boosts food production. The group will provide a space for stakeholders to discuss important issues and work to strike the right balance between food security and preserving the diversity and abundance of nature in the area. Mr Stocker will be responsible for steering the group to meet its aims and objectives, and one of his first tasks will be to identify and appoint members who bring the necessary knowledge, expertise and engagement to the group. That process is under way, and we expect the first meeting to take place shortly. I absolutely hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s invitation, and at an appropriate point I will, I hope, visit and constructively support the work being done.
I also understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman met officials from Natural England in October for an update on progress implementing the Fursdon review. We have been in discussions since I took up the role, and we wish the whole process well.
I will turn to the agricultural property relief issue—a well-rehearsed debate that will continue in the main Chamber tomorrow. I will repeat the points that I have made before. We are confident that the changes are proportionate and that smaller farms will be protected. Those above the threshold will have 10 years to pay the tax, with zero interest incurred. No one is doubting that it was a difficult decision, but the truth is that the economic situation that the Government inherited has required us to make tough choices. I reassure Members that based on the figures we have, which are the only ones we can go on—actual claims on estates—we reiterate our point: we feel that the vast majority of people will be not be affected.
Robbie Moore
On that point, will the Minister confirm whether, when the Government brought in the £1 million cap, they took into account the size of farming units in any analysis on its impact on future IHT claimants?
Daniel Zeichner
That will be debated further. On our side, the debate will be led by Treasury Ministers who are in a better position to answer those kinds of questions. However, the complexity and the different range of set-ups and structures that family businesses have makes it difficult to make that assessment. The hon. Gentleman will know that when it comes to legislation, there will be a full assessment and we can look into those details then. I stand by the figures that the Treasury has given us. We expect that the changes will affect only around 500 claims for agricultural property relief in 2026-27, so we believe it is a fair and balanced approach.
Caroline Voaden
I would like to ask the Minister whether the Treasury consulted DEFRA on the tax change before deciding to go ahead with it in the Budget.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady will know that we are one Government and we stand together. Going forward, we are picking up the mess that we inherited, and that is the problem we face. On each of these issues in turn, we have to answer the basic question: who will fix the economic mess? The answer is this Government.
Robbie Moore
Only because I will not have the opportunity to raise this point at the Dispatch Box tomorrow if a Treasury Minister is responding. Will the Minister correct me if I am wrong? When the Government introduced the £1 million cap, they did not look at the size of family farms that will be impacted. Surely they do not understand the value of an estate on death if they have not looked at the size of it, therefore how can they understand correctly the number of claimants who will be impacted?
Daniel Zeichner
We can, because we simply look at the number of claims that have been made in the last few years. That is how we arrive at that conclusion.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
The figures that the Treasury published simply deal with the use of agricultural property relief. What they do not show is how many farms had already used their business property relief before needing to rely on agricultural property relief. They do not take into account the fact that it is not just APR, but BPR, being capped.
Daniel Zeichner
I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the letter that the Chancellor sent to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, which goes into the issue in some detail. It says:
“Currently, of the population of affected estates that claim both APR and BPR, almost a quarter of claims include a claim for”
shares on the alternative investment market. That begins to show the complexity and that the situation is not always as it seems.
I will move on to the double-cab pick-up tax. As I suspect the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that was based on a legal judgment by the courts. We respect that judgment, as I am sure he would wish us to. We are also saying, generously, that it will not affect the capital allowances treatment of anyone who already owns a double-cab pick-up. Anyone already leasing a double-cab pick-up from their employer as a benefit in kind will have until April 2029, or their lease expires, before these changes affect them.
I am conscious of the time, so I will just touch on bovine tuberculosis—a hugely important issue that of course has caused huge cost and huge suffering for many farmers. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged, the Government have started work on a new bovine TB eradication strategy. The key part of that is pushing much more swiftly on developing a cattle vaccine, which I genuinely think will be the ultimate answer to this very difficult problem, and it very much builds on the evidence and conclusions of Sir Charles Godfray’s 2018 independent review. Alongside that, we will do the first badger population survey in more than a decade, develop a new national wildlife surveillance programme and establish a new badger vaccinator field force. I genuinely think that we can work together on eliminating the scourge of bovine TB.
I conclude by thanking all hon. Members for what has been an informative debate. It is always good to talk about what is happening in Devon. Let me reassure the House that I am absolutely committed, as are the Government, to a strong future for family farms and food producers across the country. I am sure we will be continuing the debate.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Thank you, Sir Mark; I can be quite concise. May I, through you, thank the Minister for, as ever, the polite, civil and gentle way in which he treats the inevitable criticism coming from the Opposition side of the Chamber? Some of it is justified, and no doubt some, he thinks, is unjustified. I have to say I found his responses on the inheritance tax changes pretty thin, but no doubt we will hear tomorrow from the Treasury Ministers as they stand up for themselves on a decision on which, from his silence, we can make a deduction.
The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) asked the very pertinent question whether DEFRA was consulted, and the answer that came back was not yes; it was, “We are one Government.” If I have ever heard a piece of prevarication elegantly executed in this Chamber, that was it. That is the problem: we all sense that this was driven by the Treasury, tin-eared—completely deaf to the real needs of the farming world and community. I suspect that even after the relatively short time the Minister has been in office—he did serve in opposition, and I know he was an attentive, listening figure in that time—even he must understand that this has caused a restiveness throughout the community, and not just a restiveness, but a despair. The 86-year-old lady, living in Sheepwash, who now sees herself as an impediment to the passage of her ancient farm to her own children and grandchildren is a human example of the impact, and she is not going to be comforted by the answer, “Well, only 27% of farms will be affected.” She says, “What about me?”
Can we afford to lose, even on the Treasury figures, 2,500 farms over this Parliament? Even on the minuscule figure that the Treasury takes into account, it is still 2,500 farms the length and breadth of England that will be lost—500 a year. I say we cannot afford it. We will debate this tomorrow. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) will debate it forcefully, and the Minister will no doubt be relieved to be sitting by the side of Treasury Ministers, who are going to have to take the rap for the mess that they have made.
I would like to work with the Minister on bovine TB. The disease affects my constituency, and the constituencies of all of us in Devonshire, profoundly. We do not want to go back in history. I recall that history too well. I recall the foot and mouth pyres, but also, as I have said, the silent and invisible carnage with the slaughter of cattle as a result of bovine TB, and the restrictions on dairy farms, on livestock grazing farms. Those are cruel—cruel not only to the animals but to the people. We need together to find a solution. I have been told that vaccination is just a few years away every time I have had a debate of this type. It would be interesting to know how far away the Minister thinks the vaccination is, and has he solved the problems of exporting the milk and the produce, once it has been vaccinated, to our markets abroad? I ask because of course it is difficult to determine whether something detected is the vaccine or the disease, and it is not clear that our markets would be available. Those problems have to be resolved by him, and I am very happy to work with him to do that.
Finally, on the question of the landscape management unit in the Fursdon review, may I urge the Minister to recall that what is critical—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Freight Crime
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I notice a little army of Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber. If they wish to speak, they should have sought the permission of the Member in charge.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of freight crime.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for road freight and logistics I had heard the concerns of haulage companies in the run up to the Budget. I was delighted to hear that the Government were also listening to the freight and logistics sector and decided not to raise fuel duty for another year. That was a necessary recognition of the importance of the freight industry to our economy, and I thank the Government for building the foundations of a good relationship with the freight and logistics sector, which I hope will continue over this Parliament.
When speaking to the Road Haulage Association, their members and other logistics workers, they were primarily concerned about fuel duty and freight crime. Now that we have encouraged growth through the freeze on fuel duty, it is time to take freight crime seriously. For too long, freight crime has been seen as an opportunistic crime, carried out by individuals who fancy their luck stealing some stuff from the back of a lorry. That could not be further from the truth. The Home Office must understand that freight crime has become a serious and organised crime, often involving violence and threats.
Tackling freight crime is essential to achieving the Government’s five missions. Road freight moves 89% of all goods, and 98% of all agricultural and food products. In total, the road haulage industry contributes £13.5 billion to the economy, which is 5.6% of the UK’s total GDP. Crucially, freight is an economic multiplier. Every £1 generated by the logistics industry generates £3 elsewhere in the economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important issue. In Northern Ireland, the National Criminal Intelligence Service reported some 5,373 cases of freight and cargo crime, which is a 7% increase on the year before. Some of that has involved drug smuggling in freight, which is a big issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that more efforts must be made regionally to address the potential of freight crime and drug smuggling, to ensure the safety of local people on the streets?
Rachel Taylor
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that regionally and nationally we need more emphasis on this crime. If the Government are to achieve their mission to kickstart economic growth and take back our streets, they must treat freight crime with the seriousness that it deserves.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
My constituency has around 12,000 employees in the wholesale and retail trade sector, many of whom will be affected by freight crime. Indeed, the recent report by the APPG on freight and logistics named Peterborough as a key freight crime hotspot. Does my hon. Friend agree that measures to tackle freight crime are long overdue, and are essential for our plans to back British business?
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention, which I agree with. I was proud recently to launch the “Securing Our Supply Chains” report with the APPG and the Road Haulage Association, and I would like to raise its recommendations. The report highlights the clear damage that freight crime is doing to the UK economy. In 2023, there were 5,370 reports of heavy goods vehicle and cargo crime in the UK, and £68.3 million-worth of goods was stolen in freight crime. It is likely that £1 billion has been lost since 2020 due to this serious crime.
The report lays bare the stark issues affecting one of Britain’s most vital industries, in which 90% of businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises. It also makes it clear that the police do not feel adequately equipped to tackle freight crime. Such crime is not opportunistic; it is serious organised crime and that is why freight criminals target service stations, which have become freight crime hotspots.
The National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service has identified several service stations that are repeatedly targeted by freight criminals, including Corley services on the M6 in my constituency. In 2023 alone, Corley services experienced 76 offences of freight crime. Other crime hotspots include Stafford, which had 138 offences; Thurrock, which had 103 offences; and Warwick services, which experienced 87 offences. It is clear to me, as it should be to all Members present, that that means criminals have organised effectively to target certain service stations repeatedly. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Transport to improve service station security for freight drivers?
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Some 6,000 of my constituents work in transportation and storage, so I know how important this issue is to them. Much of the allocated overnight lorry parking is insecure, open to the public and lacking in CCTV. As a result, 75% of freight crime offences happen in independent road parking or unsecured motorway service areas. There can even be knock-on effects for the wider community. Does my hon. Friend agree that better standards must be enforced to make sure that drivers can access safe and secure parking facilities?
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is why I would like to reiterate my invitation to the Minister to visit Corley services in my constituency, so that he can hear at first hand about how freight drivers feel and the security issues that they are facing.
Freight crime often involves criminals slashing a lorry’s curtains to gain access to its goods or siphoning fuel from tanks while drivers are parked to commit fuel theft. Cyber criminals are now cloning the websites of legitimate hauliers and tricking sellers into letting them drive away with valuables. Yet, in law, freight thefts are treated with the same seriousness as someone smashing a car window and stealing a phone from the passenger seat. That must change; we need a co-ordinated policing and enforcement strategy.
I have highlighted the impact of freight crime on the economy, but it is crucial that we understand what freight crime does to an industry that is made up mainly of SMEs. To understand that impact, it is crucial to hear from representatives of the industry, as I have. Dave Hands is the managing director of LTS Global Solutions, and he introduced me to this industry when I was standing for election. Since March, his company alone has experienced six fuel theft incidents. Each theft has a significant impact on his operation and customers. LTS loses a day of deliveries, and then must replace the stolen fuel, pay a call-out fee to repair the vehicle, and supply fuel to get the vehicle to the nearest garage. Dave says that in a sector that operates on a 2% to 4% net profit margin, such incidents not only cause LTS to lose money but put their customer relations at risk.
Rhys Hackling is the managing director of Direct Connect Logistics. In January 2022, he had a truck attacked by thieves who stole pallets of batteries. The company lost all the revenue from the truck for three days while the inquiry went on and the truck was repaired. Even worse, Rhys says that Direct Connect Logistics has lost drivers due to the damage to their mental wellbeing, as the cutting of the lorry curtain is a direct attack on them.
The RHA detailed to me how curtain slashing can take place even when a vehicle is in transit. Freight criminals will pull up behind or to the side of the cab, slash the curtains, steal goods and put other drivers on the road in danger. Rhys says that many of his drivers remain committed but they do not sleep properly at night due to the threat of being targeted. Hollie Middleton is a transport manager from WOW Logistics and Warehousing—one of the country’s handful of female-run logistics companies.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
On that note, at least 8,000 of my constituents in Portsmouth North work in freight and logistics, and it has been highlighted to me that freight crime has really discouraged female drivers from entering and remaining in the industry. The International Transport Workers’ Federation found that a lack of secure parking facilities is a factor that contributes to the lack of diversity in the sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, we should be looking into secure places for people to rest in between their shifts?
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, which I will come to later.
Hollie, who I was talking about, echoes Rhys’s sentiments and says that she feels disheartened when she works hard but cannot sleep in case something happens. In one particularly shocking incident, two men scouted Hollie’s building and then attempted to steal some boxes. When she told them to get off the estate, they threatened her and told her they would beat her up. The industry struggles with encouraging women to become drivers, and I am sure the Minister will agree that freight crime poses a particular issue to female-led businesses such as WOW. Does he recognise that the sector is struggling with retention because of freight crime, which prevents economic growth?
I will highlight two points in the report that the House deserves a response to. The first is that we must increase support and resources for law enforcement, and the second is that we must launch a national freight crime awareness campaign, especially as freight crime is about to hit its busiest season. The report has made it clear that police do not have the resources to properly tackle freight crime. Police services, drivers, the RHA and the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service all recognise that there is not currently a national strategy to deal with freight crime, nor the resources and training for police to tackle the crime properly.
Police officers have made it clear that they would like to invest in stopping crime and catching criminals, and I know that one of the Government’s five missions is to take back our streets. Sadly, the freight workers I have spoken to say that it feels futile to report incidents because they know that there is not much that the police can do. If this Government are to take back our streets, they must ensure that crimes committed on our roads, in lay-bys and at service stations are prosecuted.
Does the Minister agree that preventive infrastructural measures are a key element in reducing freight crime? A national shortage of safe lorry parking forces many drivers to park overnight at unlit, unpopulated and vulnerable roadside lay-bys. Will he commit to rectifying that by reforming the national planning policy framework to consider the needs of hauliers? Will he recognise that there must be a deterrent to prevent criminals from engaging in freight crime, and provision to reassure disheartened freight workers that they should report freight crimes?
Freight crime cannot be reduced without improvement in enforcement, but crucially, the police lack a national strategy to deal with the issue. We are talking about organised criminal gangs operating out of West Yorkshire and Coventry, whose operation spans several counties, yet the police lack a strategy to combat the crime. Furthermore, NaVCIS is under-supported and underfunded. It has a clear mission to bring industry and policing together to disrupt criminals and reduce crime, but it does not receive any funds from central Government or the police service for any of its areas of business. Instead, the national freight crime desk is supported by four sponsors from the freight industry and 62 members, who pay an annual subscription for freight crime data.
NaVCIS currently has one full-time service police officer on secondment, a part-time analyst and a part-time data inputter. That places it in a financially precarious position and does not facilitate co-operation between NaVCIS and UK policing. It is clearly not enough to tackle organised crime on a national scale. Developing a cross-county and national strategy is vital. There must be greater sharing of information between NaVCIS, businesses and police forces.
NaVCIS has identified that 38 criminal hotspots, and the main arterial roads close to the biggest ports, see the vast majority of freight crime. A well-executed, targeted approach in those locations could result in a massive reduction in crime for relatively little police resource. Can the Minister commit to providing more resources to tackle crime in those hotspots? Hollie told me that this is the worst time of year, because Christmas deliveries are at an all-time high. It is outrageous that the drivers who deliver Christmas to families across the UK cannot do so without feeling physically at risk.
The thousands of instances of freight crime each year endanger the mental health of the road freight industry workforce, but the freight crime epidemic is not known about in the public consciousness. We need greater public awareness, especially to ward people off buying stolen goods through social media pages and websites around Christmas. It is crucial to create a hostile environment for criminals to keep our drivers safe. It is timely to have this debate on 3 December, as many drivers are getting ready for the Christmas period, and this House should be under no illusion that it is lorry drivers—not Father Christmas—who will be delivering Christmas this year.
I end by reiterating that freight crime is serious and organised. It is threatening our drivers’ wellbeing and putting hard-working businesses at risk of closure. We must have a serious response from the Government.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on securing this debate. As was very clear from her remarks, she has a huge interest in, and knowledge of, these important matters. As she said, this debate is very timely, not least because it comes hot on the heels of the publication of an insightful, comprehensive report on the subject by the all-party parliamentary group on freight and logistics, which she chairs. I thank her for that work and I am grateful to all the other Members who have participated in the debate.
As my hon. Friend will know, matters relating to freight crime are the responsibility of the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), rather than the Security Minister. The Policing Minister is very sorry that she cannot be here, but I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution and I will endeavour to respond on behalf of the Policing Minister to all her points. If I miss anything, I will endeavour to ensure that the Department writes to my hon. Friend on those matters.
At the outset, I emphasise how damaging and distressing freight crime can be, as my hon. Friend clearly said, and acknowledge its hugely detrimental effect on businesses and individuals. Everyone should be concerned that freight crime rates have risen over the past few years. The Government will work with partners—she asked me for an assurance on this—including the police to mount the most effective response possible.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are pursuing a wide-ranging mission to tackle crime and make our streets safer. A big part of that is restoring visible neighbourhood policing, which is essential for deterring crime, reassuring residents and businesses, and maintaining public confidence. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will deliver thousands of neighbourhood police, community support officers and special constables.
On freight and related vehicle crimes specifically, we are working closely with the police, the automotive industry and the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service. We have provided the police with additional funding this financial year to help to tackle the export of stolen vehicles, supporting enforcement at the ports to prevent stolen vehicles and vehicle parts being shipped abroad, including through the deployment of additional staff and specialist equipment to the ports. We will also bring forward legislation to ban electronic devices that have been used to steal vehicles, empowering the police and courts to target the criminals using, manufacturing and supplying them.
Recently the Policing Minister had the opportunity to meet the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime, Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims, to discuss those issues and how we can work more effectively together. Led by ACC Sims, the national vehicle crime working group is raising awareness of crime against road haulage companies within the national police vehicle crime response. We look forward to working closely with the Road Haulage Association as part of that group.
In support of the working group, a network of vehicle crime specialists has been established, involving every police force in England and Wales. It will help to share information about emerging trends in vehicle crime so that we can better seek to tackle regional issues. As a key member of the working group, the Government continue to work with NaVCIS, the specialist unit funded by industry, to provide dedicated specialist intelligence and enforcement. As part of its remit, NaVCIS is working with the Government; we are together taking forward a project to analyse heavy goods vehicle-related crime in England, with a specific focus on identifying crime patterns at HGV parking sites. The Government are determined that all lorry drivers should have access to high-quality, safe and secure facilities right across the country, which is why we have invested in improved lorry parks and safer rest areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth specifically mentioned that point and she extended an invitation to visit the services in her constituency. I can assure her that I will extend that invitation on her behalf to the Policing Minister. She made a number of other points, which I will come to in a moment. Before I do, I want to confirm to her that an industry-led task and finish group on HGV facilities will complete its work in January. It is focusing on increasing capacity for safe and secure parking, and driving the industry’s adoption of existing HGV parking standards. We will consider the findings closely and will do so mindful of the comments that she has made today about Hollie, as well as the important points she made about retention in the industry and about public awareness.
With industry, the Government and National Highways are investing in improved welfare facilities, security upgrades and more HGV parking spaces at lorry parks and truck stops across England. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of infrastructure. The Government are prioritising improvements to the planning system, which she mentioned. New language on freight and logistics in the recent consultation on the national planning policy framework recognises the importance of considering freight in planning, and I thank the sector for taking the time to respond to the consultation.
I acknowledge the worrying involvement of serious and organised criminals in committing freight crime, which my hon. Friend rightly referenced. These individuals corrode our country’s global reputation and cost us billions of pounds each year. As announced by the Prime Minister in his recent speech to the Interpol General Assembly in Glasgow, we are investing a further £58 million in the National Crime Agency. That will make a real difference, including through the strengthening of data analysis and intelligence capabilities. I will also take away my hon. Friend’s important point about the need for a national strategy. We will work with policing on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services that local police forces can draw upon to raise standards, and improve efficiency and productivity.
My hon. Friend made a couple of other points that I want to respond to. I am grateful to her for acknowledging the measures in the Budget to freeze the fuel duty allowance and for the important point she made about the huge contribution that freight makes to the UK economy. She was right to do so, as freight accounts for 5% of gross value added to the UK non-financial business economy. The Government completely recognise the significant importance of the sector.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth for securing this debate and to all those who contributed to it. We have covered a number of specific issues, and I know that the Policing Minister will reflect on them in our ongoing work with partners, including policing, and work closely with colleagues in the Department for Transport.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, freight crime is a serious threat and must be dealt with as such. This Government are committed to tackling criminality of any kind, which is why we have made it our mission to deliver safer streets for all and restore neighbourhood policing. Reducing freight crime is integral to that mission.
Question put and agreed to.
Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak, they need to bob during the debate. This is only a one-hour debate and hon. Members can see how many people are present; you do not need to be experts in maths to know that that there are lots. Except for the Front-Bench speakers, I will allow only one minute for the speech of each Member present. When those minutes have been exhausted such that there is sufficient time for only the Front Benchers to speak, obviously any speakers who have not been called will not be called. Members may be tempted to intervene, which will take time away from other speakers, so I ask that you resist the urge to intervene unless you absolutely must.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the statutory framework for home-to-school transport for children with SEND.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am delighted to have secured this debate on 3 December, which is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I am pleased to see a number of hon. Members present to speak, which truly reflects the importance of the issue.
Disabled children enter the education system with the odds stacked against them. The damage and chaos wrought by 14 years of underfunding and understaffing have left a broken special educational needs and disabilities system. Parents have to fight for the entitlements of their child at every step of the way, simply to ensure that they are given the same life chances as other children. As the parent of a disabled child, I have experienced that at first hand.
We know how vital each stage of the journey through education is for a disabled child. The importance of early intervention cannot be disputed, as it provides crucial support to their development and improves long-term outcomes. Similarly, the transition to adulthood is a key stage of development when disabled young people advance their independence and encounter new challenges. Yet, as it stands, we have a statutory framework for home-to-school transport that, in effect, excludes disabled children from accessing education. Even where the statute necessitates that local authorities provide home-to-school transport, this is often disputed and subject to many shortcomings, leaving parent carers with another fight on their hands. However, I will focus on the framework today.
Under the existing framework, the legal obligation of local authorities to provide free transport to a place of education applies only for eligible children aged five to 16 and young people aged 19 to 25. This is a vital lifeline for disabled children and their families, ensuring that even those with the most complex needs can attend a school that offers specialist provision to help them get on in life, but until they reach the age of five, and after the statutory duty falls at the age of 16, disabled children and their families are failed by the current system.
Before a disabled child turns five, it is at the discretion of local authorities to make suitable arrangements for them to attend early years settings. In reality, that can materialise as a flat refusal to any request for transport. Families who have been fortunate enough to secure a competitive place at a specialist early years setting are then denied support, and are unable to shoulder the burden of time and cost needed to transport their child themselves. One parent told me that the only school suitable for their child’s complex health condition was an 11-mile drive from home. Their transport application was rejected. As they cannot afford petrol for four trips a day, that parent now drives the child to school and stays there, leaving them unable to work.
Families are forced to make the impossible choice between transporting their child themselves or giving up work, and those children who are most in need of early intervention are unable to access it. Some local authorities even refuse to transport a child to primary school until the very day that they turn five, by which time a disabled child may have missed a term of reception and lost out on vital therapies and specialised support. That leaves disabled children playing catch-up from day one.
By the age of 16, many children with SEND will have been receiving free transport for more than a decade, but as the legal obligation for that provision falls, their education can be thrown into turmoil. In the past, many councils continued to provide free transport for children with SEND from the ages of 16 to 19. Funds put into those travel costs are saved further down the line—they allow students with disabilities to achieve qualifications and skills, and to gain confidence, independence and experience. This makes it much less likely that they will fall into unemployment or disengagement, and face challenges with mental and physical health. However, the rising demand—with 576,000 children and young people in England now having an education, health and care plan—coupled with local authorities being under immense financial strain, has led to local authorities across the country, including in my constituency of Thurrock, cutting the service.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent comments. She refers to the transportation being free; for some families it is free, but for local authorities, as we all know, it absolutely is not. My local authority, North East Lincolnshire, spent £1.4 million last year alone on transporting 114 children out of area. It is unsustainable for local authorities. Does she agree that the answer is more specialist provision in area, and combined support in mainstream school for those children?
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The long-term goal must be better inclusion for disabled children in mainstream education—I would have loved to send my child to the outstanding school up the road, but it did not really want us. This is not a choice that parents want to make, and inclusion is the ultimate, long-term solution. However, disabled children should not be penalised for the financial burdens under which councils find themselves.
The transport arrangements that are provided are often unsuitable, such as a bus pass for a vulnerable young person. Parents are asked to make financial contributions or are provided with travel allowances that barely cover the costs. It is hard to overstate the impact that the yearly lottery for school transport can have on disabled children. It disrupts their education, places stress and anxiety on them and their families, reduces their independence, and asks their parents to carry financial costs.
I heard from one mother whose 18-year-old daughter attends a school offering specialist provision. This year, just 24 hours before her daughter was due to start her college course, she was told she would be charged a contribution for her daughter’s transport to school. She spoke of the anxiety inflicted on her daughter through days of uncertainty. Despite that stressful experience, that mother considers herself among the lucky ones. Her vulnerable daughter can continue to get to school safely every day, when others who are asked to contribute to transport costs may not.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that in too many cases the SEND families most in need of support find they are not given it? For many families, it is therefore a question of whether they can afford to support their children. In this country, in 2024, we must end that barrier to opportunity.
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is unacceptable that disabled families are faced with choices about their children’s education that parents of children who are not disabled are not.
During the election campaign, I spoke to another woman, Julia, and had the pleasure of meeting her 18-year-old son Oscar, who has cerebral palsy, which affects his right side, and epilepsy. For 10 years, he had received free home-to-school transport, but now his parents have to make the case every year for why he should continue to receive that support to reach his sixth form. Thanks to the new costs, his mum has had to withdraw Oscar from one of his sessions at his weekend care provision, because she cannot afford both. Despite the new charges, there is still no guarantee that their application will be approved. She said that life is hard enough without this discrimination and pressure.
Another mother, in Thurrock, told me about her ongoing fight to secure transport for her daughter. Twice her daughter was refused passenger transport to the education setting she attended and twice the family successfully appealed. That mother said:
“As parents to children with SEND we have to fight for every single step, for their existence. Fighting for what is right, what our children are entitled to.”
This is the reality for thousands of families across the country. This disruption at such a vital point in education can be devastating, with serious impacts on a young person’s mental health and development. Let us be clear: this places a financial barrier to education in the way of disabled children and their families that other families simply do not have to face.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the hon. Member acknowledge that lots of local authorities, and indeed lots of schools, seek to do the right thing? Councils in Cumbria have more than doubled their spending on SEND transport in the last five years, but is it not the worst thing about it, from a local authority perspective, that councils and schools that do the right thing get penalised? Is it not right that we instead support all local authorities and schools to support special educational needs children without disadvantaging them or their families?
Jen Craft
As I have said previously, the important thing is to see a long-term goal where disabled children are truly able to receive a mainstream, inclusive education, so that we get out of this cycle of families having to pay to transport their children miles and miles from where they live.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
May I just say that the Member who is speaking is not obliged to take interventions? It does take time away from those who have put in to speak.
Jen Craft
I will make some headway.
The requirement for free transport returns for 19 to 25-year-olds with complex needs and an education, health and care plan, to support those who need longer in education or training to achieve their outcomes.
The guidance itself says:
“It is critical that, from year 9 at the latest, local authorities help young people start planning for a successful transition to adulthood.”
Given the importance of this transition, why does the statutory obligation for free transport fall between the ages of 16 to 19?
We cannot ignore the rising costs that councils face in carrying out their duty to provide free home-to-school transport. However, those costs are not the fault of disabled children. It is not a choice by families to send their disabled child or young person to a school far from home; it is a necessity, and the only way to receive the specialist provision that meets their needs.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Jen Craft
I would just like to make a little more progress.
When I think about my child’s journey through education, I do not see it in stages. The journey for my daughter and for every disabled child is a lifelong one. We need a statutory framework that reflects that and that provides stability, security and reassurance for disabled children throughout their development and for their families.
In the context of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity for every child, the situation with home-to-school transport is damaging the life chances of disabled pupils. I encourage the Minister to consider a framework that ends the current anomalies in the system, so that local authorities have a legal obligation to ensure that no child is denied an education that will allow them to get on in life.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments about the existing framework, and the contributions of other Members, as we seek to develop a system that ensures that the needs of every child are met.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
As I said earlier, you will get only a minute each. I encourage people not to intervene, as it will mean that we have to cut down on the total number of speakers. I call Shockat Adam.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this vital debate on a subject that is of concern to many of my constituents. Education is a fundamental right for every child and should not be treated as a favour or privilege. We are witnessing at first hand how the lack of adequate travel provision can prevent children from accessing education.
The consequences of not providing proper travel services extend far beyond the immediate inconvenience to parents. Without transport, children will remain at home, where they are not engaged in education or employment. The social cost of that is immense. Parents will be forced to reduce their working hours or even give to up their jobs. We must ask ourselves whether that is the kind of future we want to create for our children and communities.
Travel arrangements for these children are about more than just convenience; they are about ensuring they can get to school safely and on time. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves about the reality of SEND children travelling for about two hours daily. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned, cost is not the issue; it is the fact that no provision is available locally. That is why parents are forced to send their children so far away. What impact must that have on their wellbeing? We must have more facilities and more schools—
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for raising this important issue, and I briefly want to mention my local authority. Since 2017, the number of children and young people requiring SEND transport has surged by more than 80% in Wigan, while the costs have exploded by 103%. To put that into perspective, this year alone the council is facing a £2 million overspend against a £5.53 million budget.
Over the past five academic years, demand for SEND transport has skyrocketed, and it is on an unsustainable trajectory that cannot be ignored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock rightly pointed out, the statutory framework is no longer fit for purpose.
This issue extends far beyond any one council or region; the pressures we see are a national concern. Local authorities that are already stretched thin are facing mounting financial strain. If we do not act soon, we risk eroding the very support that children with SEND rely on to access their education.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for bringing forward this debate. I want to make a point—I will try to keep it brief—about the inconsistency in the implementation of the framework. That inconsistency is exacerbated in rural areas such as North Yorkshire, where my constituency is. We have had horror stories of children in taxis for up to two hours a day. That has a massive impact on their ability to learn when they make their way to school.
Another problem comes from changes to the council’s policy on home-to-school transport and its inability to finance it. It is projecting a spend of £27 million on SEND transport next year. Despite the rural complexities of the North Yorkshire council area, it is only 148th out of 151 local authorities for high needs funding per head of population. Although the framework is important, there needs to be an understanding of rurality, and the funding to go with it.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important and oversubscribed debate. Southampton, like many other local authorities, is struggling with the cost of meeting the need. Meeting that need is most important, but costs have trebled in the past few years and council resources are put under immense strain.
I welcome the Education Secretary’s commitment to a whole-system review, with travel a crucial part of that. The Chancellor’s recent investments will have relieved some of the pressure. I would be interested in the Minister’s response on whether the Department for Transport and the Department for Education could speak together and require bus companies to work with local authorities to look at route planning and making public transport more accessible for those for whom independent travel is a possibility. This is about breaking down barriers to opportunity for SEND children; they have to be in school to open those barriers and so that we can meet their needs.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. I will focus on the length of time that young people with SEND often spend travelling to their special settings. This weekend, a mother attended my surgery to speak of her son, who was initially offered a taxi ride taking 45 minutes to his special school outside the county. Another child was added to the journey, taking the journey time to one hour and 15 minutes. A third child has now been added, so that boy, who has special needs and struggles with travelling with other children, is now travelling an hour and 45 minutes in each direction for school.
Oxfordshire is not unlike other counties, and my constituents in Bicester and Woodstock often have to send their children outside the county for education. I hope the Government will consider more capital funding for local education authorities so that they can provide more special schools in better settings. I also ask the Minister to consider a commitment that no special educational needs child should have to travel for more than 30 minutes to reach their school each day.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate and for her tireless work campaigning of this issue. It is really encouraging to be joined by so many colleagues from across the House to speak about issues relating to SEND.
I rise to highlight some of the shocking stories that families locally have shared with me about the challenges and pressures that special educational needs and home-to-school transport are causing for them in their day-to-day lives. It cannot be right that so many are not getting the support they need, whether they sit in or outside the statutory framework, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock highlighted.
In Central Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, the rural context has been exacerbated by both authorities’ failure to appropriately place-plan at a local level. That has created difficult choices for the authorities and heartbreaking realities for families and young people, who are travelling too far at too great a cost to access the schools they need. Some are being shut out of the transport support that they need due to their age.
I welcome this debate and the possible reforms to the statutory framework. I look forward to working with colleagues right across the House to ensure that we bring about the holistic reform the area desperately needs.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. Wokingham borough council had previously been promised two SEND free schools, yet both are waiting for approval to proceed. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could do some digging into when the schools will be delivered, and write to me and the council, updating us on progress.
I had prepared more detailed remarks. However, I ask the Minister if she will meet me, the local executive member for children’s services and the director of children’s services at Wokingham borough council to discuss the situation, and to help us understand the Government’s plans for reform and what we can do to deliver the most for our SEND children.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate. Many parents and children in my constituency are deeply frustrated because of the cuts we have seen to school transport. The situation has gone from cuts to the over-16s now getting nothing. One mother said to me that her son, a boy with Down’s syndrome, was actually forced to stay at home because he could no longer get the support he needed for transport.
Transport should never be a barrier to education. I welcome the Government’s pledge of a £1 billion investment, but I ask that the funding is delivered swiftly and effectively to address the urgent needs of families and those in the community. Those families deserve the dignity, support and access to education that every child has a right to.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing the debate. I will give some colour on what is happening in Surrey and my constituency of Esher and Walton. My constituent Polly is 16 years old, and because of her SEND she is unable to travel unaccompanied —something that is not disputed by the council. Until the end of last term she received travel, but now she has a place at a special needs sixth form and has been denied assistance. Her parents appealed the decision and were denied again.
When it rejected the appeal, Surrey’s stage 2 panel made a financial argument, asserting that it would not be sustainable for the council to provide travel assistance on account of Polly’s parents’ work commitments. Both her parents work full time at Royal Surrey County hospital. In determining what is necessary for a child, the council takes account of their special educational needs but not their parents’ or carers’ work. The current statutory framework leads to absurd economisation under which the jobs of two NHS workers cannot be considered in the allocation of a child’s transport assistance, so the choice is therefore between Polly’s education and her parents’ jobs in the NHS. That is not acceptable.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. My constituent Jessica has raised the case of her son. The London borough of Bexley introduced a charging policy for post-16 children in 2018. Although her son has not changed schools, they now have to pay £400 towards transport to reach his school in the London borough of Bromley, despite the fact that he is on the highest mobility component rate for personal independence payment and Jessica receives universal credit. Bromley children in the same class do not have to pay that charge and contribution.
With the current system, there has been a crisis in school transport. My own local authority had seven local government ombudsman cases against it in 2017, and a further report found failings because the local authority did not remedy those cases. Because of those failings, we have situations such as the one that Jessica has raised, where she or her son must contribute £400 towards transport, and yet children in the same class with identical circumstances do not have to contribute because they live in a different London borough. The system therefore does need some reform.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Thank you, Sir Mark. It is a pleasure to share under your chairship, and I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate.
In Stratford-on-Avon, the current system of SEND home-to-school transport is failing families. Many children were left without home-to-school transport at the beginning of the academic year, meaning that children’s educational needs were not met at a crucial time. Many children are placed in schools outside the county because there simply is not enough suitable provision locally. That has created a complex network of transport issues. We need to ensure and resource sufficient local SEND provision within mainstream education. That must be a priority if we are to create a fairer, more efficient and sustainable system that supports every child’s right to education.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock for securing this debate. SEND, and the transport around it, is a massive issue in Derbyshire. A recent Ofsted report found appalling failings in the system—something that, for a very long time, parents could have told us anecdotally.
I suggest that there are two things the council needs to do. First, we need better integration between the council, the public transport providers, the integrated care boards and the schools. Secondly, we need more early planning so that transport can be managed at the earliest possible stage. That will save the council money and be better for children and young people.
The Government made a big investment in this area at the recent Budget. We made some tough choices to do that, but it is the right thing to do. There is £1 billion for SEND, three-year funding settlements for local authorities and further investment in councils. I urge the council to use that investment to give it the time to get this right, because it is local children and young people, and their parents, who are suffering.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, more than 300 pupils of sixth-form age with SEND are eligible to have their costs covered by the local authority. Unfortunately, council budget to cover their costs has just been slashed by £1.6 million. The result is that families will have to cover the shortfall themselves. That picture is repeated up and down the country because, as the National Audit Office warns, the current system of funding is unsustainable as a result of the crisis in local government funding. The situation will only get worse when we consider that the number of children in England with an EHCP has more than doubled over the past decade, and we can expect it to continue to rise.
I welcome plans to improve existing provision and build a more integrated system that includes the NHS, but we also need the funding streams to ensure that SEND children from all socioeconomic backgrounds can access improved services. If the Government listened to the teaching unions, local authorities and families who are calling for extra SEND funding, and for councils’ high-needs deficits to be written off, that would be a good start.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for calling this important debate—[Interruption.] Hopefully I can manage to get through my speech.
I approach this issue from the point of view of a special educational needs co-ordinator. I have been an early years special needs supporter for a number of years, and I understand just how difficult it is under the current provisions to get an EHCP for a child under five. After we manage to secure one, we then have to go from nursery to school applications. If we finally manage to secure a good provision for a child, often we cannot secure the transport arrangements or the child cannot secure a chaperone.
As we are extending our childcare and early years education offer to children as young as two years old, we have to consider their transport and SEND needs. These children, who have reached the threshold for an education, health and care plan so young, are the most vulnerable, and they desperately need to be able to access the best support from the start. We need a strategy to deliver that support locally, and where we cannot, we must ensure that children have access to the best provision so that interventions start in the early years when they will have the most impact.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.
I will highlight three suggestions that I have heard from my constituents in Aylesbury. First, information about home-to-school transport should be provided to parents in a timely and accurate way. I have heard about so many parents finally securing that school place and then falling at the final hurdle of not being given transport. Councils have to change that. Secondly, Buckinghamshire council is moving towards personal transport budgets, but £20 per day does not come close. I have heard about one case with an £84 return taxi fare to get the child to school. Councils need to allocate sufficient funding. Thirdly, councils must ensure that the transport that is provided is both safe and reliable. Unfortunately, I have heard of instances where that is not the case. Those transport providers need much tighter regulation. No one wants to send their child to school many miles away, but the broken SEND system necessitates it, and that has to change.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this crucial debate.
Home-to-school transport for SEND children requires our urgent attention, and that is why I am planning to create a network in South East Cornwall dedicated to supporting families, parents and carers. South East Cornwall is a rural area with a challenging transport network, and difficulties arise because of longer distances to schools, a lack of good-quality local public transport and increased costs. I pay tribute to the staff at specialist provisions in South East Cornwall, such as Burraton school and Liskeard school and community college. I also want to highlight local organisations such as Cornwall’s SEND Information, Advice and Support Service and the Core, which provide vital support for families navigating these challenges. However, these groups cannot, and should not, be expected to fill gaps.
The statutory framework for home-to-school travel must better account for the unique barriers in rural areas such as mine. Assumptions are often made about transport infrastructure levels, but the reality is that some of that infrastructure just does not exist. The statutory walking distance is often unrealistic for rural children who live far from safe walking routes or bus stops, and who have increased journey times. I urge the Minister to prioritise an in-depth consultation with SEND families, especially in rural areas, to better understand their needs and unique situations and how to tailor services accordingly.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have had to scrutinise the National Audit Office’s report on SEND. According to that report, local authorities spent some £1.4 billion on home-to-school transport in 2022-23—an 80% real-terms increase since 2015-16. I am delighted that this Government have brought forward an additional £1 billion in the recent Budget for SEND funding, which will go some way to covering the high costs faced by local authorities, but we know that we need to change the provision.
In Bradford, the council’s travel assistance service spends £54,000 per day on home-to-school taxis alone. Those numbers are eye-watering. Only through prioritising SEND support in our mainstream local schools will we alleviate those financial pressures on local authorities, and I welcome the priority that the Government have given to that. The main point that has been made in this debate is that it would help all the many families in this situation if their children were in local schools. That would not only reduce expensive transport costs, but improve outcomes for disabled children and their families.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. While she has personal and constituency experience, this issue is a national crisis for people with SEND. That is due in no small part to the huge rise in the number of people with EHCPs over the last few years. In 2018-19 in Calderdale, where Calder Valley sits, 1,068 children had EHCPs. In the last year, 1,761 children did. That is the start of this problem.
We then have the transport plans, which are put together at the last minute. That means that we end up with September stress for SEND parents, who are trying to create a stable school environment for their kids but who find out only at the last minute when they are coming in. On that point, I pay tribute to all SEND parents, who work an extra job in looking after their children, and to some of the charities that do brilliant work in supporting them, including Unique Ways in Calder Valley, which is a fantastic charity.
I recently heard a particularly distressing story about SEND provision in Calder Valley. Two children had their epilepsy triggered by stress, and their parents and teachers struggled to provide the support that they needed.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is fantastic to see so many hon. Members and hon. Friends sticking up for disabled children and young people and their families. That reflects the focus that we have had on SEND in this new Parliament.
According to Contact, a charity for families with disabled children aged 25 or under, 79% of disabled young people are being denied or charged for school transport when they turn 16. One in 10 of them pays more than £1,000 a year, and nearly half of families experience increased stress and financial difficulties. Although I am pleased that in Fulham, which is part of my constituency, the Labour council has chosen not to charge for transport and to maintain free educational transport for disabled children and young people up to the age of 25, I recognise from all that I have heard today and all that I know that that is far from being the case elsewhere. We need to end that unfairness and change the statutory framework, and we need to make free educational transport available to all up to the age of 25.
Finally, I encourage those who want to know more about the significant additional costs of caring for disabled children and young people to come to an event that I will be chairing in the Thatcher Room tomorrow at 5.30 pm, at which Contact will launch new research into this issue.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing such an important debate. In my casework, I have been inundated with issues around special educational needs, and transport is a major factor. I will make two quick observations that I hope the Minister will reflect on in any review of the framework.
First, the nature of families today often does not reflect the assumptions of previous years. I have had cases where parents who co-parent and share equal custody across different boroughs are caught up in arguments between the two boroughs about who is the lead parent. The parents simply say, “We share custody 50:50, so we need mechanisms to overcome that barrier.”
Secondly, increasing numbers of families are in temporary accommodation outside their traditional borough, and they find it very hard to get continuity in school transport for their children. They still want them to go to their hard-fought-for special educational needs school, but that would require changes in transport, and authorities are slow to make them. I hope that the framework will reflect the increasing numbers of families who are, unfortunately, homeless and in temporary accommodation.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. Home-to-school transport is particularly important for young people living in rural areas such as Derbyshire Dales, with the average pupil in rural areas having to travel 10 miles each way to school, and one in 10 pupils in a special school needing to travel over 23 miles each way. These distances mean that, without home-to-school transport, it is often impossible for young people in rural areas to access education. For example, my constituent, who has autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and obsessive compulsive disorder, was denied home-to-school transport and was expected to take an almost three-hour bus journey just to get to school. The burden that the current post-16 system places on the time and finances of families is significant, as is the impact on a young person who is not in school.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate. We must consider the reliability of transport for SEND pupils. I had casework at the beginning of term involving parents waiting for transport to turn up that never came. Teachers did not know what was happening, and the parents could not get hold of the helpline because it was closed. During those first few days, it is crucial for students to feel settled in. It is great to see other colleagues from my county of Warwickshire here; I am sure that they also experienced those problems in September.
My constituency is semi-rural. It is made up of towns and villages, and it can take an hour to drive across it. It is difficult for county councils in constituencies such as mine, where pupils are often closer to schools outside the county. Different parts of my constituency border Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull. The problem is that the county council may allocate not the school that is nearest to pupils in terms of travel time, but the school that is nearest in Warwickshire. That means that parents have to argue with and challenge the council if they want their children to go to a school that is suitable for their needs and nearer to travel to. Furthermore, the student must be in school year 11 or below, plunging many teenagers and their families into uncertainty.
I commend my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I remain committed to making sure that pupils in my North Warwickshire and Bedworth constituency have the travel they need to get to the school that they want to go to.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I thank all Back Benchers for being very good with their timekeeping. We now move to the Front-Bench speakers.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate. Every child, no matter their background, can achieve great things, but sadly there is currently a postcode lottery for SEND provision, which means that a lot of our children are being left behind. The previous Conservative Government failed children with SEND by not planning effectively for the increased demand for SEND school places. One parent from my constituency wrote:
“Please, please help. This is unbelievable. I just can’t cope anymore. It’s looking like you are giving us no choice but to go to tribunal just to get him a school.”
As has been mentioned, this is about a fundamental right to education. The need is rising and the crisis is growing. Ultimately, that means that more children need to have more specific transport. The number of students on EHCPs has doubled from 105,000 eight years ago to 230,000 in 2023. In Hertfordshire, EHCP numbers are expected to continue to grow. The number of children and young people with EHCPs has grown by 223% in Hertfordshire alone. One of my constituents, Charlotte, is a parent to three children, all of whom have EHCPs and complex SEND. She says that being in a constant battle mode has become the norm, and to secure educational support, her eldest child now has to travel almost 100 miles a day just to go to school.
We heard today about children who have to travel one hour and 45 minutes and about Polly and the impact on her parents, and many Members talked about the inconsistency across their constituency and across the country. The growing need and the lack of SEND provision close to home means that getting transport has become increasingly tough. That is exacerbated by cuts to local transport. Many Members have spoken about the impact of this. It is essential that the transport is there to take children to school safely, as it has an impact on their wellbeing.
If there is not a suitable SEND school local to the child, councils are required to provide transport to a school that has capacity but can opt out of the funding, as has been discussed. The number of children travelling to specialist schools has increased by 24% in the last five years. The use of taxis to transport SEND children to and from school increased by 36% between 2019 and 2023. As has been mentioned, even if a child does get transport, they have to be able to rely on it actually being there.
Many Members have talked about cash-strapped councils. Up and down the country, councils were let down by the last Conservative Government and are struggling. Many are filling that financial black hole by charging families of SEND children. A study showed that at least six councils have begun consulting on proposals, with some asking families to pay as much as £933 per year. We heard about Jessica and her son, and other Members highlighted the amount that families are paying.
Ultimately, the rise in transport issues further highlights the issue of SEND provision near to where children live. We were let down by the last Conservative Government, who left SEND provision on its knees, and in Hertfordshire, we were let down by Hertfordshire county council, which had failings identified in a recent report. We are facing a twin crisis in funding special educational needs and local government. Urgent action is needed to ensure that all children can access the tailored learning and support that they need, and as close to home as possible.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for local authorities to be given extra funding and for a fairer funding formula on SEND to reduce the amount that schools pay towards EHCPs. We would establish a new national body for SEND to support children with complex and high needs, ending the postcode lottery. At the heart of this issue are our children and their families who want them to reach their full potential. As I said at the beginning, every child can achieve great things, no matter what; we must not let them down.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate and on her very good speech. This subject impacts families up and down the country every day, and I am glad that we have been able to debate it. We have heard about the need for local provision, more specialist schools and a well-funded system, with access to education a common theme.
As Members have acknowledged, under the Education Act 1996, local authorities are under a duty to provide free school transport to eligible children. That was intended to mean that no child is prevented from accessing education due to a lack of transportation, a view that I believe is shared by everybody here today. However, demand is growing, and as the hon. Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) identified, the ballooning numbers really are a problem.
I will run through the numbers, as they set out the problem we face. Nationally, council spending on SEND transport increased from £728 million in 2019 to £1.4 billion in 2024. It is projected to reach £2.2 billion by 2027-28, an increase of 57%. The average cost per SEND pupil nationally for transport has also risen by 32% between 2018 and 2024, and the number of pupils requiring transport is also growing. Councils transported an average of 1,300 pupils in 2023-24, up from 911 in 2018-19, which is an increase of 43%. I know that the Minister will be thinking about the cause of the demand, as well as what we need to do about it. I hope she can provide an update for us today on Government thinking in this area.
As Members will know, the local government financial settlement for next year is looming. I must correct the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on this point. She should look at what happened to local government funding when the Lib Dems were in government and then what happened after they left. It is important to emphasise that the Conservative Government increased the high needs budget by over 60% in 2019-20 to £10.5 billion and put in place a statutory override so that SEND-related deficits did not overwhelm council budgets. With that set to expire in 2026, what is the Secretary of State’s message to local authorities, particularly in rural and county areas, where these pressures are most acute?
Laura Trott
I want to make sure that there is time for a wrap-up, and we are quite close to the end of the debate, so I will continue, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
Is the Secretary of State pushing the Chancellor to extend that protection or for deficits to be written off? How are the Government supporting local authorities to explore innovative solutions, such as shared transport services or alternative models, to help to manage rising SEND transport costs more effectively? Can the Minister also update us on what the total cost will be to local government of the national insurance contributions increase announced in the Budget? What is the cost of the national insurance increase specifically for home-to-school transport? Will local authorities be fully compensated for those costs?
The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the need for capital funding. Many Members here will remember the 15 specialist schools pledged in the last Conservative Budget. Can the Minister confirm that those will be going ahead?
I am conscious of the time, so this will be my final word. I pledge that we will be a constructive Opposition. I think everyone here today will be clear that we support local provision, support for parents and more capital funding, and we will support that with the Government if they bring it forward.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this incredibly important debate—its importance clearly marked by the number of contributions. I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about the need to secure the right support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Indeed, she and I made a wonderful joint visit in her constituency to a fantastic school that demonstrates what brilliant education delivered inclusively for the whole community can look like. I know she works really hard in her area to make sure that that is available to as many children as possible. That is a vision that the Government very much share with her, because as a Government we are absolutely committed to creating opportunities for all children so that they can achieve and thrive.
I think we all agree that no child should struggle to get to school because of lack of transport. The testimonies that we have heard show the remarkable job that hon. Members have all done in putting forward so powerfully the voices of their constituents in only a minute. To be able to accommodate 30, or just under 30, speakers in a debate of just an hour on this incredibly important issue is quite a feat, so I think everybody should be commended. Their constituents will need to understand the constraints of these debates and that they have done an incredible job in the circumstances. It has come across so strongly how important it is that the transport system supports all young people to access educational opportunity. This is something that I am very keen to look at in the role I now have in the Government. I thank all Members for their contributions today, and you, Sir Mark, for keeping such good order.
I apologise in advance if I am not able to respond to all the individual issues raised. Some of them relate to local authorities and need to be addressed in the correct way to local authorities, where there are the right people to respond to these issues. Others will be for the Department, and we will do our very best to follow up—if we do not, please contact us, because I am really keen and genuinely committed to making sure that all the voices that Members represent here today are heard as we look at how this system is working and how we can fix it.
As has been mentioned, the Department’s home-to-school travel policy is aimed and designed to ensure that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport, but the challenges in that regard are significant and have been well set out today. There are also particular rights for low-income households to have support in order to exercise choice. Local authorities are obliged to arrange free travel for children of compulsory school age—I appreciate that hon. Members have raised concerns about pre-school-age children and post-16 children, and I will do my very best to address those concerns in the time that we have available—but we know that local authorities are really struggling to fulfil their duty to provide free transport, even for currently eligible children, and the cost of doing so has escalated sharply in recent years.
We thank local authorities for the work they do to try to support children to get to school. We know they provide a valuable service for the children and the families who can access it, particularly if those children have special educational needs and disabilities.
However, there are many reasons for the steep increase in costs in recent years: fuel price inflation and shortages of drivers, passenger assistants and transport operators have all pushed up costs in the market. But we also know that this huge increase is related to challenges within the school system itself, and specifically the way that the school system currently educates children with additional needs.
More children have an educational, health and care plan, and more of those children have to travel long distances to go to a school that can meet their needs. In addition to their journeys being longer, which in itself obviously makes them more expensive, there is a reduction in opportunities for economies of scale. Fewer children are likely to travel on a particular route, which means that more individual journeys need to be made.
Local authorities also try to help young people aged between 16 and 19 to access education or training. That help is extended to the age of 24 if a young person has a special educational need. We recognise that there are similarly significant financial pressures on the transport budgets for post-16 students. The cost and availability of public transport can also be an issue for some young people between 16 and 19 if they are going to travel to sixth form.
Catherine McKinnell
I would like to, but I also want to respond on many of the issues that have been raised, so I apologise that I am not able to take an intervention.
Many local authorities offer subsidised transport and there is also the 16 to 19 bursary, which is intended to provide support to young people in households with the lowest incomes. However, we know that for far too long far too many children have been let down by a special educational needs system that is not working. We are determined to fix it and to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support to flourish and have their needs met within the education system.
As hon. Members have said today, we urgently need to improve the inclusivity and expertise of our mainstream schools, so that as many children as possible can go to their local community school with their peers. In and of itself, that would reduce some of those transport pressures. However, we must also ensure that support is available for those children who have more complex needs and need special schools. Fixing the system will also help to fix the home-to-school travel challenges that we are seeing. Ensuring that children can be educated locally will reduce that pressure, so it is a key priority for this Government.
However, there are no quick fixes. This issue is absolutely core to our opportunity mission; addressing special educational needs and disabilities must be part of ensuring that every child has the barriers to opportunity broken down for them. We need to work together with parents, schools, councils and the expert staff who we know go above and beyond every day to support these children, but we recognise the challenges in the system.
Home-to-school travel is obviously an absolutely core part of ensuring that children receive the education that they need and that will help them to thrive. However, we know that the eligibility criteria have been unchanged since the 1940s. Clearly, they are meant to ensure that children can access education and that lack of transport is not a barrier to children accessing education, but I am really keen to understand how they are working in the modern context and how we can change the education system to reduce the pressures and ensure that we have a transport system that is fit for the modern age.
Post-16 eligibility has been raised a number of times today. I have mentioned the bursary fund; more than £166 million of bursary funding has been allocated to institutions for the 2024-25 academic year. It is intended to support young people with travel, books, equipment and clothing, if needed. An additional £20 million is also specifically allocated to support vulnerable students: those in care, care leavers and those supporting themselves or in receipt of social security funds. Those funds should be available, but clearly they are not always getting to the children who need them. In addition, local authorities have discretion to make the transport arrangements that they deem necessary for post-16 students in their area, taking into consideration local circumstances, local budgets and local priorities.
I recognise all the challenges that have been identified today and I urge hon. Members to work with their local authorities to try to improve the situation on a local level, just as we are clearly working to do so on a Government level.
We know that children’s earliest years make the biggest difference to their life, which is why we recognise the importance of early years and early education. We know that that is how to deliver the best outcomes for children. Having access to those appropriate childcare settings in the early years is key to meeting those early years development goals and to breaking down any barriers that may arise later on in life. We know that special educational needs access in particular, and identifying needs at the earliest stage possible, is key; many Members have outlined the challenges that transport can pose to making sure that children have access to those opportunities.
We absolutely want children and young people to receive the support they need to thrive. We want local authorities to be able to provide suitable places for children and young people. We know that the capital funding for high-needs places is a key concern for Members, and we will set out plans on that funding shortly. I am out of time to respond, but if I have not addressed a particular issue, I ask hon. Members please to get in touch.
I thank hon. Friends again for bringing this matter forward, for ensuring that everybody had the opportunity to speak, for being so respectful in this debate, and for allowing everyone to put their constituents’ views forward. I know that this is a challenge that far too many face, and that we have to work together in our determination to fix this system to give every child the best start in life.
Jen Craft
I thank Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon, particularly those from rural areas who highlighted the additional complexities of home-to-school travel there. I thank the Minister for her considered response.
I recognise that the challenges to the SEND system are immense and will take a long time to put right. My concern is that, while the ultimate goal of moving inclusive, mainstream education closer to children where they need it is an honourable one and is clearly the direction that we should be travelling in, there are children who cannot access that right now. They cannot wait for a long-term shift in policy and approach; that would have a detrimental impact on the rest of their lives.
The outcomes for children aged 16 to 19, if they do not access education or training, are well documented, which is why education or training is compulsory up to the age of 18. The only people who currently have to face a financial burden to meet their child’s need and make sure that they are accessing that compulsory education or training mandate, on a general, widespread basis, are parents of disabled children. That is something that needs to be looked at.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is keen to look at this issue in more depth in her role in Government and at how it is working in practice. I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with her on that, and indeed to work with the sector and parents of SEND children more widely.
I finish by saying that no one puts their vulnerable, non-verbal child in a car with strangers by choice; it is because that is how they can get them to their education setting. I reflect, with gratitude, on the people who have taken my daughter to school. I believe that their professionalism, their absolute empathy, and the way that they interact with her on a daily basis is something to be commended, as is the role that people play in this system in general.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I thank everybody for their indulgence in keeping their speeches short. We have had 33 speakers in this debate, which I think is the most that anybody has ever crammed into an hour; I hope that Guinness World Records is paying attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the statutory framework for home-to-school transport for children with SEND.