Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18 December 2024

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the employment rights of people with a terminal illness.

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

For some time, the fundamental ask of this campaign has been the right of working people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness not to face the sack. We have spoken a lot about terminal illness over the last few weeks in this place, and I do not want us to lose momentum. We now know the legal definition of a terminal diagnosis; it is life expectancy not foreseen beyond a six-month period. Our campaign aims to protect that period of employment. We protect the period of employment at the start of life—an employer cannot sack a pregnant worker. What we are saying is that they should not be able to sack a worker who has received a terminal diagnosis.

I want to declare an interest: before I got elected, I was the midlands regional secretary for the Trades Union Congress, and one of the campaigns I worked on was called the Dying to Work campaign. The campaign was about people with a terminal illness in the world of work. We found that some employers would dismiss a worker with a terminal illness based on the grounds of capability—the bulk of employers would not dream of doing so—and we wanted to protect workers during that period, so we developed a voluntary charter that employers could sign up to that would protect workers from being dismissed because of their condition and protect their freedom to choose whether to keep working, reduce their hours or step away all together.

We put the choice into the hands of the individual. The only time that that choice is taken away from the individual is if an employer wants to take that choice for them by dismissing them from work due to their diagnosis. The charter protects employees’ benefits, such as death in service payments, protects workers’ access to a supportive and understanding workplace, and gives terminally ill workers the freedom to make the choices that are right for them without the extra stress and worry. We launched that charter in 2016, and it now protects over 1.5 million working people in this country, because employers have signed up.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on the campaign across the midlands and across the country. I was very proud to support it when I was last in this place. The sheer volume of workers who are now protected is testament to my hon. Friend’s hard work and his ability to tell such a compelling story. Could he enlighten me on whether the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the various Government Departments, which are huge employers, have signed up to the campaign? If they have not, could I extend a hand of friendship to him to help him ensure that they sign up as soon as possible?

[Lee Barron]

We managed to get the campaign promoted as best practice by the Department for Work and Pensions—meaning that if employers, through their disability awareness scheme, ever go to the Government in relation to how to treat workers with a terminal illness, they are always signposted to the campaign—but no Government Departments have signed up. However, I am aware that with the new Government coming in, those discussions are now taking place.

Although the progress made so far is commendable, it is not universal. That is why we have called this debate—so that we can the extend this right to all those who are ill. I want to recognise Richard Oliver, who is in the Public Gallery and who has been part of the campaign right from the outset; it is great that he has been able to join us today.

As I said, it is still legal in this country to sack a terminally ill worker on the grounds of capability. At a time when someone is dealing with a devastating diagnosis, they could also face the loss of their livelihood and their financial security. That is not acceptable. There has been significant discussion about dying with dignity recently, particularly relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Although that Bill has rightly captured our attention, I do not want us to lose momentum now that it has gone to Committee. These people are on a path—a journey, if we can call it that—and they should not have to worry about whether they will lose their job while they face that.

Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis, and most employers would not dream of firing their terminally ill workers.

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

Big congratulations to my hon. Friend on the work he has done on this issue over many years. Does he agree that the six-month rule, which determines that a person is terminally ill—that they are dying and will not be here in six months—is too stressful? People need to get clarification from their doctor, in the most difficult circumstances, that they are going to die. I think that is absolutely stressful, and I speak with a personal situation in mind.

[Lee Barron]

One of the things that has always got me is the number of personal stories people tell about what they have faced. We cannot remove those stories and those situations. I cannot imagine the distress, and I do not know if anybody else in here can. All I know is that I have met people who have gone through this experience, and that should never happen in our society. I have always said that the compassion and values that we hold as a society should not end at the front door of the workplace; they should be part and parcel of the workplace. That is why it is so important that we discuss issues like this.

Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis. Those who receive a terminal diagnosis and their families should not have to worry about paying the bills or about their job, on top of everything else. The reality is that not all terminal illnesses are treated equally under the law. The prior part of employment, when people fall under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, is protected. It is when they get a terminal diagnosis, and when capability comes into it, that they are not protected. That is the part that needs to be protected; that is the loophole in the law.

I met a lady who worked for Nottinghamshire county council. The council signed up to the Dying to Work charter on a Thursday, although she had passed away on the Friday of the previous week. She had decided that she wanted to stay at work because that was where her friends—her social outlet—were; she did not want to sit at home, bouncing off the walls. She took that decision for herself, and her employer did the right thing by saying, “We’ll give you the freedom as far as that decision is concerned.”

Many people are proud of the work they do. They often wake up early to work long, hard days to provide for themselves and their loved ones. They greet and talk to their colleagues, who they see almost every day. They deserve dignity and respect, and they deserve our support.

Some terminally ill people may want to continue working as long as they can, finding peace and distraction in their professional lives. Others may decide to step away, prioritising their family and themselves. While the Government are rightly levelling up workers’ rights, we must seize the moment to ensure those with terminal illness are treated with fairness, compassion and the respect they deserve in the workplace. Protections like those enshrined in our Dying to Work charter should be universal, not optional. Legislation must be introduced to best protect vulnerable people in our workplaces. In the meantime, it is essential that we persuade as many employers as possible, including Government Departments, to sign up to the Dying to Work charter to protect as many workers as possible. Dignity at work is not a privilege; it is a right.

Some organisations do have death in service payments, but if a person is fired, they and their family are no longer entitled to any of those benefits. Every worker deserves to know that they will not be forced out of their job when they need it most. People at the end of their life should be able to decide whether they want to continue to work.

I was delighted to hear that the Government will be implementing the Dying to Work charter as best practice in Departments, but we need to go further. We need to review the Equality Act 2010 so that there are not gaps in rights for those who are terminally ill. We need to protect people’s employment when they are ill. We need to give the most vulnerable people in our society the right to choose and the right to dignity. We need to implement new legislation to protect these workers.

Protecting employment for those who are terminally ill means that they can focus on what truly matters, whether that is continuing to contribute to work or stepping away to spend their remaining time with their loved ones. Ultimately, that choice should be theirs and theirs alone, and if we need to we should protect that choice in law.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they must bob.

09:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for giving us the opportunity to participate, and congratulate him on his introduction, which showed an understanding of what the issue means to his constituents. I hope I will convey that too.

This is an opportunity to highlight the much-needed help and support that the Government must facilitate. I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in their places, and look forward to their contributions. I believe that the Minister understands the necessity for this debate, and I understand that the Government are going to make changes; the Minister will respond to that later.

This is one of those bread and butter issues, which I love because they make a difference to people’s lives. There are important constitutional and foreign policy issues but these matters are the ones we deal with every week in our offices. These are not just bread and butter issues; they are literally life-and-death issues, and the hon. Gentleman has set that scene so well.

I want to advocate for the tremendous work of the wonderful charity, Marie Curie. We all deal with many charities in our constituencies, as others will mention. I have lots in my constituency, but I am a supporter of Marie Curie in word and deed. I am not better than anybody else—I never claim to be and I never will be—but I support that charity’s work financially and in other ways. I have been to the Marie Curie centre in Knock, Belfast, where the staff provide real help to each person and their family. That must be an incredibly hard job and every Marie Curie nurse deserves credit.

I am thankful for the support that Marie Curie gives to patients and families in the throes of cancer journeys. Those are journeys that I and constituents have dealt with over the years. I am also grateful for the information that Marie Curie consolidates and provides us with to enable our fuller understanding. Information from those in the thick of funding and practical issues is invaluable. We need to dig deep individually and collectively within our constituencies. When loved ones pass away, they often leave something in their will to Marie Curie or other charities, which helps them do more for other people on life’s last journey.

I want to focus heavily on the recently published report, “Dying in Poverty 2024”. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read it, I suggest it may be worth a look. It looks at the financial insecurity faced by many people at the end of life. Research found that some 111,000 people each year die in poverty. Wow; I can hardly take in that figure, especially in this modern society—this wealthy Britain—that we live in. That figure needs to settle into all our minds. The report also found that working-age people are at much greater risk of dying in poverty: 28% of those who died in 2023 died in poverty, compared with 16% of pension-age people. Anyone who is not shocked by those figures must be unfeeling—they must not understand—but I believe that everyone in this room is as shocked as I am.

For that reason, a lot of workers with a terminal diagnosis decide that they must continue working for as long as they can. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to one lady who wanted to keep working right up until the end, because work was where her social group was, even though she would have found doing so incredibly difficult. Unfortunately, the experience of many workers is that their employer either is unsympathetic—I am sure that some are sympathetic—or puts up barriers to their continuing in work. A 2022 survey of human resources decision makers found that only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness. If businesses do not have those policies in place, they should. They have to prepare for that eventuality and be able to help workers through the process.

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

A number of employers might either not have a policy or simply be unaware, for some reason, of the need to be more empathetic with people who find themselves in such a horrendously difficult position. The advantage of a debate such as this one, secured by the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) and supported by all hon. Members, is that it can raise awareness and hopefully bring action from Government Departments and employers, which need to take action and show support.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I do not want to give him a big head, but his interventions often capture the focus of a debate in one sentence. If the companies have forgotten or are unaware, it is time that they were aware. The question is how we can make that happen.

As I say, only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness, so if a worker with a terminal illness loses their job, they lose their income. The impact could not be any more real: they may lose any death in service payments that they have earned through their lifetime of work, because those are payable only to those who die while still in employment. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to the lady who stayed at work for her social circle of friends. Perhaps it helped her—I am sorry to say this—to ensure that when she passed away she had the payments that she should have had.

I agree with the Marie Curie charity that there is therefore a need for strengthened employment rights for people with a terminal illness, alongside an improved safety net to provide safety or support through our welfare system. When the Minister responds, I am sure that he or his civil servants and staff will have some figures from Marie Curie; if there has not been engagement with the organisation, I suggest that there should be.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for raising this important issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that there also needs to be workplace protection for the parents of children who have been given a terminal diagnosis? When a child is given a terminal diagnosis in such tragic circumstances, parents are worried because they have to leave their work to care for their children. Does he agree that there needs to be better protection for them?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend. Others might not have thought about that issue, because there are always the two adults—the mum and dad who are in a relationship—and it is their child, but if their child has a terminal illness, how does that impact them in work? They need to be there to take their child to the hospital, and to be there for their child in the last days of their life. I know that the Minister understands those issues; perhaps he can give us an encouraging answer to these questions.

Life is tough for families in full-time employment, never mind those with reduced income and greater costs. Changes must be made to universal credit— I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility—to allow those in full-time employment to access help and support for their care and time off work. All my staff members understand the benefits system very well, but I am fortunate to have one particular staff member who spends every day of her five and a half days a week—the half day is probably voluntary, because she is a lady with compassion and understanding—working on benefits. As elected representatives, we try to offer all we can to our constituents. All Members do. That lady fills out universal credit applications, personal independence payment applications, employment and support allowance applications or, probably in most cases, attendance allowance applications, although sometimes it is for families with small children.

These are really difficult times. I do the forms myself; I am not better than anybody else. There is a box on the second or third page that asks whether the applicant has a terminal illness. When you tick that box, it moves you into a different system. I have to be fair to the Department: when that box is ticked, the Department moves immediately. I know that from cases that we have done through my office, and other Members will confirm it when they get their chance to speak. An urgency is put into the process and it quickly moves on.

The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire highlighted in communication to Members that the purpose of this debate is clear:

“The last thing someone with a terminal diagnosis and their family should be worrying about at the end of their life is how they will be able to pay the bills.”

Wow. The Government should remove that equation for people. Many people’s key social networks exist at work, and I believe that those who are terminally ill should have the choice of when they finish work. That is what the debate is all about.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s view. More than that, I will work with him and with the Government to achieve that—to simply do more for those with terminal cancer. Just because charities do such an incredible job of raising funds and caring, that does not absolve our Government and our Minister of their responsibility; I say that with fairness and with respect. It is our duty to ensure that we fulfil these obligations. We must do better.

09:51

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing this important debate on the employment rights of people with a terminal illness. I pay tribute to his tireless advocacy on behalf of workers facing unimaginable challenges.

Receiving a terminal diagnosis is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. In that moment, the focus should be on spending precious time with loved ones, seeking medical care and living the life you have left. As a humanist, I believe we have only one life, so a good life and a good death are very important to me.

Unfortunately, for too many people a terminal diagnosis is compounded by the fear of losing their livelihood and the security that employment provides. As things stand, it is still legal in this country to dismiss someone with a terminal illness on grounds of capability. That is not only deeply unjust, but fundamentally inhumane. The last thing that anyone with a terminal illness should have to worry about is how they will keep a roof over their head or provide for their family. People’s lives do not end at the moment they get a terminal diagnosis. They are still mums, dads, colleagues and breadwinners.

Many people with a terminal illness live longer than six months. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I also acknowledge the Dying to Work campaign, which has already secured protections for more than 1.5 million workers through its voluntary charter. The charter, developed in partnership with the TUC, encourages employers to commit to supporting workers with a terminal illness, ensuring that they have the choice to remain in work for as long as they wish, without the fear of dismissal. The campaign’s success demonstrates that compassion and practicality can go hand in hand in the workplace.

The voluntary charter is laudable, but it is not enough. It is not right that the ability to work at the end of life depends on the good will of individual employers. Workers should not have to rely on luck to ensure that their rights are protected at the most vulnerable time of their life. The current patchwork approach creates inequality. Perhaps larger employers with more resources are more likely to sign up to the Dying to Work charter; perhaps smaller employers do not have the capacity or simply do not know about it. This disparity underscores the need for consistent, nationwide standards to ensure that no worker with a terminal illness is left behind.

Some may argue that mandatory protections could place an undue burden on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. I think we can find a balance. Being offered reasonable adjustments, flexible working and the ability to work from home can enable terminally ill employees to continue contributing in ways that are meaningful for them and for their employer. Many employers already see the value of retaining experienced workers who want to stay engaged.

Let me share some statistics from my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale. According to recent figures, over 25% of the workforce in my area are employed in industries such as retail and hospitality, where job security is often already precarious. Those sectors also report higher levels of sickness, making the need for robust protections even more pressing. Additionally, local advocacy groups have highlighted that the financial strain of a terminal diagnosis can have a disproportionate impact on low-income families, with many struggling to take on the extra costs of a terminal diagnosis, particularly in the light of the recent cost of living crisis. The lived experience behind those numbers is a stark reminder of the urgency of the issue.

Ensuring that terminally ill workers in Morecambe and Lunesdale and across the country are protected from unfair dismissal is not just about individual dignity; it is about strengthening the social fabric of our communities. There is also a compelling economic case for action. Retaining employees with terminal illnesses can reduce turnover costs, maintain productivity and strengthen workplace morale by fostering a culture of compassion and respect. Even beyond those practical considerations, the moral imperative is clear. A just society does not abandon its citizens in their greatest time of need.

As policymakers, we must lead the way in ensuring that every worker facing a terminal diagnosis has the legal protection that they deserve. That includes the right to remain in employment, if they want, for as long as they wish; access to reasonable adjustments; and the reassurance that their job and their dignity are secure. I urge the Government to take inspiration from the Dying to Work charter and enshrine its principles in law. Let us send a clear message that terminal illness is not a reason to strip someone of their livelihood. Let us ensure that no worker faces the additional burden of financial insecurity or social isolation as they navigate the most challenging period of their life.

In closing, I want to reflect on the experience of those who have lived this reality. Work is not just a means of earning a living; it is often a source of identity, purpose and community. For those facing a terminal illness, having the choice to continue working or to leave should not be a luxury. It should be a right.

09:57

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing this important debate.

As a proud trade unionist woman from the east midlands, I am hugely proud to speak in this debate. The campaign to give terminally ill people rights in the workplace was kick-started with the incredible voice and determination of an east midlands GMB member Jacci Woodcock, who in June 2012 was sadly diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. It became apparent very early on to Jacci that her workplace was not going to support her. Jacci drove this campaign and was quoted as saying:

“I happily accept my fate, but I am not happy that other workers who don’t have my vision, tenacity and strength suffer at the hands of unscrupulous employers.”

I had the honour of meeting Jacci in Nottinghamshire, when Nottinghamshire county council adopted the Dying to Work charter—something that I know has benefited many workers to this day.

Sadly, I have personally witnessed the trauma, anxiety and upset that is caused when a terminal illness is diagnosed. In times of such upheaval and distress, I am a strong advocate for those who are suffering to have options and be able to make choices. Some will want to stop working straightaway and are financially able to do so, but others will not or cannot. Some will receive a lot of comfort from being able to continue as normal a life as possible for as long as they can. Workers should be able to make that choice, and workplaces should be equipped and ready to support that. There are still far too many HR departments and bosses across the country who see terminal illness as a reason, based on capability, to end a person’s employment status.

But I say this must change. That is why, over 12 years ago, Jacci made that stand not only for her, but for others—for those who have not even been diagnosed yet, for those whose only contact with the real world was through their workplace, for those who have dedicated their whole life to a particular business or trade. I wish to thank Jacci and her family. I place it on the record that I will continue to campaign for that choice for those diagnosed with a terminal illness. Dignity in the workplace is a right. We here have a duty and a crucial role to make sure that that happens.

10:00

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), whom I have known for a long time, for securing the debate.

I declare an interest: I am a member of the Justice Committee, a solicitor and a member of the GMB executive council. The GMB was instrumental in running the “Dying to Work” campaign, and the TUC subsequently adopted the charter. As of March 2024, over 1.5 million workers in the UK have employers who have committed to the charter, which requires employers to

“Review sick pay and sickness absence procedures and include a specific statement that they will not dismiss any person with a terminal diagnosis because of their condition”,

as well as take other steps to support the terminally ill employee at work.

There is very little employment law that deals with terminal illness, but we do have laws relating to disability discrimination and laws under which an employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for employees at work, and those laws will apply to employees who are terminally ill. The NHS defines a terminal illness as a health condition

“that you’ll most likely die from”.

Under the Equality Act 2010, people with disabilities are protected against discrimination at work. Disabilities are defined as any impairment that has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out “normal day-to-day activities”. Terminal illness will be classed as a disability, at least from the point where the illness begins to have an impact on the person’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities; so the Equality Act will give the employee the right not to be treated less favourably at work, and the right to reasonable adjustments to enable them to stay at work. People with cancer, HIV infection or multiple sclerosis will automatically be considered to have a disability, regardless of their symptoms. Correspondingly, anyone who is terminally ill should also be considered to have a disability regardless of their symptoms.

Under the Equality Act, the employer must make reasonable adjustments so that disabled employees, including those who are terminally ill, can continue in their job if they wish. The employer may, for example, change the employee’s working hours and working patterns, reduce their workload, reallocate duties, grant time off for treatment and medical appointments, and allow working from home. An employer must consider an employee’s terminal illness and symptoms when deciding what reasonable adjustments should be made to retain them in employment, rather than dismiss them in accordance with a sickness absence policy.

A lot of workers with a terminal diagnosis will decide that they want to continue working for as long as they can because they need the financial security, or to avoid losing any death in service benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire mentioned, or because they find that work is a helpful distraction from their illness. Parliament recently gave Second Reading to a Bill that would give people a choice to die with dignity. Surely we can give those who are dying the dignity of work for as long as they need it.

10:04

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on securing this important debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB.

I add my thanks to midlands TUC for the work it has done for many years to promote and champion this campaign. I will also mention the work that the GMB midlands region has done in connection with the cause. Two names are on the record, and I echo the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and East Northamptonshire and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). I pay tribute to Jacci Woodcock, who struck the spark that lit the flame, and my friend of many years, Richard Oliver. It is a pleasure to see him in the Public Gallery. He has brought real passion and expertise to the cause.

We have heard today that there are weaknesses and gaps in the Equality Act. I hope that this is the subject of consensus across the House. When in 2022 the then Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), responded for the Government go a debate on the Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill, although he acknowledged that many workers who have a terminal illness are covered by the definition of disability under the Equality Act, he added:

“I say, ‘the overwhelming majority’, but one thing that we might want to look at offline, as it were, is trying to ensure that that is everybody”—[Official Report, 18 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 1010.]

who is covered. We are still not in that place today. Although a terminally ill worker can in principle bring a case before an employment tribunal, in too many cases, sadly, there are obvious barriers to doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) has already pointed out that there is very little case law in this area. Although in theory a posthumous employment tribunal case can be brought, in practice it rarely happens.

Although the definition of disability inherited from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was probably not written with terminal illness in mind, there are circumstances where a terminally ill worker who is discriminated against at work would not fall under the protections of the Act, but someone in the early and possibly asymptomatic stages of a terminal illness would fall into that category. So there is a strong and compelling case for revisiting the Equality Act, but there are steps that can be taken in the intervening period.

Section 22 of the Equality Act established powers to bring in regulations on matters to be taken into account when employers and other bodies make reasonable adjustments. If regulations were brought in for the purpose of establishing that it is reasonable to take certain steps to accommodate the needs of workers with a terminal illness, that would be a helpful and clarifying step, which would be welcomed by employers as well as workers who develop a terminal illness, because employers are looking for clear guidance in this important area.

Similarly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission statutory code of practice on employment is the consolidated set of statutory guidance on the application of the Equality Act in the workplace, but that code of practice has not been updated since 2011 and it does not clearly or explicitly cover or reference terminal illness at any point. Were that code updated to take account of the particular problems facing workers who have a terminal illness, that would also play a positive and constructive role. Tribunals must have regard to the guidance from the Government Equalities Office, now the Women and Equalities Unit, on matters to be taken into account in determining questions on the definition of disability. That code has not been updated since 2013, and it does not clearly cover matters relating to terminal illness. Some helpful clarification that could be introduced through that guidance. Nevertheless, some problems cannot be addressed unless and until the Equality Act itself is revisited. The point has already been made that workers who develop a specified illness—cancer, for example—automatically fall under the definition of disability, but people who develop a different terminal illness do not. There is a very strong case for revisiting the Equality Act in that regard.

It is welcome that the new Government have made commitments in the “Make Work Pay” document, which states:

“Terminally ill people deserve security and decency during the hardest period in their lives.”

The Government encourage employers and trade unions to negotiate and sign up to the Dying to Work charter, and will work with trade unions and others to ensure that workers diagnosed with a terminal illness are treated with respect and dignity and supported at work. We all look forward to hearing from the Minister about the progress that has been made on those commitments.

We have heard a lot in this Parliament about the importance of a good death and the steps that we need to take in all areas of public policy and law to ensure that people are entitled to and receive support and dignified treatment at the close of their day. That must apply in the field of work and employment as much as in the health service and in all the other respects that we have considered during very emotive and considered debates in this Parliament. It must be hoped that, in the course of the four or five years of this Parliament, real and meaningful progress will be made to extend the charter and other protections to the hundreds of thousands of people who will, sadly, fall ill with a terminal illness and need support at work.

10:12

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Edward. I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on securing this important and timely debate on the Dying to Work campaign and all that it entails.

I want to highlight the work of the TUC, particularly in the east midlands, spearheaded by Richard Oliver of the GMB trade union. He was the first person to introduce me to the Dying to Work campaign and to Jacci Woodcock, a long-term champion of the campaign. I have met her in this place, at the Labour party conference, at the Labour party east midlands regional conference and on a number of other occasions. She has been absolutely tireless and should be proud that her work on the issue she brought to the attention of her trade union has made such a significant difference to so many people in this country. It went from being one person’s personal issue to making over 1.5 million people’s working lives easier in very difficult circumstances.

Jacci’s work continues to make a difference. Last Thursday in my constituency, I was delighted to join Rachel Harvey and Lesley Charlesworth-Brown, the chair and deputy CEO respectively of Saint Andrew’s Hospice, when they signed the Dying to Work charter. Having been made aware of it during my previous time as a Member of Parliament, they had considered it and had been implementing it in practice anyway, but they decided to formalise their commitment to their staff, reflecting the area of work they are all involved in, and demonstrate their support for the charter. On the practical impact that has had for their staff, they said it has put in place an additional level of reassurance and flexibility. It has also had an impact on their patients: those who are in hospice care facing the end of their life find it reassuring that those caring for them do not have to deal with workplace precarity, and the staff are able to focus their time and energy in the way that they want to.

St Andrew’s Hospice has a reputation not only as a care giver but as a caring employer, which says a huge amount about those leading the organisation. It also helps to spread the word further that employers are still continuing to sign up, and that the momentum is still there. I sincerely hope that by taking this step, St Andrew’s will lead the way and encourage more employers in my constituency and across the country to sign up to the charter and to continue to give support and reassurance to people in their final months.

10:16

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on bringing this extremely important debate to the House and on his work over the years before he became an MP, particularly in the midlands, which was exemplary, to say the least.

Sir Edward, can you imagine what it is like when the consultant tells you—perhaps you are at work and you get a phone call—that you have got terminal cancer? Your life flashes before you. It is horrendous, and not only for you; your family, your workmates and everyone else is completely devastated. Yet here in the UK employers still have the ability to decide whether to dismiss somebody under those circumstances, on the basis of capability, or allow them to remain in employment. Quite frankly, it is appalling. It does not befit this wonderful country that we live in.

When they get telt they have terminal cancer or a terminal illness, and are in work, different people have different views, but many have not got different options, because it is down to employers. There are good employers and bad employers. That has always been the case and it always will be. That is why it should be enshrined in law that people with a terminal condition cannot be dismissed on grounds of capability in any way, shape or form.

Different people are different. Some people want to work, because they see it as a distraction from their condition. Some people have a condition that makes it impossible for them to work. Some people want to fight their grave illness; others want to lie under the duvet and sadly spend the rest of their days in the house, not in work. But people need to have options, and people need to be supported by the Government.

I can give personal testimony, because I have experienced this situation only this year. A very close relative—it was my brother, actually—was in this position, and it was terrible. For pension reasons, to continue in employment and to receive other support, he had to prove to his employer that he really was terminally ill. For someone to do that, they have to get a letter from their GP to prove that they are going to die. The definition of “terminally ill” is that someone will die within six months, so he and his family had to seek a letter saying that he was not going to be around in six months. That is absolute stress of the highest level; it is a pre-death certificate.

Can it be right that working people are tret in this way? You have got enough stress when you have been telt—by the consultant, the doctor, the hospital, the GP—that you have not got that much time left. Some people want to get on and put their affairs in order; others want to spend time with their family. But people should have the right to work, and the right to continue in employment, if they can.

Other speakers have mentioned financial issues. Of course, lots of people who get a terminal illness while they are in work have family, including kids, as well as mortgages, cars and loans, and they cannot just have their financial position severed because of bad employers. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire who said that dignity at work is not a privilege, but a right. I agree. Basically, I think that the Government should consider the position of terminally ill individuals in the workplace.

With regard to needing absolute proof that you are dying, I am not sure. Imagine having to ask the doctor, “Can you put it in writing that I’m not going to be here?” It is dreadful. That is something we need to look at. I think it is right that the Government should enshrine in legislation that employers cannot dismiss anyone on grounds of capability if they can prove that they have a terminal illness, whether that proof is a letter saying they have six months to live—a pre-death certificate—or not. The employer should recognise that proof and it should be up to the individual worker to decide which of the options available to them to take.

It is commendable that 1.5 million workers and a whole number of companies have signed up to the Dying to Work campaign, but I think we have about 44 million workers in this country, and we have good employers and bad employers. We need to take the choice away from the employers; we need to enshrine it in law and support people who face the most dreadful situation that could ever be imagined.

10:23

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing this debate and for all the campaigning that he has done on this issue for many years.

Around 900,000 people of working age live with cancer and each year 127,000 people of working age are diagnosed with cancer. Cancer charities, with the University of Loughborough and the Centre for Progressive Change—they have been particularly helpful to me in preparing for the debate, so I send them my deepest thanks—estimated earlier this year that upwards of 30,000 people are going through their cancer treatment on statutory sick pay, which offers them an income of just £23 a day. We are in a situation in which people do not receive adequate sick pay. Although that impacts millions of people with all types of illness, it is especially pronounced for those with a more advanced or terminal diagnosis, as Macmillan Cancer Support has told me. People are left with very serious concerns.

These types of cancers involve prolonged treatment, often leading to substantial additional costs. In 2023, Young Lives vs Cancer, whose representatives I met last week, found that young cancer patients and their families spend almost £700 extra a month following a cancer diagnosis. Reportedly, that figure has increased by 15% since 2017. Quite simply, there are financial costs that follow a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer research found that 96% of young cancer patients and their families had to pay extra for their travel. The average came to more than £250 a month, with £30 extra on childcare, £144 extra on food and £68 extra on energy every month, along with other costs. Higher costs coupled with an inadequate income can put people’s recovery at risk. In the case of a terminal diagnosis, it can cause financial hardship at the point that the person is receiving end of life care.

Anthony Nolan’s 2023 survey revealed that the cost of living issues were so severe for some patients that they cut back on food and avoided turning the heating on, and three in 10 people were unable to afford their rent or mortgage during the 12-month treatment period. Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the current, broken rate of sick pay should be fixed, and that reform must be on the table as soon as the financial situation allows? Importantly, does he also agree that we should support small employers with statutory sick pay costs and consult them on the best way to do that?

Before I conclude, I want to address a key point about children and young people’s cancer. Although some may not know that they are terminal, the aggressive nature of cancers such as blood cancer, skin cancer and brain tumours means that the situation can change very quickly. Therefore, they may not have immediate access to things such as the special rules for terminal illness route for benefits, because they do not perfectly fit the criteria, which include things such as being on curative treatment or falling under the strict six-month definition of “terminal”. That leaves young patients liable to the three-month qualifying period for access to disability living allowance and personal independence payment, despite having a confirmed diagnosis. On top of that, application processing takes about 20 weeks, so some young people have passed away before their benefits have come through because of red tape. Perhaps the Minister is not aware of that, but how can the Government allow that state of affairs to continue? It really is time for change.

Why does having cancer for three months suddenly make it more real to the Department for Work and Pensions than it was at the moment of diagnosis? I would be grateful if the Minister met me and cancer charities to discuss that. It seems deeply cruel to allow this state of affairs, which prevailed under the Conservatives, to continue under the new Government.

10:29

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. We have heard a good and powerful debate this morning. I thank the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing and leading the debate. As he said, he has championed the Dying to Work campaign for many years, including in his role at the TUC in the midlands before his election to this place.

As we have heard from many hon. Members, the campaign was founded by Jacci Woodcock, a sales manager from Derbyshire, who was forced out of her job after being diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012, when she was given 12 months to live. Jacci was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire in the Queen’s birthday honours list in 2019, and I commend her hard work over the years.

As a result of Jacci’s work, many people have been protected from unfair dismissal and provided with invaluable support following the tragedy of a terminal diagnosis. It is clear from this debate, and more widely, that there is more to be done to support people with a terminal diagnosis. Being diagnosed with a terminal illness is often sudden and unexpected, meaning those with the diagnosis and their families are forced to adapt to the new reality with little or no notice. People often decline quickly and, by the time the family work out what support is available, their loved one is in desperate need of help or, in some cases, has tragically already passed away.

In other cases, despite the diagnosis, the person may have many months or even years left, and is willing and able to keep working, with some minor adaptations to their workplace arrangements. In my research for this debate, I found some startling statistics. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, just a third of UK organisations have specific provision for those with a terminal illness, meaning they have no policy, guidance or line manager or awareness training. It appears that the hesitancy of so many Brits to discuss health and serious illness has created a stigma about raising this issue in the workplace. That means that employers and employees often have to make it up as they go along, rather than follow standardised guidance developed by experts in the field.

As the Dying to Work campaign highlights, terminally ill people often do not have time to adapt to the reasonable adjustments put in place by employers, and are often forced to undergo stressful HR procedures. There are many financial worries left behind for families, as other hon. Members have mentioned. Cancer Research UK projects that one third of Brits will be diagnosed with cancer in their working life. According to a Macmillan Cancer Support survey, 37% of cancer patients have experienced discrimination on return to work.

It is vital to end the employer lottery. Individuals are currently at the mercy of their employer far too much, and often do not know their rights or what support is available. As the population ages and treatment options improve, more and more Brits are going to be living and working with a terminal illness. At present, the legal position of terminally ill employees mainly depends on the written and verbal agreement between employee and employer.

There is little specific law covering terminal illness, when it is clearly going to become ever more present in society. I suggest one of the best ways to help people with a terminal illness is to improve the information available on diagnosis, and to encourage employers to develop best practice guidance and training, so that any employee diagnosed with a terminal illness can receive support as quickly as possible. That would avoid the situation where even compassionate employers are playing a game of catch up or having to make it up as they go along.

It is vital that people understand their rights under the Equality Act 2010, which makes it illegal to discriminate against people with a disability and legislates that employers must make reasonable adjustments so that employees can do their work. That would include flexible working hours, reduced workload, reallocation of duties, time off for treatment and, where appropriate, working from home. Employees must be made aware that they can and should make the most of sick leave, extended special and compassionate leave, annual leave and flexible working.

There is no benefit specifically designed to help people with a terminal illness, but special rules are in place to expedite access to benefits for those with less than 12 months to live. Previously, that was limited to those with less than six months to live; I am proud that the last Government extended that period to 12 months, which in turn has provided quicker access to benefits, higher payments for certain benefits and the avoidance of the need for a medical assessment. Those with a terminal illness can access benefits designed to help with the additional costs of disability and ill health, such as disability living allowance, personal independence payments and attendance allowance. For those with a disability or in ill health, there are also the benefits designed to act as income replacements, such as employment and support allowance and universal credit.

I will end by mentioning the employment rights of not just those with a terminal illness but those who care for them—the spouses, children, brothers and sisters forced to take time off work to care for a terminally ill loved one. I am proud that the previous Government passed the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which created a new statutory right to carer’s leave that came into effect in April 2024.

Employees are now entitled to take one week of unpaid leave a year if they have caring responsibilities, and that leave entitlement is available from the first day of employment, with no qualifying period. On top of that, employees also have the right to reasonable time off if a dependant is ill or injured or if their care arrangements are disrupted. Carers are protected at work from discrimination by association, and the Equality Act 2010 protects those caring for disabled or elderly people from discrimination or harassment.

I am aware of previous attempts to introduce legislation to address the injustices that come with a terminal illness—most recently, a private Member’s Bill proposed in 2022 by the former Member for Stockton North. For a range of reasons, these past attempts have not succeeded but I am committed to working with right hon. and hon. Members across the House to get these issues back on the agenda and improve the lives of those who, tragically, have a diagnosis of terminal illness, to make sure that in their final months they are supported and cared for with the compassion that they deserve.

10:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Edward. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my membership of the Unite and GMB unions; obviously, there is a particular reference to the GMB from one of the leading proponents of the campaign.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on securing this important debate. We have been talking about death recently: the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was an important moment in its own right and clearly raised a lot of interest across the country. It was also a wider discussion about how we approach the end of life as a society and as individuals—and indeed as employers, who are the subject of today’s debate. Today we are continuing the discussion about how we handle this important issue.

The private Member’s Bill proposed that only those with a terminal diagnosis who were expected to live for six months or less could come under its auspices, but there can be a considerable time between diagnosis and death. It is important that that time, however long it is, is considered carefully when it comes to how we better support people to live with dignity and fulfilment. Today’s debate has raised interesting points about how we best do that. My hon. Friend was right to say that the vast majority of employers would not dream of dismissing a terminally ill member of staff, but of course the Dying to Work campaign is a much broader look at how employers can support employees in that situation; the issue is not just the prohibition on dismissal.

We had contributions from a number of Back Benchers. As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a thoughtful contribution. He paid tribute to Marie Curie’s work to provide wider support for individuals in this situation. I understand that colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions continue to engage with Marie Curie on the issue. He mentioned the “Dying in poverty” report, which I have not read, but will.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted a number of measures that are already available—I will talk about those shortly—such as reasonable adjustments and flexible working, which enable those who want to carry on working to do so in a way that suits them. She made the important point that continuing to work is particularly important for people on lower incomes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) paid tribute to the campaigner Jacci Woodcock; I echo her tribute, and those of all the other hon. Members who praised her work. Jacci Woodcock has brought the campaign to the attention of many parliamentarians over a number of years, and the fact that we are having this debate is a tribute to the work that she started all those years ago.

As I would have expected him to do, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) gave a thorough legal analysis of the protections available. He noted, as did a number of hon. Members, that there is a lack of direct protection for people with a terminal illness. Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) gave a characteristically thorough analysis of the situation. He made the important point that employers want clear guidance, and mentioned a number of relevant codes that may need to be updated. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), also made the point that a number of employers do not have any policy at all; we can certainly take that away and look at it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made an important point about St Andrew’s hospice in particular: both the people who work there and those they help in their last days of life have protection, should it be needed. That is a reassurance to those in the hospice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke movingly about the awful moment when someone gets a diagnosis. He made the point, as did a number of hon. Members, that different people will react differently: some want to continue to work and carry on as best they can. He mentioned the potentially traumatic experience of having to notify one’s employer—seeing, in black and white, that there is a terminal illness. That is one of the challenges we would face if we were to legislate in this area.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), raised questions about statutory sick pay. He will be aware that the Employment Rights Bill will significantly increase the scope of those who are eligible for statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting days. I hope that his party will be able to support that Bill on Third Reading. He also mentioned raising benefits, and I will pass on his request to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions who are responsible for the matter.

The hon. Member for Strangford, as well as a number of other Members, made the point that people with a terminal illness want the choice to work if they can. For some people, work forms a big part of their social group. Work is about dignity; it is about finding something that occupies a person’s mind other than thoughts about the terrible situation they are in. People should be able to continue to work if they want to. Of course, not everyone wants to, and not everyone can—this issue is not simple to characterise. Everyone reacts differently, and everyone is a different situation: their medical conditions and prognoses will all be very different. People will therefore need very different kinds of support, depending on their situation.

We must deal with this issue with sensitivity, but also with flexibility. We must not only make sure that protections are in place, but enable employers and employees to have the space and freedom to come to the arrangements that suit them best. A number of hon. Members referred to protections under the Equality Act. I remind hon. Members that anyone with a health condition that has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities is classified as disabled and therefore has protection under that Act, whether as an employee or a job applicant. Certain chronic illnesses, such as cancer, entitle the employee to automatic protection under the Act.

The vast majority of people with a terminal illness should be covered by the Equality Act. However, I have heard what various Members have said—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire, who introduced the debate, mentioned people who may not fit within the protections of that Act, and I am happy to have a further conversation with him to understand where the gaps are. There are also more general protections relating to unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

As we know, terminal illness is a longer journey for some than for others. Some facing it may wish to carry on working; some may not. However, we need to think about what support is available for people. The individual placement and support in primary care programme provides support to unwell people who are out of work and to those who need support with their health to stay in work. The support available includes physical and psychological treatment, in recognition that illness, including terminal illness, can take many forms. Alongside that, the Government provide Access to Work grants to help with the extra costs of working beyond standard reasonable adjustments and tailored support for individuals through work coaching, among other support.

More generally, the Government provide employers with guidance on health disclosures and having conversations about health, as well as guidance on legal obligations. However, I take the point that that guidance is not well understood out there. We think our guidance is helpful for employers, but we need to make sure that they are aware of it and that it is as up-to-date as possible.

As we have already touched on, terminally ill people who wish to remain in work may need reasonable adjustments to do so. One of the options for people is to look at flexible working. Quite often, terminal illnesses have a debilitating effect on people’s energy levels, so being able to take time off flexibly is important. All employees have a statutory entitlement at the moment to request flexible working from day one of their employment. The new Employment Rights Bill will update that entitlement to introduce, among other changes, a requirement that any rejection of a flexible working request be a reasonable one. We hope that will make it more likely that any such request made by an individual with a terminal illness will be accepted.

If terminally ill people do fall out of work, they are eligible for enhanced access to a range of benefits under the special rules for end of life. Those rules allow for faster, easier access to certain benefits without needing to attend a medical assessment, and in most cases entitle the recipient to the highest rate of benefit. It is important to note that the rules apply to those who are unable to work and to those who wish to continue working, but require support to do so. The special rules for end of life aim to positively impact the quality of life of people with limited time left by ensuring that they can receive the financial support they are entitled to quickly and easily.

However, as hon. Members have already referred to, we are determined to go further. As we have heard, many employers have signed up to the Dying to Work charter, a TUC initiative that aims to unite employers under a standardised action plan to support employees as and when they are concerned. The charter represents a commitment from employers to ensure that all employees experiencing terminal illness have

“security of work, peace of mind and the right to choose the best course of action for themselves and their families which helps them through this challenging period with dignity and without undue financial loss”.

The Government have worked with ACAS to promote the charter and the TUC encourages union negotiators to seek clear agreement that their employer will abide by the charter’s principles. I am among 130 Members in this place who have already signed the charter as a commitment to my staff, because I believe that we should be setting an example as employers.

I understand that, as has been mentioned already, we are looking closely at being to implement the charter in full across Government. The Government People Group, which is in the Cabinet Office and responsible for civil service human resources, is currently working to develop a package of measures for all Departments as employers, including this Department, to introduce the Dying to Work charter. The Government People Group is due to meet the TUC in January to discuss that and a Minister will then be appointed to lead that work across Government. Once we are in a position to say that we have adopted the charter, we can hopefully be much more forward in encouraging others to sign up.

I conclude by thanking everyone for their contributions in the debate. It has been a very thoughtful and considered debate; we understand that there are concerns about how the law currently operates, but the employer needs space with the employee to agree arrangements appropriate to their own situations. We therefore believe that our current flexible approach is probably the right one and will deliver the best practical working arrangements, hopefully giving people not only the protection they need, but the flexibility and space to deal with this awful situation in the way that best suits them.

10:51

[Lee Barron]

I thank everybody for coming to the debate. I do not see this as the end of something; I do not see this a 90-minute debate where we just say, “That’s good enough.” I see this as the start of a conversation that I think we need to have. I welcome the fact that the Government People Group is looking into this and I know it has had those discussions. That is a step in the right direction, but ultimately we need to ensure that people cannot slip through where there are gaps—and currently they can. That is where the conversation needs to continue. I think this debate has started that conversation and put us in a good place to continue it so, once again, many thanks indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the employment rights of people with a terminal illness.

10:52

Sitting suspended.

Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I will call John Milne 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 in 30-minute debates. It is not normal for other Members to make a speech unless they have the permission of the Member in charge and the Minister, but they can intervene. I call John Milne.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of the Gatwick airspace modernisation review on local communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My constituency of Horsham lies to the west and south of Gatwick airport. I have brought today’s debate in order to represent growing concerns from residents regarding the airspace modernisation process around Gatwick, which is part of the future airspace strategy implementation south, known as FASI-S.

Before I start, I would like to make it clear that I wholly support the modernisation process in principle. It is a vital step if we are to improve the efficiency of civil aviation, cut flight times and reduce carbon emissions. What I do question, however, is how we will get there. The process as it stands involves a significant conflict of interest. I would also like to emphasise that the airspace modernisation process is entirely separate from the second runway application at Gatwick, although it is going on at the same time and naturally gets confused in the public mind. The airspace modernisation process will go ahead whether or not Gatwick obtains permission to expand and is in fact part of a national process also being conducted at 19 other airports across the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I hope I can help him and the Minister as well. For all airport modernisation reviews, the issue of sound is always of extreme importance. For example, both major airports in Northern Ireland, Belfast International and Belfast City, have residential areas nearby. Provisions must be in place to tackle excessive noise at certain times. So does the hon. Member agree that any airspace modernisation review must make the matter of noise a top priority to ensure that local communities are not negatively impacted by airspace expansion?

[John Milne]

Indeed, as I will come on to, noise is the primary issue at stake here. Gatwick Airport Ltd, referred to as GAL, is a private company. As the operator at Gatwick, it has been tasked with masterminding the airspace review process. It is subject to oversight from a public body, the Civil Aviation Authority. Similarly, Heathrow and other airports across the country are carrying out their own strategy implementation consultation processes for their own areas. The assumption is that each airport knows its own patch better than anyone else, so they are the best qualified to do the job. However, in the case of Gatwick, serious concerns have been raised. Now that we have reached stage three, which is the public consultation phase, many of my constituents and parish councils are concerned. They are worried about the impacts the proposals will have on public health, the objectivity of the process itself and whether the three shortlisted choices actually represent any kind of choice at all.

The proposed changes all involve using a new, previously not overflown flight path. Currently, planes taking off to the west climb for about 6k out before turning south to the coast. But the new route makes a much earlier turn south at about 2k out. The net effect of this change is to separate the western and southern route paths much earlier than currently, which enables a reduction in the interval between flights from two minutes down to 60 seconds. That in turn would enable the airport operator to build significantly more take-off slots into their schedules. The value of that increase in capacity is enormous, potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the long term.

Why should the change in flight path matter so much to my constituents? Because the sharper turns mean that thousands of flights a year will henceforth directly overfly the villages of Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold at a relatively low height, radically increasing noise pollution, loss of sleep and other negatives.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

As the Member for Mid Sussex, I have been concerned for some time about potential expansion at Gatwick airport, in particular bringing the emergency runway into commercial use. Does my hon. Friend agree that should the decision be approved, the problems he outlines will only be exacerbated?

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, there is a suspicion that part of the motive behind this is to enable an expansion, which has not been permitted yet.

In this new design, flights would be concentrated over a much narrower band of countryside. The introduction of satellite-based navigation, which is another part of the modernisation process, also has the effect of pushing flights along the same narrow route. GAL started out its review with hundreds of possible designs, but for the public consultation it has narrowed it down to just three. All three make that sharp turn to the south at 2k out. All three add millions to GAL’s potential income. All three create massive noise pollution for Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold. They are not three different options but one and the same.

Is it credible that by fluke all three have exactly the same financial benefit to GAL? It is no wonder that many residents have come to suspect that profit and share price is being put before people’s interests. The absence of an independent member in the design process leaves the outcome open to a perception of bias, at the very least. Perhaps the CAA has recognised this risk, because it proposes to set up a new UK-wide airspace change service that would serve to remedy the problem of

“scarce expertise in the industry”.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a very powerful point, and completely correctly. This is something that has been going on for many years. We have been speaking about the Noise Management Board at Gatwick for a very long time. It has completely failed to be anything other than a talking shop in order to placate Bo Redeborn’s complaints at the last review. What we are actually dealing with here is a snake’s wedding above our airspace. It is particularly bad over southern England, but the truth is that it extends all the way to Manchester. This is something I have been fighting for a number of years, so I certainly do not blame the current Minister.

Until the Civil Aviation Authority, NATS and the Department for Transport are willing to address this, we are simply not going to be able to progress. Is it not essential that we look at this in a proper review of the whole of the airspace across southern England and not just exert greater pressure on communities like Cowden in my constituency and no doubt others in the constituency of the hon. Member for Horsham? All we are doing is building a motorway in the sky above people’s homes but without the same protections people would get if a real motorway were to be built alongside them. There will be no compensation, planning or oversight. Is this not the real problem we are facing?

[John Milne]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am aware that he has been fighting this cause for a very long time. I certainly agree with his comments and the need for a truly national process on this.

The problem is identified by the CAA as a

“scarce expertise in the industry…leading to inconsistent standards and variable quality”

in airport change process submissions. Unfortunately, the Gatwick review will be completed before this new body is even established. Could we be overestimating the negative impacts of this new route? Are residents exaggerating the damage it might do to their wellbeing? We can confidently say that it is no exaggeration, because the same route has already been experimented with before. Back in 2014 a trial was run called ADNID, following more or less the same line. The impact was immediately disastrous, causing a storm of complaints—so much so that the CEO at the time said that the trial route would never be used again. Yet here we are, 10 years later, and ADNID mark II has arrived.

Although Gatwick claims that these proposals would remove traffic from the existing pathway population swathe, not a single population centre would actually benefit from the change. For the first time, the options being presented to the public consultation bring in thousands of residents who were not previously overflown, contradicting GAL’s own policy of deconfliction. The forceful objections raised in 2014 are being ignored.

Gatwick’s route selection cannot be justified on environmental grounds either. Airspace modernisation is designed to reduce carbon emissions from air travel through more efficient flying. Although that may be achieved as a whole in the FASI-S project, the reduction in emissions is largely achieved by the changes made above 7,000 feet. The emissions and their impact under 7,000 feet are simply not being analysed and nor are the potential harms, which are not even mentioned in stage two of GAL’s FASI-S consultation.

The consultation process as a whole lacks transparency. There are many questions that I believe the public need answers to. No defined methodology for shortlisting flightpath options has been put forward for public consultation. Why is GAL allowed to pick and choose proposed flightpaths without independent review or scrutiny? As stated, the options show little or no variation. It is not three choices—

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I am well aware of many of the points the hon. Member is making. In fact, back in 2014 I was on Gatwick’s consultative forum as a community representative and I was well aware then of the impact that the trial route had, in terms of concentrated noise in some areas and the consequent storm of community feeling. However, I suppose that one of the key problems will ultimately be that if we are trying to rationalise airspace with a complex set of interconnecting airports, there will only be a finite number of routes that can reasonably be taken in order for that rationalisation to happen.

Beyond that point, my broader concern is that in enabling a far more efficient set of flightpaths, ultimately what we are doing is enabling far greater capacity in terms of flights in our region. As I am sure both the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) will agree, north Sussex’s infrastructure is already completely overloaded from dealing with the existing levels of demand from the airport and the associated industries. Any growth in capacity will require someone—either the airport or the Government—to step in and significantly invest in our communities to make sure that they do not suffer the ill effects of far greater levels of aviation in our region.

[John Milne]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Indeed, part of the problem is that this process is in isolation from 100 other issues; infrastructure is very much one of them, because, as he says, it is already sadly lacking.

As I was saying, the options show little to no variation from each other. It is not three choices; it is one choice repeated three times. Without sight of a genuine alternative that builds on the structure already in place—using routes that already bear traffic—how can the public understand the trade-offs of different pathways? It is worth noting that Heathrow has three clearly varying pathways, which differ in direction and geometric shape from each other, for the public to consider.

If the Gatwick consultation is sound, why has the CAA launched a separate consultation about setting up a national body for the review? That implies that the current model of individual airports designing individual strategies is not working. Is the current governing policy from the CAA, which is known as CAP1616, up to date? Does it consider modernisation of satellite technology and the impact that technology is having on flight concentration? If not, the modernisation of Gatwick could have serious environmental and health consequences for communities such as mine in Horsham.

Why does GAL seem to be rushing for this consultation to be implemented in 2027 when full technical technological roll-out cannot be achieved by 2030 at the earliest, or by 2035 according to other estimates? Why have alternative routes been dismissed on the basis that they conflicted, due to inter-airport conflict, despite there being a pre-agreed process to deal with that by using the Airspace Change Organising Group at a later date? That is not a basis on which to dismiss alternative options.

Airport modernisation is a nationally important ambition: I certainly do not dispute that. Opportunities to make large-scale, comprehensive changes to the entire national network come only once in a lifetime. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we carry out the process using the most up-to-date guiding principles, with high levels of scrutiny and consultations that provide residents with a real choice. Without doing so, how will we obtain an outcome that is balanced and fair to both airports and communities?

Retaining the southerly route would make negligible difference to carbon emissions or efficiency, but the benefits to residents would be enormous. Public wellbeing is supposed to be a key part of this process, but it seems that we are sacrificing those three villages for no good reason. I therefore ask that the process be reconsidered such that all the communities around Gatwick and the other 19 airports can be presented with a credible and rational set of alternatives. That process must account for the findings of the recently published “Fair and Equitable Distribution Interim Report”, which was financed by the CAA specifically for that purpose. If we carry on as we are and take no action, we risk that important review being vulnerable to unwanted outcomes and a conflict of interest. I urge the Minister to consider the process again and ensure an outcome that will be accepted as legitimate by the public as a whole.

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this timely and important debate.

The UK’s airspace is some of the most complex in the world, yet there has been little change to its overall structure since the 1950s. If a pilot from that time came back to the future in a TARDIS, he would be flying the same pathways as he did in the 1950s. The system was designed closer to the time Yuri Gagarin was in space than to today.

Modernising our airspace can deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys. Airspace modernisation will use new technologies to create direct routes and faster climbs, and will reduce the need for holding stacks. It will mean that the aviation industry can grow safely and that customers will experience more reliable services, which are particularly needed at Gatwick. Importantly, there will be opportunities to reduce noise and carbon emissions.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

In my constituency of Tunbridge Wells there is only one noise monitor, in the village of Rusthall. Although we are all in favour of airspace modernisation—the Minister makes some great points about it—how can we know that it will not merely move the noise problem around, or even make it worse? Will the Government commit to expanding the number of noise monitors in affected communities, such as mine in Tunbridge Wells, before they implement the proposal?

[Mike Kane]

I gently remind the hon. Member that I grew up under the flight path at Manchester airport, so I remember the BAC One-Elevens, the Tridents and the Concordes. I even saw the space shuttle do a low pass on a jumbo jet. Through modern technology, noise envelopes are reducing considerably.

The hon. Member for Horsham talked about carbon; who knew that if we actually flew our planes in straight lines, we would reduce the carbon emissions from our aviation sector by up to about 10%? That would benefit not just every community but the planet too.

The first step in modernising Gatwick’s airspace affects routes heading south to the airport, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, which have minimal interactions with other airports. To achieve those changes, Gatwick is following the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP 1616 process, as he mentioned. The process was revised earlier this year to make it fairer and more transparent and to provide an opportunity for comprehensive engagement with local communities and stakeholders who may be affected by airspace changes. It is worth pointing out that that was a key manifesto commitment of ours at the general election. That was right because, given the implications of airspace changes for local communities and the environment, it is necessary that they are subject to robust and transparent procedures.

One of the most complex and pressing aspects of airspace modernisation is the need to redesign the outdated flightpaths into and from our airports, such as those at Gatwick. Gatwick airport participates in a fundamental component of the Department’s airspace modernisation programme: the future airspace strategy implementation programme. FASI is a UK-wide upgrade of terminal airspace, involving 20 airports working in collaboration with the Airspace Change Organising Group and NATS to co-ordinate a more efficient airspace system.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I appreciate the tone with which the Minister is approaching this issue, which he knows has been a matter of great frustration for the past few years that I have been in Parliament. The key to the FASI programme is surely making the efficiency work. I will not comment on the Minister’s understanding of aerodynamics, given his comment about the TARDIS flying, which is a slightly different question—

[Mike Kane]

It is the space-time continuum.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Exactly—it is not quite aerodynamics, and not exactly a flight route.

But this debate does involve flight routes, and there is extra pressure on communities. The Department’s policy, certainly until now—the Minister may have changed it—was to reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. Yet going from a flight every 20 minutes to a flight every 100 seconds will apply enormous pressure in a community like Cowden, right next to where I live in west Kent. That is clearly a major change.

I appreciate that noise management has changed in the years since the Minister was growing up near Manchester airport, and I appreciate his points about efficiency—we all welcome efficiency in aircraft routes and, I hope, the greater profit for aircraft users and the resultant cheaper tickets—but will he also recognise that that efficiency needs to be shared with compensation on the ground? If we were to build a motorway next to somebody’s house, we would compensate them, or it would at least require various permissions. This should be no different. It is a motorway in the air.

[Mike Kane]

Gatwick did pass stage 2 of the CAA’s CAP 1616 process. That is a transparent process, and it is fully consulted on at stage 3. The right hon. Member mentions noise in particular, which I know is a sensitive issue. I understand how the changes to flight paths as part of the airspace modernisation process can also change how noise is distributed. As ever, we need to strike a fair balance between the impact of aviation on the local environment and communities, and the economic benefits that Gatwick brings to its local community, as well as its national importance. With airspace modernisation and performance-enhancing beacons, we can be more flexible.

As Gatwick has more than 50,000 movements a year, it is obliged under the environmental noise regulations to produce noise action plans, which act as a driver for the management of aircraft noise and for mitigation around airports. Gatwick’s current noise plan sets out its ambition for managing noise between 2024 and 2028; I encourage all Members to get involved in that.

For several decades, the Government have set out noise controls, including restrictions on night operations at Gatwick airport. The controls reflect the need to balance the impact on communities with the benefits to the economy. I am pleased to announce that yesterday the Government published their decision to maintain the current restrictions at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted until 2028. Additionally, airspace modernisation will allow the introduction of new technology, such as performance-based navigation, which will enhance the accuracy of where aircraft fly and provide better opportunities to provide respite for noise-sensitive areas.

One of the main objectives of our airspace modernisation strategy is environmental sustainability. This key principle is applied throughout all modernisation activities and takes into account the interest of all affected stakeholders. The UK has committed to an ambitious target to reach net zero by 2050. We were the first major world economy to enact such a law. We continue to work together with industry to consider the best ways to support the aviation industry to de-carbonise, including through the jet zero taskforce. Airspace modernisation can help us to reach our target by reducing delays and allowing aircraft to fly in more direct routes. That should result in far less fuel burn, and therefore reduce our carbon omissions and potentially the noise impact of flights.

To improve confidence in the delivery of airspace modernisation across the south-east region, my Department and the CAA have launched a consultation on our proposals for a new UK airspace design service. The proposals set out our ambitions to create a single guiding mind responsible for the holistic design of airspace change, to the benefit of all who use our airspace and are affected. I encourage Members to get behind this change. The hon. Member for Horsham is right that there is not a vast wave of expertise in this area in our nation. Our ambition is to bring together the best minds to improve airspace across the whole UK.

[John Milne]

I recognise that the Minister has not finished, but I am concerned that his points have, so far, been general. I wholly support the overall ambitions to reduce carbon emissions—I have absolutely no problem with that—but there are two issues. First, the consultation is not a genuine one because there is no real choice. Secondly, we are moving away from a route that is already used and is perfectly reasonable to one with significant resident impacts. I am concerned that the Minister has not addressed those two key issues.

[Mike Kane]

As I have already stated, there is full public consultation at stage 3, and the hon. Member and his constituents will have the right to fully engage in that. I do encourage people to engage in this issue, because we have to modernise our airspace. It will take some time, a lot of energy and a lot of expertise, but it is the right thing to do by our nation.

To conclude, airspace modernisation is vital to unlocking the benefits of a growing UK aviation sector. Without modernising the airspace, we cannot realise the benefits to passengers, communities, operators and the economy. This must be achieved in a sustainable way that minimises the impact on local communities while balancing the strategic benefits that Gatwick airport can bring to the economy.

I thank all Members—the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), the hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb)—for participating, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham on securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:26

Sitting suspended.

BBC: Funding

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell in the Chair]

[Relevant document: e-petition 701068, Abolish the tv licence.]

14:30

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to debate a subject that I seem to have spent a large part of my parliamentary career discussing, but which has become extremely appropriate to examine once again today. The Minister, who I have spent a lot of time debating over the last few years, last night replied to an Adjournment debate touching on the overall process under which the BBC charter will be renewed, but as she said last night—and she is completely right—the funding of the BBC is a central part of the charter renewal process, and what the BBC does will to some extent be affected by the money available to it and vice versa. I do think it is right that we look at the matter.

I had responsibility less than 10 years ago for drawing up the charter under which the BBC currently operates. That was in 2015-16—only seven or eight years ago—but the changes that have taken place in the broadcasting landscape since are huge and continue to accelerate. At the time of the last charter, streaming did exist, but it was only a couple of years after Netflix had launched in this country, and there were still only one or two other streamers available. Since then, we have seen an explosion, with an enormous number of different streaming platforms that are investing heavily in extremely good content. Most people now enjoy streamed services as well as traditional broadcast, and subscribe, quite often, to several streamers.

Despite the huge range of content that is now available, in my view—and I think the Government take the same view—public service broadcasting is still absolutely necessary, particularly in the core public service content areas of news and current affairs, which are not really provided by the streaming services. I continue to believe that there is a very important role for the BBC in this country’s broadcasting landscape, but my concern is that the traditional method by which the BBC is funded—through the licence fee—is going to become steadily harder to sustain.

Even seven or eight years ago, we saw the beginning of the challenges. At that time, at the request of the BBC, we closed the iPlayer loophole, by which people were viewing BBC content on the iPlayer but not paying the licence fee. We said then, and it remains the case now, that if people watch live television in any form and if they use the iPlayer, they are required to have a TV licence. Other drivers have increased revenue for the BBC over the years, like the growth of single-parent households and immigration levels, meaning that more licences have been issued—but that trend has now reversed, despite the closing of the loophole; each year, fewer people are buying a television licence. In the course of the last year, the number of licences held has fallen by 500,000, and that movement is likely to continue.

If we look at the public’s viewing behaviour, we find that less and less traditional broadcast television is being watched, particularly by young people. Most 16 to 24-year-olds now do not watch any live broadcasts each week—10 years ago, 80% did—and broadcast channels take up only 57% of all viewing, against TikTok, YouTube and all the other streaming services. People are genuinely saying, “We choose to subscribe and pay for Netflix, Amazon, Discovery, Apple and all the other streamers. We don’t see why, on top of that, we should have to pay for a TV licence when we don’t watch the BBC.”

The TV licence does not just cover the BBC; it covers all live television viewing. Nevertheless, a lot of people can watch on catch-up the programmes that are available on the other public service channels. Genuinely, people are not required under the law to have a TV licence, and more and more are choosing not to have one. That will pose an increasing problem for the BBC.

We have seen complaints from the BBC about the fact that the revenue available to it has been cut in recent years—like every other public service, it has been required to find efficiencies—but the director general has talked about the crisis that has been created by the lack of money and his inability to invest to compete. That situation is not likely to get any better if we continue with the licence fee; if anything, it will become steadily worse.

I remember chairing a Select Committee—I think it was about 15 years ago—that looked at the funding of the BBC and the licence fee. At the time, we concluded that although the licence fee had many drawbacks, it was still probably the best available option. It is a regressive tax, it is criminally enforced and it is the case that among the people convicted of failing to pay, a large proportion are women. Those are all drawbacks of the licence fee, but at that time the alternatives did not seem possible. Certainly, advertising is not likely to be beneficial to the BBC or to the whole commercial television sector; there is not that much advertising revenue to go round, and if there were advertising on the BBC, it would result in a reduction for everybody else.

There is an alternative option. A lot of people have said, “Why can’t the BBC charge a subscription, so people can choose whether or not to pay it?” The reason is simple. At the moment, most people still access the BBC and other traditional broadcasters through digital terrestrial television, or Freeview, and there is no mechanism for conditional access—in other words, the choice to receive a particular channel—with Freeview. At the launch of Freeview, the BBC was very keen that that should be the case, because it was worried about subscription, but it means that while a significant proportion of the population continue to rely on Freeview, we cannot move to subscription. But that will change.

Both the last Government and this Government have said that Freeview will be maintained until 2034; it may well be that we need to maintain it for a bit longer. However, the transition to IPTV or internet protocol television—the provision of television over the internet—will steadily increase, and if people have smart TVs, which allow them to choose whether to subscribe to the streamers, it means they could also have the choice of whether to subscribe to the BBC. I think that that option is likely to become more attractive, although it will only really become viable when we reach the point where almost the entire population have IPTV, but for the reasons I have set out, it is important that we start to talk about it now.

The last Government had future funding of the BBC panel, which this Government have not continued. On the other hand, I know that the Minister has set up a future of TV distribution panel, which does not look vastly different. Anyway, I am glad that the Government continue to look at the issue, which is why I think this is the right time to have this debate.

There are certain things that will never be possible to have on a subscription basis, including BBC Radio—I do not think there is any way in which there can be conditional access on radio—and the World Service. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee and we are currently examining the World Service, which is of huge benefit to this country. It could not be provided on a subscription basis, as the people it is aimed at are certainly not in a position to pay. The World Service also makes a very valuable contribution to the reputation of the UK and to our soft power, and the BBC has said that it should be funded by the Foreign Office and not by the licence fee. That argument is quite attractive, although I recognise that it would be a big challenge for the Government to take on. The Minister gave evidence on the subject yesterday and it remains an issue that we will want to debate.

With radio, it would be possible to extend advertising, but, as with any advertising on BBC TV, doing so would damage commercial radio. I am also slightly worried about the extent to which advertising is creeping in at the margin, with the BBC allowing advertising through podcast, which is increasingly the way in which people are accessing audio content.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recognise, as I do, that one big challenge in relation to the BBC is that many of those who are most opposed to its further commercialisation are the other public service broadcasters, who worry about disruption to their own revenue streams, particularly in relation to advertising. That is why it is tricky to come up with an alternative to the licence fee.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is completely right. She and I both had the pleasure of serving as Minister; I was delighted to stand in for her while she was on maternity leave, so we have both looked at the issue for some time. We have to look at the overall television landscape. If we allow advertising, or encourage the BBC to compete, it is likely to have an impact on the commercial sector, which completely depends on advertising revenue. Our traditional advertising-funded PSBs—ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5—are already finding it difficult competing in a world with well-resourced streamers, and this would make it worse.

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

One of the weaknesses of the streaming companies is regional and national news coverage and programming. For BBC Scotland, at the moment 99% of the licence fee paid by Scots is invested in Scotland. That is a really important and positive aspect of the current licence fee arrangements that must be protected as we move forward.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the BBC provides more of the core public service content than the other PSBs—the others do, but not to the same extent. National and regional coverage of the type he has described is absolutely a core part of that. I think that needs to continue, and if the licence fee is not able to fund it, there is a case for it moving across to general taxation. There is a world in which the core PSB content is funded out of taxation, and then people could choose to subscribe to the content that is more entertainment based—a subscription model—but it is too early to say.

These are the kinds of discussions that are fundamental to the next charter. I am delighted that the Government are now beginning to consider that. My purpose today is to flag up the extent to which the existing model cannot be sustained, and to begin having the debate.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Following the recent developments in Syria, I understand that the BBC World Service will offer enhanced services to audiences across Syria on broadcast medium wave and FM. Would the right hon. Member congratulate the World Service on stepping in to respond to an emergency situation with the utmost professionalism? Does that not underline his point as to why it should be funded from the Foreign Office?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree. Yesterday, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the director general and the deputy director for news, Jonathan Munro, on this subject. He talked about the way the World Service provides its core language services and can also provide additional coverage quickly. Syria is a good example of where it is doing that. That is an extremely important role for the BBC, and one that I do not think could be funded in any way other than through public money. The BBC make a good case as to why the licence fee may no longer be appropriate, which we also need to consider.

There are a large number of Members present in the Chamber, so I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that I have raised one or two questions that we will need to debate thoroughly over the course of the couple of years that lie ahead for the charter renewal.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I do not intend to set a time limit, but if Members could stick to five or six minutes, everybody should get to speak.

14:44

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am the chair of the BBC all-party parliamentary group, a recipient of hospitality and a former employee of Prospect and Bectu unions, which represent workers at the BBC.

I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate on such an important issue, not only for the BBC as an organisation, but for all of us who benefit from its mission to inform, educate and entertain. When we discuss the future funding of the BBC, we must understand the need to safeguard its unique role with a funding model that enables it to continue to be independent and universal and to provide the unique content that its audience expects. With BBC iPlayer having been the fastest-growing streaming service this year and with 95% of UK adults using BBC services every month—whether that is its nine TV channels, its 16 radio stations, its streaming apps or the World Service —we must recognise that the demand for the BBC’s services and content reflects what a vital source of information and entertainment it is for our constituents and for people accessing World Service content around the world.

It is also vital to our democracy. In a landscape of bias, spin, the common approach of “Don’t let facts get in the way of a good story” and the rise of unverified content and disinformation masquerading as news on social media, the BBC’s championing of impartial and fearless reporting at home and abroad and its operating without pandering to political or commercial interests is becoming more vital, not less. I am sure that colleagues of all political persuasions agree with that.

The financial challenges for the BBC are stark; when we debate future funding, we must recognise that. It has seen a 30% real-terms decrease in funding for UK services in the past decade, exacerbated by previous decisions around the licence fee and, of course, the hyperinflation in the film and TV industries in recent years. It has also taken on additional financial responsibilities in the past decade, including licences for the over-75s on pension credit. Although I know that the BBC welcomes the new Government’s funding uplift for the World Service in our recent Budget, two thirds of its funding still comes from the licence fee. I know that the licence fee will be in place until at least 2027-28, but given the challenges that have been outlined, this debate on its future funding is timely.

Many funding models have been proposed, but many alternatives to the licence fee would simply not secure the future of our world-leading public service broadcaster and would threaten its ability to create uniquely British content and tell stories, both fictional and real, from across the UK. An advertising model, for example, would not be right for the BBC: it would introduce commercial interests into programming decisions and would force the BBC to compete with other public service broadcasters and commercial radio and TV over ever-dwindling advertising revenue, as the right hon. Member for Maldon pointed out. I would be deeply concerned by the impact that that would have on the BBC’s ability to continue to invest in our world-leading creative industries and talent. It would undoubtedly leave the BBC and the rest of our broadcasting ecosystem worse off.

Similarly, a subscription model would not provide the universal public service broadcasting to which we and the BBC aspire. It would threaten regional programming and investment. It is unsurprising that the Government have committed to a sustainable public funding model for the BBC as part of the upcoming charter review to ensure that we continue to have a BBC that is impartial, universal and accessible, but it is important that we closely examine the licence fee model and consider reforms to ensure that its scope, progression and enforcement are fit for the times we find ourselves in.

We have something very special in the BBC. It has brought the nation together for more than a century for those enormous moments in our shared lives, from sporting triumph to the election drama that those of us in this Chamber all enjoyed this year, and from the latest adaptation of J. K. Rowling’s “Cormoran Strike” books to the upcoming “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special, which I know will be on in my family’s house. It provides fearless news coverage in our neighbourhoods, from Westminster and abroad, and it invests in creative talent.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

My area has excellent regional news coverage, including BBC Three Counties Radio and “Look East”. However, back in 2022, a decision was taken that has meant that my regional politics programme is now recorded more than 100 miles away from my constituency. Given that all news is local, would my hon. Friend care to comment on whether that is the right starting point for regional news coverage, or whether we might want to do something more local and perhaps better?

[Tom Rutland]

I agree that it is a shame that some regional political and news programming is being filmed further away than before. Of course, I am not able to answer directly for those decisions by the BBC, but the 30% funding decrease that I mentioned may explain the reasoning behind them. It is a shame that we find ourselves in this position; it underlines the importance of finding a funding settlement and model that will allow regional programming and truly local programming to be safeguarded as much as possible.

As I was saying, the BBC provides fearless coverage in our neighbourhoods—sometimes a little further away than previously—and in Westminster and abroad. It invests in creative talent and programming across every corner of our great country. That is something worth fighting for in a world of media fragmentation. I hope all colleagues will support my push for a future funding model that ensures that the BBC lasts for another century.

14:50

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this very important debate and for his thoughtful comments. I should make colleagues aware that I am a co-chair of the National Union of Journalists’ parliamentary group.

The BBC has been at the heart of the UK’s national life for over 100 years, and it is at the heart of my constituency of Salford. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain is underpinned by its funding model, which ensures that it is universal, independent and never at the whim of vested business interests or advertisers. It is there for the people of Britain, not for profit. It has a more important function than just entertaining us; it reaches out to every community in the UK and gives them a voice. It is an intrinsic part of political accountability, holding local and national politicians to account. It strives to provide content in the public interest, not just sensational headlines that offer the best clickbait. From educational resources produced by the BBC that are relied on in schools to fact-checking services that cut through misinformation, local radio and local democracy journalism, it is clear that the BBC’s impact on our communities is profound.

[Julia Lopez]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the BBC’s unique currency is trust, and that one of the challenges in recent years is that people have lost faith in the BBC as an organisation that produces impartial news? One challenge that I saw in the last Parliament was that the BBC was reducing local and regional journalism, even while protecting some very large salaries for its biggest stars. That is one of the reasons why people are losing faith that the BBC is investing in journalism in the way that it should and in the way that people expect from a public service broadcaster.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady about cuts to local journalism, because it is a fundamental part of holding politicians and local democratic organisations to account. It is incredibly worrying to see cuts to local services in print, television and radio; I hope the upcoming charter review will address and recognise that. I will come back to the theme of accountability and rebuilding public trust for those who may have lost an element of it.

It is also important to recognise the BBC’s impact on the rest of the world and how the world views the UK through its World Service provision, most importantly at a time of great turmoil in certain parts of the world. The BBC World Service has a history of responding to emergency situations globally. Most recently, in November, it launched an emergency radio service for Gaza, which remains on air. In May 2023, during the conflict in Sudan, BBC News Arabic began an emergency radio service. In February 2022 the BBC News Ukraine service extended TV bulletins, following the invasion of the country. BBC News has also responded to the events in Syria with special programming across the week.

Despite the crucial public interest role that the BBC plays, as we have heard, it has seen a 30% real-terms decrease in funding for UK public services in the last decade. Parts of the service have been at risk or have been cut completely, which puts the unique role of the BBC in jeopardy. Most recently, we have heard about the cutting of “HARDtalk” and local radio service provision, to name a few examples.

The forthcoming charter review process provides us with the opportunity to put the BBC on a stable and sustainable footing, recognising its vital role in our society and democracy, its significance as a major driver of the UK’s wider creative economy and its strategic value as a global asset. It is important that we discuss the importance of recognising the various available funding options beyond the licence fee. For example, the World Service is just one element of BBC provision that should be recognised on a department level, not just in terms of the licence fee.

There are ways we could improve the BBC too, particularly in how it engages with the public. The NUJ suggests that starting with genuine engagement and consultation with the public about what they value from their BBC will regain their input into its future funding and direction. It further suggests public and staff representation on the BBC board, improving diversity and reflecting the priorities of licence fee payers more fully. It calls for the reversal of initiatives that have diverted licence fee income away from core work, including the costs of free licences for the over-75s, which should be funded directly by the Government. It also calls for greater independence and the safeguarding of the BBC from perceived political interference, including by ensuring that the BBC boards and its chair are chosen by an arm’s length body.

It is also important to ensure that the BBC better reflects the community it serves, both in its content and in its staffing. It could do that by piloting innovative initiatives to improve local news provision in communities that represent news deserts or near news deserts; opening up access to journalism with targeted training programmes to increase opportunity, including apprenticeships for school leavers; and building and protecting the spectrum of news provision across linear and digital platforms, including through the proper resourcing of local radio news and local radio, ensuring a breadth of diverse content that prioritises quality.

I hope that the Minister will consider those points carefully and will continue to champion the BBC, both in Salford and across the UK. In an era of growing disinformation and political bias in the media sphere, fiercely protecting the values of public service broadcasting and its unique role in the provision of impartial, trustworthy news and journalism is crucial.

14:57

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It was good to hear his support for public service broadcasting and his recognition that the licence fee is there not just for live television, but for many of the services that hon. Members have mentioned.

I will start by saying why I feel strongly that we need the BBC, and why it delivers such great value. It still does so many things that the proliferation of streaming platforms do not. From the perspective of UK cultural and economic benefit, the BBC provides a critical role in education, not just through children’s programming, but through ever-informative and breathtaking nature documentaries from David Attenborough and others. Even in this age of streaming, “Line of Duty” managed to secure 13 million viewers a night; many of us were gripped and looked forward to the next episode. The BBC has brought fantastic foreign-language content to BBC 4, including the iconic “The Killing”, which astonished people by hitting 1 million viewers a week as a subtitled programme. Those of us who were alive, albeit somewhat younger, in the 1990s could always look forward to the thrill of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” at 6 pm every Wednesday. For all those reasons, a KPMG report estimates that for every £1 of economic activity generated by the BBC, £2.63 of wider economic value is created.

The BBC is so much more than entertainment. Fact-based and impartial reporting, analysis and investigations are essential, particularly in this age of social media misinformation when we are all trapped in our thought bubbles. We need the forensic interviews on Radio 4’s “Today” programme, we desperately need the local political reporting and scrutiny of services such as BBC Oxford and BBC South, and we need the investigative journalism, domestic and international, that can be found across Radio 4. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, the BBC World Service plays a key role in maintaining access to free and accurate sources of information in many repressive countries around the world or in countries facing humanitarian challenges, such as Syria, which he mentioned.

Of course, we should recognise that the BBC is not perfect. The salaries of top presenters can be very high indeed, and scandals and crises have not always been prevented or well managed. But what other organisation would create and broadcast a documentary that looks critically at its own failings and weaknesses, as “Days That Shook the BBC” with David Dimbleby did?

Value for money from current funding and potential future reforms are important, but 95% of adults still use the BBC at least once a month. The alternative funding models that have been explored to date would not necessarily create a fairer system without disadvantages, so it is important for the Government to be very clear about our desired outcomes from the BBC and public service broadcasting, and then to work out from that how we fund them. We should consider ways to spread the TV licence cost more equitably, taking people on low incomes into account.

We need the quality, independence and breadth of the BBC now more than ever. It is too important to risk losing through sub-optimal or over-complex funding routes. I am pleased to see that the Government are looking hard at how to sustain the BBC’s future.

15:00

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing this debate to the House. Today is 18 December, so this time next week, millions of people will be gathered around their television to watch Christmas day programming. It is one minute past 3, so—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is the King’s speech.

[Patrick Hurley]

Millions will be watching the King’s speech this time next week—on the BBC. People would not subscribe to the BBC on Christmas day to watch the King’s speech, but to watch programmes such as “Gavin and Stacey”, “EastEnders”, or “Doctor Who”. If they subscribed for only entertainment purposes, however, they would miss out on the cultural life of the country and on important issues that they should be exposed to and should consume.

A subscription service that unwittingly creates such a taxonomy of programming, and divides content between public sector broadcasting and entertainment, would fall foul of reducing the consumption of important content. The best way to ensure that the BBC continues to provide its services, therefore, is through the continuation and maintenance of the licence fee model, rather than general taxation for public sector broadcasting or subscription services for entertainment.

[Julia Lopez]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether or not he is a supporter of the licence fee, fewer people are choosing to pay it, so we have a problem that needs to be dealt with, regardless of one’s view on the licence fee and its future?

[Patrick Hurley]

I thank the hon. Lady for the question. Fewer people are willing to pay it, but there is a way around that. The BBC can make efficiency savings that will help to rebuild trust in it. If its content can be improved or its reach can be extended, that will lead to a regaining of trust, which the hon. Lady mentioned earlier, and to more people supporting the BBC financially through the licence fee.

I want to come on to an issue that the BBC has struggled with in recent years: trust. BBC Verify is a new service to combat the disinformation that we are seeing online. BBC Verify can be improved, both in content and in tone, as I have raised directly with BBC executives. I have also raised the fact that it is not perfect, but it is a good start in combating the disinformation and misinformation that we see online. I hope that more effort can be put into improving Verify’s output in the months and years to come.

I turn to the importance of the World Service, which many Members have already discussed. I support the Government’s recent uplift in funding for the World Service, but I favour returning this funding to the Foreign Office to relieve financial pressures on the BBC’s domestic coverage, enable sustainability and stability in the long term, and help to support Britain’s soft-power role in an increasingly dangerous world.

The BBC’s cultural impact is crucial to supporting the creative economy in the UK. The BBC strives to represent and serve all communities across the UK, and invests over half its funding outside London. The UK creative sector is a continuously developing area. The BBC’s £5 billion investment each year supports a unique entertainment output and provides world-class exports for viewers abroad. I want the BBC to be able to invest more in its cultural output so that it can extend its provision in that area. For those reasons, it is incredibly important to maintain the BBC’s position at the top of the electronic programme guide, so that public service broadcasting continues and survives in years to come.

Finally, although the Government should monitor the BBC funding situation, the current system of charter renewal, whereby the BBC continually diverts attention and resources to the upcoming charter review, is less effective than it should be at supporting the BBC to deliver as a public service. I therefore ask that the system be changed to allow a permanent charter for the BBC, which the Government and the BBC, in concert, could alter as and when required, rather than after a mandated medium-term period.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting the BBC on a stable financial footing, and look forward to the Minister’s comments.

15:08

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell—my first time serving under a fellow Scottish MP. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate and for his learned contribution. I declare an interest as an office bearer on the BBC all-party parliamentary group and as the husband of a journalist and former BBC employee.

I will not gild the lily of the contributions that so many Members have already made; I will give a personal view. Of course, nothing is free; when we consider the new model, we need to remember that, and my remarks will address that very point. More than most, perhaps, I—along with at least one other person in the room—know the value of the BBC, because I lived, studied and worked for 30 years in a society riven by conflict, division and hatred, at times verging on civil war. It was vital during those times to have faith in an organisation that provided reliable and trustworthy news and unbiased current affairs coverage. For the most part, the BBC fulfilled that function, in both its television and its radio coverage, and for that I pay tribute to its courageous and award-winning broadcast journalism. In an ever more divided society, the need for this role is all the greater.

Throughout my life, I have been a fan of much of the BBC’s output, and now, instead of being simply a viewer or listener, I occasionally find myself, as an MP, in the position of a contributor. I place on record my admiration for the work that it does, often in challenging circumstances and environments. I believe that it continues to be faithful to its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. It continues to enjoy a high level of trust and confidence, not only in these islands but across the world.

Alas, there are also challenges. There are too many to list in one speech, but I want to put down a few markers, as each of them relates to future consideration of the licence fee system and charter renewal. First, especially in Scotland but perhaps further afield, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) already referred to, there is a widespread and growing perception that editorial policy is not always fair or impartial. For example, on too many occasions, audience members in political debates are not who they purport to be—that is, ordinary members of the public.

On other occasions, contributors’ political perspectives are not properly introduced. Recently, for example, a so-called independent commentator turned out to be a fully paid-up member of a political party. Nor do those failings always result in public remedy or apology. As Elton John famously said,

“Sorry seems to be the hardest word”.

That is a problem for programme editors, not necessarily presenters, but it is a vital component in retaining the trust and confidence that I spoke of. It is not good enough to wring hands and say that everyone complains equally. I do not believe that is true.

Secondly, in what is obviously a personal view, I do not think that it is only politicians who should not be double-jobbing; that should extend to the so-called talent within the BBC. Too many times, we see high-profile individuals turning up as hosts on a wide variety of programmes, with their enormous salaries offered as justification for that triple or quadruple job-holding. The BBC should recognise its responsibility to bring forward up and coming journalistic and other qualified talent from a wide range of local broadcasters, whose careers are currently being effectively blocked or blighted as a result.

A final marker relates to the growing number of instances of unacceptable or illegal behaviour—often sexual harassment, or worse, of female colleagues or guests—by BBC employees or agents working on the BBC’s behalf through subcontractors. I spoke about that recently on a BBC programme. It is not good enough to divert responsibility to external production companies. The BBC needs to own that and to commit to an urgent internal review of its policies and a renewed training programme, especially for the so-called talent, where the problem often lies and where managers have been reluctant to act. That is a cultural problem that must be addressed at every level. I personally wish to see a commitment to a simple “no training, no screen time” approach.

In conclusion, I look forward to an informed debate on the licence fee system, including a deep dive into potential alternatives to the licence fee, such as opt-out advertising models, as we already see in the marketplace; a pay-per-view system; and certainly a funding model that provides a much more socially just system, in which the vulnerable, the elderly and those in poverty pay much less than the current licence fee. This is a changing world and the BBC must change with it.

15:13

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I, too, would like to speak up for the BBC World Service and the brilliant people who work there.

The World Service describes itself as the world’s radio station. That is right: we are lucky to have it and must do whatever we can to support it. It offers 42 language services and is a beacon for democracy around the world. We know the truth when we hear it from the BBC. In a world of endless rolling information and disinformation, it is surely significant that the Arabic service alone saw a 9% audience growth to 35 million a week just last year. There are places in the world, especially where internet connections are restricted and local journalists are fearful, where conventional radio remains crucial. Abuse and state malfunction are called out, and the powerful are held to account. There are 318 million listeners every week.

In 2022, the World Service announced 382 job losses and the complete loss of the Persian radio broadcast, which was so important in its coverage of the protests against the Government in Tehran. In Lebanon, Russian state-backed media are now using the frequency suspended by BBC Arabic. There is news and there is fake news, as we have all learned. While we debate the funding of the BBC, let us therefore remember the World Service, which Kofi Annan described as

“Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.

Presently, about three quarters of World Service funding comes from the licence fee and about one quarter—about £100 million—comes from the Foreign Office. Previously in this Parliament, I said that amount was about the same as an F-35 jet, and we have 75 or so of those. As I said then, I ask whether some of us might agree that the vital soft power of the World Service is equivalent to at least one of our jets.

15:15

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for setting the scene so well. I want to make some positive points, and then I will outline what some of my constituents are telling me in relation to bias, because I want to have those comments on the record.

First, as the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said, this time next week the King’s speech will just be over. The nation will sit and watch that, because it is one of the good things that the BBC does, and it does it well. I am also a fan—my age gives it away—of the two Ronnies and of Morecambe and Wise. What humour—old-fashioned humour, by the way, but the kind that I was brought up with. I could tell some of their stories; I will not, because we would be here all day telling jokes, but their humour is incredible. I also endorse the excellent World Service, and agree that it needs to be upgraded and enhanced.

I wish to shine a light on the elephant in the room. The BBC has long prided itself as a national broadcaster, funded by the public and mandated to serve the public interest, yet my constituents tell me that the BBC is biased. Time and again, we see a pattern of behaviour that alienates a significant portion of that very public. The BBC is no longer viewed as the impartial institution it once claimed to be. I will give three or four examples just to have them on the record. They have been proven; I am not making them up—I do not do that sort of thing.

The BBC has adopted a tone and an editorial stance that all too often align with a narrow view. Whether or not Members are in favour of Brexit, let us look at it as an example. Many of us in the House and across the country will remember that the BBC approached Brexit not with curiosity or indeed neutrality, as the public rightly deserved, but with scepticism and outright hostility. It was not reporting the news; it was trying to shape the news.

The same bias has extended to issues affecting Northern Ireland. The BBC cannot even name our country correctly, referring to its correspondent as the “Ireland correspondent”. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) will know how absurd and wrong that is, because it is the Northern Ireland correspondent. Those who understand the constitution of Northern Ireland will understand that it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet the BBC cannot get it right. If Welsh reporters can be “Welsh correspondent” and Scottish reporters can be “Scottish correspondent”, Northern Ireland deserves no less.

Bias is not merely a matter of perception; it has tangible consequences. Public trust in the BBC has eroded, and I have to say that it is no longer the broadcaster it was once heralded to be. As Government Members will know, my politics lies to the left—a fair bit to the left, I suspect—but that does not take away from where I am. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) faced a hostile audience on “Question Time” and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, a former Conservative MP, was booed before she had even opened her mouth on “Have I Got News for You”. My goodness. That is not organic debate; it is bias in practice.

I will echo something the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East referred to. The BBC selects its audiences, sets the tone and consistently marginalises voices on the right of politics. I am not on the right of politics—I never will be—but I make that point to have it on the record for those who have a different opinion. I respect other people’s opinions, by the way, even though I may not agree with them, because that is the person I am. I hope others are the same.

[Julia Lopez]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this gets to the nub of the challenge? The BBC has a unique social contract with the public. It has the licence fee because people trust it to produce high-quality, impartial, trusted content. That is precisely the reason we have the BBC. If there is a sense from the public that that trust is being lost, that is a fundamental challenge to the BBC’s future. With Russia and China putting ever more money into their own state broadcasters, this represents a much wider challenge than just one for us here in the UK.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She has highlighted an issue that I wished to highlight too, but she did so better than I could, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I should have welcomed the Minister to her place, by the way. She responded to her first Adjournment debate last night and did extremely well, and I know that she will be exceptionally good when it comes to answering all the questions that we pose today.

The BBC’s funding model must also be examined. The licence fee is compulsory, paid for by households across the United Kingdom regardless of whether they feel the BBC reflects their values or serves their interests. It is not a secret that I am an Ulster Scot. I am very proud of my history and the fact that my ancestors came from the lowlands of Scotland to Northern Ireland. When I look around this room, I look upon the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East as my Gaelic brother, and there are probably others across the Chamber who are similar; if we go back far enough in our history, we will find out. Ulster Scots heritage programmes risk being squeezed out of the BBC’s cultural programming. I think that is disgraceful. The BBC should focus on delivering programming that matters to all parts of the United Kingdom. Instead, we see money poured into political agendas and overpaid presenters, while those cherished culturally significant programmes receive less attention.

I have one last one example, Mr Mundell: the BBC’s clear bias in its coverage of Israel and Hamas. My goodness—cast your mind back to all that. It is no secret that I am pro-Israel, but I believe in decency and justice for everyone in the middle east. The BBC refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. They are murderers, rapists and baby killers. That is who they are—that is the Hamas that we know—yet the BBC could not bring itself to call them what they were: terrorists. That undermines the BBC’s credibility as a news source. What message does that send to the victims of terrorism?

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing the debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who was supported by the Musicians’ Union, and I am the son of a videotape editor for the BBC, so I spent much of my childhood on the cutting room floor of Pebble Mill in the west midlands.

We hear about bias from all political parties and all sides. I heard from my Liberal Democrat colleagues earlier today about their frustration that the leader of the Reform party has appeared on the BBC far more times than any Liberal Democrats have. I heard the concern about trust expressed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), a former Minister, but several high-profile leaders of the BBC are former Conservative members or advisers. Many people who worked for the BBC are now prominent Conservatives on my local council.

We are talking about the funding of the BBC. We will all be unhappy with its output at some stage, yet the public still put it higher than most news outlets and other broadcasters. On the issue of funding the organisation, which is still one of the best in the world, does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that if we put a subscription process in place, not everybody would take it up, which would drive up the subscription fee, and then the BBC would have an even bigger funding problem?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I will regard that as your speech, Mr Bloore.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for that. He is right to put forward a point of view. I did not speak on behalf of the Reform party, because it is not my party. The point I was making is that if someone is derided on TV because they happen to represent a political view, that is wrong.

I mentioned Israel and Hamas. That is a supreme example of where the BBC’s bias carried over in such a way that it could not even name what Hamas were: terrorists and murderers. They are the people that hide behind women’s skirts and children whenever they carry out their atrocities. I expect the BBC to present the news in the way that it is.

The question is: how do we justify the licence fee? The BBC must uphold its obligation to impartiality, fairness and transparency. Some would say that it has a left-wing bias. A compulsory licence fee cannot be justified if a large section of the public feels misrepresented, ignored or, worse, derided.

We must demand that the BBC prioritises voices and programming that matter to all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the BBC does not know where Northern Ireland is. That means that Ulster Scots programming must be given the platform it deserves, and that coverage of Northern Ireland must reflect the reality of our place within this great United Kingdom, which I am proud to be a member of—I say that all the time. The BBC has faced calls for its defunding. It can either reclaim its role as a trusted, impartial broadcaster that unites the nation, or it can continue down its current path, alienating viewers and losing its purpose. The public and Parliament have noticed a bias, and the BBC must acknowledge that and act to restore trust.

15:25

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for the opportunity to discuss the future funding of one of our nation’s most cherished institutions. The BBC has been at the heart of our national life for more than 100 years. It embodies a mission that is simple yet profoundly important: to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC is not just another broadcaster; it plays a vital role in our cultural life and our national identity. It is universal, independent and unparalleled in its reach and influence, and it remains the most trusted broadcaster in the world.

From BBC Bitesize, which has educated millions of children, to the drama, music and comedy that enrich our lives, the BBC has no equal. Unlike global streaming services, which are motivated by profit and primarily serve international markets, the BBC exists to benefit the UK public. Public service broadcasting ensures that content is produced for everyone, regardless of wealth or geography. It brings us together, whether to watch the coronation, follow the Olympics, enjoy the sounds of Glastonbury or tune in to local radio to hear about issues in our communities.

A Netflix-style subscription model would be divisive and exclusionary. It would force the BBC to focus on content that attracts paying subscribers, sidelining the universal services that make it so valuable. The BBC’s services serve all audiences, not just those who can afford to pay. A subscription model would drive up costs for consumers and reduce the money available for investment in content.

The notion that the BBC’s entertainment content should be put behind a paywall is misguided. For many households, including the digitally excluded, that would make BBC services inaccessible. It would also result in the loss of free access to well-loved shows such as “Strictly Come Dancing”, “Match of the Day”, “The Traitors” and world-renowned drama. The proposal also ignores the reality of subscription-based financial models. Since its launch in the UK in 2012, when it charged £5.99 per month, Netflix’s standard plan has increased to £10.99 month, and its premium plan to £17.99—increases of 83% and 200% respectively. Consider the impact on a young person from a low-income household who might discover a passion for science through a BBC documentary, or be inspired to pursue their dreams by a BBC film. Those transformative experiences would be lost if access were restricted to only those who could afford to pay.

An advertising-funded BBC would be equally damaging. It would siphon advertising revenue away from commercial broadcasters, weakening the entire UK media ecosystem. Worse still, it would compromise the BBC’s independence by exposing it to commercial pressures. That would push the BBC to prioritise more generic, mass-appeal programming over distinctive, high-quality British productions. It would also undermine the BBC’s ability to deliver the rich, global and multicultural programming that has become its hallmark.

The BBC’s current funding model guarantees universality and independence. For just over £3 a week, households gain access to a treasure trove of content, including nine TV channels, 39 local radio stations, and online services such as the BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, yet the BBC has faced a 30% real-terms funding cut over the past decade, forcing tough decisions and service reductions. We cannot continue with perpetual uncertainty about the status of the BBC. The BBC’s current charter ensures the licence fee model until at least 2027, but beyond that we must commit to a funding model that is sustainable, fair and fit for the future.

Part of that future must include stronger support for the BBC World Service. This unparalleled institution is not only a vital source of impartial news for 450 million people globally, but a key pillar of the UK’s soft power. Whether it is exposing corruption, raising awareness of public health challenges or championing education and human rights, the BBC World Service not only projects British values but does real good in the world. However, recent funding cuts forced the closure of language services. This is unacceptable. We must restore full funding to the World Service through the Foreign Office budget to allow it to continue its invaluable work.

The BBC is also a driver of the UK’s creative economy, contributing nearly £5 billion annually. It commissions more independent productions than any other broadcaster, invests in research and development, and supports apprenticeships and training. At its heart, the BBC’s mission is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output. In a media landscape dominated by billionaires seeking to engineer narratives that align with their personal interests and agendas, the BBC stands as one of the few institutions committed to impartiality and serving the public.

[Tom Rutland]

We have heard, not just today but over the years, accusations of political bias. I have friends on the left who accuse the BBC of being biased against them, and family members on the right, with whom I am sure I will have conversations over Christmas, make the same comments. Does the hon. Lady agree that if both sides—and indeed, I am sure, the middle—have complaints about it, perhaps the BBC is getting something right?

[Liz Jarvis]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Does the Minister agree that the BBC’s funding model must not be a Trojan horse for those who seek to undermine its editorial independence and pave the way for figures such as Elon Musk, whom we have little opportunity to scrutinise or hold to account? Liberal Democrats are committed to a strong, independent and well-funded BBC that continues to reflect the diversity of our nation and serves all audiences.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I do not disagree with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said about the value of the BBC, but the problem is that more and more people are unwilling to pay the licence fee, and that has to be addressed. She wants to see a strongly financed and funded BBC, but she is going to have to come up with an answer to the fact that the revenue is going to go on declining under the present model.

[Liz Jarvis]

I do not disagree that there needs to be a plan, but at the moment I do not see one on the table. The next charter review is the time to have a serious, evidence-based discussion about funding, but any changes must strengthen, not diminish, the BBC.

Through the BBC we see things about our nation and the world that we might never encounter in our own lives. As Sir David Attenborough has said, the world would be worse off without our stories. It must be taken with great pride that the British public has a direct role in providing the platform needed to nurture and share the genius of so many British individuals in the creative industry. I hope we can continue to protect public ownership of the BBC, to preserve the voices and stories that make us who we are.

15:33

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Let me start by wishing all Members and you, Mr Mundell, a very merry Christmas. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this valuable debate, which has been a spirited one with some interesting points. I will pose some questions to the Minister in, as it is Christmas, the most constructive way I can.

The BBC plays a fundamental role in the lives of the vast majority of people in the country, and its scope is impossible to underestimate. The National Union of Journalists estimates that 91% of British adults use BBC television, radio or online each week. As a number of Members have pointed out, its global reach is equally important: 426 million people access the BBC every week via the World Service and its worldwide and global news services.

The BBC’s reach and reputation is rightly a source of pride for people in the UK. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, as we approach the renewal of the BBC’s royal charter in 2027, there is no denying that the Government must recognise some of the challenges that the organisation faces, not least in respect of its sustainability, with decreasing licence fee uptake and decreasing revenues.

The issue of trust has been brought up. The social contract that exists between the licence fee payer and the BBC is fundamental. Unless we ensure that people have faith in the BBC and its role in society, endless questions about its relevance and importance will continue to be a factor in public discourse. Failure to address that will undermine trust in the BBC.

The BBC is one of our great institutions. Since its founding, it has promoted the very best of Britain at home and abroad. It has guided our nation through war, economic and political crises and much more. It needs to be trusted, especially as we see our adversaries like Russia and China bolstering the reach of their own state broadcasters. We also see the concerning impact of AI and misinformation domestically and around the world. We must emphasise the issue of trust. We are clearly seeing a trend in the questioning of the BBC’s credibility, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who was an excellent Minister on these issues, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon.

Recent funding figures are a cause for concern. A 2015 report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found that some view the licence fee as “anachronistic” and

“harder and harder to sustain”.

Its conclusions are verified by the fact that licence fee income between 2022-23 and 2023-24 went down, and there were fewer licences in force at the end of March 2024 than the end of 2023. That clearly suggests that more people are reluctant to pay the licence fee because they are not believing in the BBC or trusting it. This is a foundational challenge for the Government. This country needs the BBC. The challenge is for the Government and the BBC to make that case. I hope the Minister will recognise that in her response.

We must also recognise that the way that people, especially our younger generations, engage with media has altered dramatically in the past decade. The covid pandemic accelerated some of the trends that have dramatically transformed the media landscape. It led to a surge in online streaming companies, which now dominate the market. As we approach the review of the royal charter, we cannot ignore the radically different media environment that the BBC is operating and competing in compared with that of just 10 years ago. The Government must understand that unless there is genuine reform of the BBC and how it functions, it will continue to be an analogue service in a digital world.

There is no denying that the licence fee model was conceived at a time of linear viewing, when watching programmes at the time of broadcast was commonplace. The reality is much different now. The BBC competes in a far more crowded market—a market that can be accessed at any time, anywhere. Licence fee payments will not increase if the BBC does not continue to strive to adapt to the rapid changes in online media that we all have to interact with. What discussions is the Minister having with the BBC to ensure that its funding remains sustainable over the next 10 years, in the light of a radically different media landscape? I acknowledge that these are not easy questions; they require leadership and clarity, so I hope the Minister can provide some of that in her remarks.

The issue of local radio has also been brought up, and the Government should seek to engage constructively with the BBC about its future. The BBC has 39 local radio stations that currently reach 5.7 million listeners. Under the terms of the current royal charter, the BBC has an obligation to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom in both its output and its services and must meet the needs of its regions and communities. As the National Union of Journalists sets out, local radio is a lifeline for often-isolated rural communities and provides an invaluable source of news and education for so many, especially elderly people in our communities. At a time when elderly people are feeling more and more marginalised, it would be wrong to make further cuts to local radio, which provides essential information and entertainment for millions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made some excellent suggestions in that regard, and I hope the Minister can address his concerns.

I want to turn to Ofcom, because the question of BBC funding raises other issues that have been brought up in a number of different ways when it comes to the BBC’s impartiality. As Ofcom is the broadcasting regulator and has the role of challenging broadcasters, especially in an ever more competitive environment, there are clearly questions that the public will want answers to. In the past decade, the BBC has had many new competitors, and I want to raise the issue of GB News. Ofcom recently fined GB News £100,000 for its programme with the former Prime Minister in February this year. Many people believed that was not correct, and I also question it. The Government should question Ofcom’s remit, its scope to deny freedom of speech, and whether its fines are proportionate in the circumstances, as we enter an ever more competitive media landscape that is fundamentally different compared with the previous decade.

I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Mundell, and I thank all Members for their contributions; I hope they have a happy new year.

15:40

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I echo the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in wishing a merry Christmas to everyone present, and congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate. He and I have had a lot of opportunities to debate the BBC together this week.

Let me start by responding to some of the points that the shadow Minister and others made. First, the right hon. Member for Maldon pointed out that it is a good time to have this debate. He opened by talking about the importance of public service broadcasting today. We spent many hours debating the Media Act 2024, which is legislation that goes to the heart of these issues and now falls to this Government to implement.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) pointed out how many people access the BBC—over 90% every month—but also the fact that there are lots of important and challenging issues about BBC funding and the charter review.

It has been a good debate, and Members have rightly shared their own experiences and memories of the BBC. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) spoke about the shared experience we have as a country, and how the BBC brings us together. A week today we will all be watching the King’s speech and, of course, “Gavin and Stacey”—or at least I will be.

Members from all parties, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), spoke about their passion and support for the World Service. The right hon. Member for Maldon serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee, to which I was pleased to give evidence. I am pleased that three Select Committees are taking such an interest in the topic. There are a lot of questions and challenges, but it is important that we put on the record our support for the World Service.

The shadow Minister asked questions about engagement with the BBC; the Secretary of State and I have met with the BBC and will continue to do so. The shadow Minister also asked questions about local radio. It is important to state that the BBC is operationally independent, but when I was in the shadow Minister’s place I made my views very clear, as did the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who was the Minister at the time.

I will speak more broadly about the BBC before addressing some of the wider funding issues. For over 100 years the BBC has been a cherished British asset, making a vital contribution to our national life. It supports our democracy, brings our communities together and helps to shape and define our nation by telling the stories of people in all parts of the UK. The BBC has an almost unique role as a source of trusted news, both in the UK and to millions of people across the globe, as well as being a provider of cutting-edge programming and educational content for the nation’s children. It is so often the first to invest in the skills, the physical assets and the creativity to boost the creative industries in all corners of the country.

The media environment has of course changed over the BBC’s long history. Even since the start of the current charter period in 2017, when the Government were bringing iPlayer into the scope of the licence fee, the market has significantly evolved—a point that has been discussed. The right hon. Member for Maldon knows all that very well, not least because he served as Secretary of State for DCMS during the previous charter review.

The world is changing and, as the right hon. Member for Maldon outlined in his speech, for the first time half of 16 to 24-year-olds now do not watch broadcast TV on a weekly basis. We are seeing audiences increasingly turn to on-demand content, and more than two thirds of households subscribe to streaming services, compared with about a third at the start of the charter period.

The shadow Minister asked about some of the challenges that go to the heart of this debate. As an institution, the BBC has often needed to adapt, renew and grapple with an ever-increasing pace of change. That is something that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) spoke about in his contribution.

Next year, the Government will formally launch charter review with the need for adaptation in mind. We intend to use charter review to think through the operation of the BBC and how it thrives for not just the next 10 years, but well into the latter half of this century. We know that any reform to the BBC, particularly when it comes to funding, could have a major impact on the whole sector. We will consider that carefully as part of the charter review. We want to have a national conversation to make sure that the BBC truly represents and delivers for every person in this country, wherever they come from and whatever their background. That will include the opportunity for stakeholders and audiences across the country to respond to the charter review public consultation before the new charter comes into effect in 2028.

Our thinking will also be informed by my Department’s wider work. We are undertaking a project on the future of TV distribution to analyse how people receive their television now and through the next decade. That will help us to ensure the continuity of a sustainable TV ecosystem and the best outcome for audiences.

As we address vital questions about the future form of the BBC head on, we must also ensure that there is a sustainable funding model that is fair to those who pay for it. These are undoubtedly complex issues, on which people hold strong opinions, but this Government want to have an open and honest discussion about them in the public’s best interests.

We are fully committed to retaining the licence fee for the rest of this charter period, but we cannot ignore the fact that challenges to this funding model in its current form are increasing, as has been highlighted in the debate. The media market is more competitive than ever, with the emergence of streamers and social media platforms operating on a global scale. That has meant less money for the BBC to invest in our creative industries, in talent and skills, and in telling our stories. It has also resulted in cuts to BBC services, which the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about.

The Secretary of State has announced that we will take forward work on BBC funding as part of the charter review process to bring together the linked issues of what the BBC does, its future role and how it is funded. The Government are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee.

The right hon. Member for Maldon referred to his chairing of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. More recently, the Committee’s 2021 report on the future of public service broadcasting found that there are a range of options for funding the BBC, but none are perfect.

[Julia Lopez]

The Secretary of State has talked about her support for mutualisation, but it has never been clear to me what that actually means. Could the Minister give us more details?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will happily ask the Secretary of State to write to the hon. Lady. However, in talking about mutualisation, which the Secretary of State made some comments about some years ago, I think it is about having a greater role for the public in BBC accountability and the public feeling more ownership of it. But we will happily write to the hon. Lady with more detail, as I do not want to speak on the Secretary of State’s behalf.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her response; she is always very positive and very enthusiastic. In last night’s Adjournment debate on the charter review, she referred to complaints and how they will be handled by Ofcom or other organisations. However, the people who come to me with the examples of bias that I referred to are some of those who do not have a BBC licence and will not buy one. If the BBC has a better system, where people who have complaints about bias, whatever they may be, have their complaints handled in a good, honest and transparent way, that might draw back some people who have decided not to renew their licence. Will she assure us that that will happen?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, we spoke about this issue in the debate last night. There is the complaints procedure through BBC First, and complaints can be escalated to the executive complaints unit and then to Ofcom. But I appreciate that some people have simply decided not to buy a TV licence, and we want to explore the issue of trust and confidence in the BBC as part of the charter renewal process and the review. There will be a public consultation, in which his and my constituents, and the constituents of Members across the House, can take part.

We are not in the business of reform for reform’s sake. We will think in the broadest sense about the options for the BBC’s funding and structure, and nothing is off the table, as the Secretary of State said in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee last week. It is clear that there are limits to the amount of money that the BBC can raise from commercial sources, particularly given its obligations as a public service broadcaster. We firmly believe that the unique obligations placed on the BBC demand continued and sustainable public funding in support of its vital work.

In the meantime, we must ensure that the BBC is properly and fairly supported for the remainder of this charter. That is why we have announced that we are increasing the annual cost of a TV licence from April 2025 by £5, in line with consumer prices index inflation, which is less than half as much as last year’s increase. For the BBC, that will provide additional and proportionate funding that will allow it to continue to deliver world-class educational and engaging programming. We always take decisions on funding to provide certainty and stability for the BBC while ensuring that those decisions deliver the best outcomes for licence fee payers.

The Government have already noted the ongoing concerns about the impact of TV licensing enforcement action on vulnerable households. I am acutely aware of the financial difficulties faced by some households, and we are committed to supporting them to spread the cost of a TV licence. We recently announced an expansion of the simple payment plan to all unlicensed households facing financial hardship to help more people pay in flexible instalments, rather than them having to find a greater amount of money up front. We will also look at enforcement issues as part of the longer-term funding work we take forward at charter review.

The provision of trustworthy local and national news is vital for democracy and to hold elected representatives to account, especially at a time when misinformation and disinformation are spreading at rapid speeds. Local journalism, in particular, also helps to foster community in areas like mine in Barnsley. By reporting on stories that matter to local people, the BBC helps people to feel connected to the place they call home. In the past few days alone in my area, the BBC has reported on a new sculpture that will be placed on a roundabout in Goldthorpe, a local Christmas tree that had to be taken down due to dangers related to wind and vandalism, and a new specialist care home being built in Barnsley. Those kinds of varied local stories matter to local people, and they enrich their understanding of the issues affecting their neighbourhoods. I know Members from across the House will have similar stories to share.

Ultimately, the BBC has a huge role to play in telling our country’s story, creating great jobs and opportunities and driving growth in the creative economy. We are determined to get the forthcoming charter review right to future-proof the BBC and to ensure that we can all continue to enjoy and benefit from it for decades to come. The right hon. Member for Maldon has made an important contribution, not just today, but through his years of public service, and I thank him for that.

15:51

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. A number of criticisms of the BBC have been expressed, and I have my own criticisms; nevertheless, everybody recognises the value that the BBC brings to the UK and our society, and the importance of ensuring that it continues to play that important role. But there is a problem: the current model is looking harder and harder to sustain. I therefore suspect that we will continue to debate this issue over the coming weeks and years during the charter renewal process. I look forward to continuing my discussion with the Minister and others. I thank everybody for their contributions and join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the Minister and all others in wishing all Members a very happy Christmas.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned BBC Parliament, on which this debate will appear. I understand that it is available over Christmas, when it shows highlights from parliamentary proceedings—of which I am sure this debate will be part.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC.

15:53

Sitting suspended.

Immigration and Nationality Statistics

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

16:00

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I will call Nick Timothy to move the motion and, later, the Minister to respond. I think it has been agreed that a number of other Members will make short contributions to the debate.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered immigration and nationality statistics.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Mundell—happy Christmas to you, the Clerks and other House staff.

I want to make clear my overall view of the rate and nature of immigration to Britain in recent years. To be frank, it has been a disgrace. Every Prime Minister since Tony Blair has promised control, only to oversee record numbers of people coming here. Immigration is the biggest broken promise in British politics, and probably the biggest single reason that British politics is so broken. This could not be more important, because mass immigration undermines our economy, capital stock, and cultural coherence and identity. It quite literally changes the country we are.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I think the issue that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on, and probably most Members in this Chamber will agree on, is that there are two categories: those who are fleeing their countries on human rights grounds and because of the persecution of their religious beliefs, who should go through the system, and economic migrants—those who are young and healthy, and who jump on the boat at Calais and come across. Those are ones we need to stop. Does he agree?

[Nick Timothy]

I certainly agree that most people crossing the channel are not really seeking refuge, because they are coming from a safe country: France. They are seeking their economic betterment, which may be legitimate from their perspective, but is not necessarily in our interests as a country.

I must be honest: my party played its part in this policy failure. I say “policy failure” because, at times—certainly when I worked in the Home Office and, I think, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was in the Home Office—there was a genuine attempt to get the numbers down. Indeed, back in those years, the numbers fell, but ultimately we failed, thanks to free movement rules, a loss of wider political support for our work across Government, and a failure to reform the higher and further education system, public services and the wider economy, so as to get off the addiction to more and more migration.

Brexit should have changed all that. It was a clear vote not only to reclaim our sovereignty, but to reduce and control immigration, but the points-based system that followed, with its hugely liberal rules, was always bound to increase the numbers dramatically. For that, my party will need to show sincere contrition and, if we are ever to win again, demonstrate to the public that we truly get it and have a plan to cut immigration drastically.

To inform the policy choices we face and help us to understand what we must do with the millions of newcomers who have started new lives here in the past 25 years or so, we also need much better data. Low-paid immigrants bring costs that are not adequately considered by Government impact assessments. They need housing, drive on roads, use transport, have health needs, take school places, claim benefits and eventually receive the state pension, which was recently valued by an actuary at £250,000 per person. Most immigrants and their dependants will, over their lifetimes, be net recipients of public funds.

However, the British state does not even try to calculate the net fiscal costs and benefits of different profiles of migrant. We get fragments of information from, say, the census, or prison statistics. We know that 72% of Somalis here, for example, live in social housing, compared with 16% of the population overall. We know that one in 50 Albanians here are in prison, and that nationalities such as Iraqis, Jamaicans and Somalis are disproportionately likely to be criminals. We know from now-discontinued income tax data that some nationalities, such as Bangladeshis, receive more in child benefit and tax credits than they pay in income tax and national insurance. That does not even include the costs of education, housing, healthcare, pensions, and other effects on infrastructure and services.

Some European countries have started to do the necessary work. In Denmark, for example, official figures show that Danes and Europeans are net contributors, but migrants and their descendants from the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey are net recipients throughout their whole lives, including when they are working.

I have asked various Ministers in oral and written questions whether the Government will commission work to establish the true cost of immigration broken down by profile of migrant. The answer that comes back more often than not is that that has not been done before. However, that is not a reason not to do it now. My first question to the Minister is: if it is not to be done, why not? Can she give us a justification?

I have asked similar questions on specific aspects of policy. The Department for Work and Pensions told me in a letter that

“we are investigating the feasibility of developing and publishing statistics on the immigration status of non-UK/Irish”

nationals, or “customers”, as it bizarrely calls foreign benefits claimants. My second question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the DWP about that? When will that work be completed? Will the data be broken down by nationality, visa route and type of benefit?

We know bits of information on social housing from the census, as I said, but that is not good enough. Only yesterday, a grotesque online video was published by Westminster city council promoting social housing in Arabic, Bengali, Spanish and French, which, given the rules around no recourse to public funds, I found somewhat surprising. My third question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that? Can we get annual data on social housing occupation by nationality, visa and asylum status?

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some excellent work on the issue of data and immigration has been done by our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who has been a cheerleader for getting the kind of information that would help us inform public policy? As he is talking about social housing, does he share my concerns that the Labour Government seem to be moving away from some of the provisions we put in place to prioritise British people for housing?

[Nick Timothy]

I endorse that entirely and pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) for the excellent work he has done. He was the first Member of this House to talk about what he calls the “data desert” when it comes to immigration.

On criminal justice policy, the Justice Secretary very recently refused to answer in the Chamber when I asked if the Government would publish the nationality, visa and asylum status of all imprisoned offenders. My fourth question is: why did she refuse to do that? Why can the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice not come together to publish that data?

There are many other areas of policy, but I want to turn to the Home Office in particular. The Home Secretary told the House of Commons in July that the Rwanda policy had cost the taxpayer £700 million by the time Labour had come to power and that by ending the retrospective element of the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, she would save the public £7 billion over 10 years. Those numbers were clearly preposterous, and Home Office officials got in touch with me to express their concern about the things she said on the Floor of the House. The National Audit Office had said in March that the Rwanda scheme’s total cost was only £290 million, which included a £50 million payment made between its study and the general election. To be fair, the NAO costs did not include some things, such as the cost of detaining migrants. However, those costs would have had to have been met without the Rwanda scheme anyway, and it is difficult to understand what might justify a £410 million difference between what the NAO said and what the Home Secretary said on the Floor of the House of Commons.

In a letter to the shadow Home Secretary copied to me, the Home Office permanent secretary gave a breakdown—if it can be called a breakdown—of the costs behind the £700 million claim that ludicrously lumped together £278 million under the title “Other fixed costs” with very little description of what that means. My fifth question is: can the Minister tell us specifically what those costs are? Will she hand over all the relevant data to the Office for Statistics Regulation? Can she commit to placing in the Library a detailed set of accounts to justify that number?

In a separate letter to me, the permanent secretary justified the discrepancy by claiming that the NAO report had not included some “expected” Home Office costs. That makes no sense because “expected” implies costs that had not been incurred in March when the NAO report was published, but the Home Office now says that those costs were incurred between 2022-23 and June in 2024-25. In his letter to me, Sir Matthew said:

“Further detail is contained within the impact assessment that accompanied the retrospection statutory instrument that was laid before Parliament.”

But again, the impact assessment models costs in the future, not the past, so I have a sixth question. When the Home Secretary said that the £700 million had already been spent in July, why was her permanent secretary talking about prospective costs in August? Why did he refer to an impact assessment based on future costs, not costs already incurred?

On my seventh question, when the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), debated this issue with me in Westminster Hall in September, she promised to write to me to explain those discrepancies. Why did she not do so? Can the Minister tell us why the Home Secretary still has not replied to my letter of 21 September, despite written answers on 22 October and 25 November promising to do so as soon as possible?

Finally, I have asked Ministers in the Home Office and the Foreign Office about the secretive deal to bring Sri Lankan asylum seekers from Diego Garcia to Britan, even though the Government are under no obligation to do so. Home Office officials are worried that among those migrants are criminals and even child abusers. The Home Office said:

“Migrants with criminal convictions, charges, or subject to ongoing investigations were not in scope for that relocation.”

However, in a written answer to me, the immigration Minister refused to say whether the Government had sought or obtained the necessary information from the Sri Lankan Government. On 14 November, the Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), answered my question, saying that the Government

“does not have any information about Sri Lankan migrants’ criminality that pre-dates their arrival on British Indian Ocean Territory.”

On 9 December, the immigration Minister answered another of my questions and said:

“The local UK police force in the area where the migrants have been located have been informed of their arrival in the UK.”

That does not sound very reassuring, and there are clear discrepancies between what the Home Office and Foreign Office have said. The fact that the police have had to be notified about the arrival of those migrants would be very alarming to people who live in those areas, if the public actually knew where those migrants are.

For my eighth and final question, can the Minister confirm that the Government have no idea about the criminal records of those migrants dating to their time in Sri Lanka? What on earth are the Government doing importing migrants, for whom we have no legal responsibility, into this country in such secrecy when there are concerns about them inside the Home Office, and without undertaking every conceivable security check?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. This debate is for a fixed 30-minute period. I will call each of the three Members who have asked to speak, but I will apply a time limit of three minutes to their contributions. I call Richard Tice.

16:12

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. It seems to me that there is a dearth of information, or a sort of conspiracy of silence. It seems quite simple; we have been told for decades that immigration is great for this nation, and therefore it seems quite obvious that we should say, “Fine, prove it.” Why do we not suggest proving it nation by nation, so that we know who is genuinely contributing and adding value, or who is maybe costing us money? We can then work out how we improve growth and ensure that smart immigration works for this country.

A Government who believe in transparency and high-quality data, which we have heard to be the case on numerous occasions, should welcome the opportunity and the suggestion that we need to know, nation by nation, who is coming here, how much they are contributing, and how much they are costing. In the unfortunate example where they commit crimes, we need to know—nation by nation—who is costing us by way of criminals and why they are not immediately removed. With that quality of data, we can make judgments and decisions about smart immigration to the benefit of all, and to the confidence of all our constituents.

16:14

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. As I understand it, when he was in the Home Office, the Conservative Government had a target of 100,000 net migration a year. Clearly, the Conservative Government spectacularly failed in that undertaking, so it is fascinating to me that they are keen to draw attention to this issue, when it is one of their poorest legacies.

[Nick Timothy]

I am entertained by the idea that special advisers are so important that they might be able to control outcomes such as this. If the hon. Member thinks that is the case, he might ask the Minister to invite one of the Home Office’s special advisers to take part in parliamentary debates.

[Chris Murray]

Well, thanks for that.

Turning to the issues the hon. Gentleman raised, on data collection, the ONS has significantly improved the immigration data we have in the last couple of years, particularly since the pandemic, by shifting away from the international passenger survey to things like Home Office and DWP administrative data. Is he aware of the Migration Advisory Committee report that came out yesterday that talks about the fiscal contributions and net impact of those coming through the skilled worker visa? It shows a net positive impact.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of other fixed costs for Rwanda, but the Home Office documentation is pretty clear on what that means. It means the things like digital and IT, legal costs and staff costs required to operationalise the Rwanda scheme. This information is all in the public domain, so I am perplexed as to why we are having a debate on it: I think it reflects the fact that the Conservatives have absolutely failed to understand why they got immigration policy so wrong when they were in government and why they failed to address the immigration challenges we have in the UK. The debate focuses not on the impact on communities or the economy, just the numbers overall. For years, the Conservatives focused on a net migration target that they spectacularly failed to meet again and again, and never tried to look at the impact of migration on communities.

It is so obvious that migrants are a vast range of different people. Different migrants will have different impacts in the different communities where they settle. There is a huge difference between adding some EU workers to parts of England that have never seen any immigration and having new immigration in big cities that have long histories and structures of absorbing immigration. We need to understand that our communities experience impacts differently.

We also need to think about the churn of immigration. There are two types of immigrants. Some will come, stay here, settle, learn English and get jobs, and, yes, over time they will turn into—just like any other British person—someone who uses public services sometimes but contributes to the tax base at other times. We have a model where we have high levels of churn in the immigration system. People will come and work for a couple of years, leave after they have learned English and got to know how the system works here and be replaced by new immigrants from overseas. It is not just about the number of net migrants in the country but the churn and lack of integration that we see.

Think about Madeleine Albright and her family who fled the Nazis. They first came to Britain and then went to the US as refugees. Madeleine Albright said that in Britain people said, “You are welcome here. How long until you leave?” Whereas in America they said, “You are welcome here. How long until you become a citizen?” We have no discussion about the trajectory we want to see migrants travel: integrating into our communities and contributing. We are stuck in a discussion about numbers and overall statistics that leaves the public utterly cold. I have run out of time, but it is fascinating to see that the Conservatives have not learned any lessons from the last 15 years of their migration mistakes.

16:18

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

There is a concerted campaign within Government to hide vital statistics from the British people regarding the impact of uncontrolled mass immigration—legal and illegal. Let me be abundantly clear: it is a cover-up. Whether it is crimes committed by illegal migrants or a nationality breakdown of those claiming benefits, the British people deserve to know the ugly truth. If there is nothing to hide, show us the data. Information is being concealed from the public on crime, welfare claims, tax contributions, size of illegal population, public service usage and so much more. Either the Home Office is deliberately hiding the numbers or the data is genuinely not collected. Both options are equally terrifying. It is either pure incompetence or shocking dishonesty. Sadly, I believe it is the latter. My message to the Home Office is clear: show us the data, and we can make up our own minds. The ongoing cover-up is simply not acceptable. When will we get total transparency?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister to conclude the debate. In these 30-minute debates, there is no opportunity for the Member in charge to respond; the Minister’s contribution will conclude the debate.

16:20

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I also thank my colleagues from across the House who have contributed.

There has been an important focus today on statistics, which I welcome because this Government believe in making good use of facts and evidence when delivering policy. Various points have been raised, and I want to come back to all of them, but, if I do miss any, I hope that Members will allow me to respond to some of their points in writing. I also recognise that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), is unable to be here today.

Before I address Members’ points, I want to make a few remarks reflecting on the immigration system that the Government inherited. The hon. Member for West Suffolk alluded to the situation that we found, and it is worth reflecting on what the latest official figures show because they shocked us all. Under the previous Government, net migration grew almost five times higher in four years—and is still four times higher—-than it was before the pandemic, driven heavily by an increase in overseas recruitment. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have both been extremely clear that net migration needs to come down. We are, therefore, continuing with visa controls, which we supported when they were introduced by the previous Government. However, we are also clear that much more needs to be done to restore order and credibility to the system. That is why—

[Julia Lopez]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make some remarks; I know the hon. Lady has already contributed.

That is why we are pursuing a new approach to end the overreliance on international recruitment by ensuring that the immigration, skills and training systems are properly aligned in a way they have not previously been. Further details of our plans to reduce net migration will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper. I am sure the hon. Member for West Suffolk will want to contribute and bring his own experience in government, which I do respect. I am sure he will also want to engage on how we build the solutions and the architecture that we need for a new part of how Government works, working across the Home Office, skills and our future needs, as well as on how we ensure that we are supporting migrants into work, which is also part of the role of the DWP.

Let me turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. It is worth saying that the issue of dangerous small boat crossings has been a phenomenon of the last five or six years. There has been an increase from 300 people coming in 2018 to an average of over 36,000 a year in the last three years—a 120-fold increase. We cannot deny that, in a few short years, an entire criminal smuggler industry has been built around boat crossings, and that has also been allowed to take hold across the UK border. The cost of the asylum system also increased by more than five times to £5.4 billion between 2019-20 and last year. Returns of those with no right to be here are 30% lower than they were in 2010, and asylum-related returns were down by 20% compared with 14 years ago. That was the legacy we inherited from the previous Government, and former Ministers themselves have admitted it was shameful.

On the calls for more data, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics publish a very wide range of statistical information on a regular basis. Our country’s statisticians, and those working in my Department and other Departments, are in fact world leaders in the production of statistics and analysis on the topic of migration. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the UK publishes, I believe, more statistics on migration than any other country. The content and presentation of official statistics is kept under review and that regular oversight allows us to balance the production of regular statistics with the need to develop new statistics and statistical products for future release. We remain committed to the issues of transparency and ensuring that public and parliamentary debates are informed by robust and accurate statistics, and to keeping statistics under review.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk raised a few comments on some of his correspondence and it would be helpful to refer to some of that. I assure him that the Home Office has received his letter of 1 September and is due to respond in due course. The breakdown of £700 million in costs, which the hon. Member inquired about, has been published on gov.uk and sets out the cost of the Rwanda partnership and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which were inseparable. The purpose of the IMA was to prevent individuals arriving in the UK from remaining here, and Rwanda was intended to be a vehicle for enabling that. To try and separate them is deliberately misrepresenting the true cost of what was clearly a failed policy.

[Nick Timothy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman can come back in a moment.

The proposal to send asylum applicants to Rwanda was impractical, costly and would not have worked to reduce irregular migration. We believe in dealing with these issues with common sense in the work we have been undertaking: making sure we have a new Border Security Command and Border Security Commander, working upstream, building new partnerships with other countries and doing that in order to also disrupt the supply chains of criminal gangs, who the hon. Member for West Suffolk knows are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We will continue to spend taxpayer money on real solutions such as breaking the business models of those criminal gangs. In fact, when we made it clear that the Rwanda partnership would come to an end, we saw, for example, the repurposing of two flights provisionally booked for Rwanda, which were used to return a number of individuals to their home countries instead.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I appreciate that she has been given a hospital pass by the immigration Minister, who really ought to be the person here, but last time she was, she did not give a very good account of herself, and has been avoiding writing letters or giving any of the numbers that the Opposition have been asking for.

The statement—which was obviously pre-prepared, and I understand how these things work—does not address any of the questions that I raised in my speech. It is not true that we are world leaders in the collection of statistics that relate to immigration. Anyway, the questions related not to overall levels of net migration from particular countries and so on, but to things such as the nationality and immigration status of criminals and imprisoned criminals, or people living in social housing or in receipt of benefits. We do not have any information on that, and if we are compared to some European countries such as Denmark or the Netherlands, a study from which shows that the average asylum migrant costs something like £400,000 net over their lifetimes, we are nowhere. Can the Minister give us a quick answer on that?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said, we do keep our statistics under review. He will also know that a lot of research on the cost and benefit of migration has been done by the Migration Advisory Committee, and its annual report, published this week, is another example of the work it is doing, with its capacity expanding to help us address some of the challenges of bringing net migration down alongside having a more coherent policy for how we do that across Government. Indeed, the recent estimate of the average contribution of skilled workers is also demonstrated in the report.

I will make this point before I finish: the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the Ministry of Justice does publish data on foreign national offenders in the UK in its official statistics. He will also know that we have seen a 21% increase in foreign criminals being removed from the UK, compared to the same period last year. That sends a clear message to foreign criminals that if they break the law, they will not be allowed to stay in the UK.

I recognise the importance of the debate and the issues that have been raised today. I thank the hon. Member for raising them and we will respond to him in due course.

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

Creative Arts Education

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered creative arts education.

It is a pleasure to open this debate about the importance of creative arts education. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, both as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on performing arts education and training and as trustee of Chichester Festival Theatre.

Throughout December, my diary, like those of all Members across the House, is jam-packed with wonderful occasions that feature a celebration of the arts—be they carol concerts in local churches, school plays or pantomimes. I have loved the live music on my high street at the Chichester Christmas market. I had a fantastic time as the guest judge at the Priory Park pantomime, and once the House rises I will be off to enjoy the Chichester Festival Youth Theatre’s production of “Cinderella”—a professional production on the main stage—with my family. I had the privilege of performing on that stage as a member of that very same youth theatre: an experience that I still treasure as an adult, and one that encouraged me to continue my education in the creative arts.

After studying drama at GCSE and A-level, I went on to the University of Chichester and obtained a degree in performing arts. Before this giddy world of politics ensnared me, I had the privilege of teaching the next generation performing arts at various organisations and in schools. I am living proof that a creative education can lead anywhere, including to this place.

The arts and cultural sector contributes well over £8 billion to the UK economy each year. It puts £2.5 billion directly into the Treasury through taxation, and the creative industries as a whole generated £125 billion in 2022. They account for almost 6% of the UK economy, create 2.5 million jobs and have a huge impact on the tourism economy, with one in 10 tourists to the UK visiting a theatre. Theatres sell 34 million tickets a year across the UK.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and I commend her for her work in this area. Does she agree that many wonderful venues could be developed across towns and cities in this country? In my area, Reading Gaol has incredible potential. It has been derelict for some time, although it was bought recently. We are trying to see what arts provision can be offered there. Is there not enormous scope for developing more theatre and art space across the country, which can provide incredible value to local communities?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member and commend him on his work in trying to get Reading Gaol opened as an arts space.

A project in Selsey in my constituency is trying to restore a beautiful old pavilion, which used to hold many events but was then left to go to rack and ruin. The Selsey Pavilion Trust is working tirelessly to try and get that venue up and running so that the Selsey community can once again enjoy arts in their own town.

As a country, we have a duty to ensure that the next generation of employees is suitably equipped to join a sector that can drive the growth and innovation that the UK needs now more than ever. We must ensure that a career in the arts continues to be seen by our young people as a viable and valuable choice well into the future.

I remember having that debate with my mum, in an Italian restaurant at the age of 18, after I had been accepted to go to university to study business. I confessed that I was following that path so that I could get a proper job, and that I did not believe that she could possibly support me in following my real desire: to study theatre. Luckily, she did, and it paid off—I turned down that place at university, and a year later went to the University of Chichester to study theatre. My degree not only taught me the craft of performing arts, but developed valuable personal and employment skills, such as collaborative working, demonstrating initiative and problem solving.

To be clear, the creative arts are a broad field that includes many artistic disciplines. Although my background is performing arts and drama, when I talk about a lack of creative arts in our education system, I refer not just to drama, but to music, dance, visual arts, creative writing, textiles, and the design and technology subjects.

In this debate, I want to focus on the structure of the English baccalaureate, and the failure to include arts subjects in it. This is putting arts education in the UK in an urgent state of crisis, and will have a wider impact on the creative sector if not addressed by this Government. The English baccalaureate requires children to take up GCSEs in several subjects, none of which is in the arts. Since its introduction in 2010, arts subjects have seen a drastic decline in the number of students taking them further in their education: a 29% decrease in drama, a 24% decrease in music, and a 65% reduction in the six design and technology subjects. Compare that with geography, which has seen increase of 42%; history, which has seen an increase of 33%; and the single sciences, which are up by 38%.

The issue is very apparent in my constituency. Chichester College is investing in a state-of-the-art science, technology, engineering and maths building, which is due to open shortly—I applaud its work in getting that building up and running—while cancelling its drama A-level for new students this coming year, because of a lack of take-up. That has upset many students in the Chichester constituency.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I come from Falmouth, which has a world-leading arts university. The idea of STEAM—science, technology, engineering, arts and maths—adds the creativity of the arts, and unlocks some of the creativity in science and tech. That is where we get breakthroughs. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I am glad that the hon. Member is the first person in the room to raise STEAM. Adding arts to the STEM subjects is such an important and viable way of opening up the curriculum.

When I visit private schools in my constituency, their arts departments are flourishing. An article in The Times in November found that nearly half of all film and television directors nominated for British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards were educated at independent schools, and one in six was educated at Oxford or Cambridge. That highlights the stark class inequalities in access to the creative industries, which will worsen if the trend of de-prioritising arts education in state schools and colleges continues.

I will not ask hon. Members to take my word for it. Earlier this week, I spoke to Hugh Bonneville—yes, I am willing to name-drop my friend—who wrote in his book “Playing Under the Piano” about a school he visited in 2019: a newly built academy that taught around 2,000 students. It was an impressive school, but it had no music provision, no choir, no band, and no studio space for drama or dance. The students who were working on scenes from “Romeo and Juliet” had pushed the bookshelves to one side in a corner of the library to create a rehearsal space. As Hugh wrote:

“How on earth is the next generation of those who drive the multi-billion pound entertainment and creative industries to be discovered, or even to take part?”

The current structure of the English baccalaureate is opposed by teachers, education experts, trade unions, artists and the creative sector. Perhaps more importantly, a survey by the Cultural Learning Alliance concluded that one of the advantages of arts-based studies is stronger educational attainment generally, and there are well-acknowledged connections between participation in the performing arts and stronger self-motivation, as well as improved physical and mental wellbeing and the development of inner resilience.

Any organisation or charity currently working to support young people can describe the acute mental health crisis that our young people face. One example is the Young People’s Shop, a charity operating in Chichester that, alongside its counselling service, runs arts-based group sessions, recognising the link between mental health and creative expression. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a mental health professional in every school and I applaud that. Given the connection I have laid out, I strongly advocate working closely with creative arts provision in schools as an outlet for expression and stress relief.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the role that outside organisations play in giving our young people a creative education. Some of my happiest memories are of evenings spent at my local amateur dramatic society rehearsing for the upcoming panto, and Thursday evenings throughout the year with my friends at Chichester Festival Youth Theatre.

I pay tribute to organisations such as Chichester Festival Theatre, which has one of the most ambitious youth theatres in the country. It acknowledged that its youth theatre was not reaching as well as it could the communities that would benefit from access, so it created seven satellite youth theatres across West Sussex to ensure that each of those communities has access to top-quality education, classes for students with additional needs, and theatre-based courses for school refusers and those out of mainstream education. CFT even launched a technical youth theatre for young people more interested in the workings of the backstage than the front stage.

I recognise how lucky we in Chichester are to have a theatre, such as CFT, that puts learning and participation at the core of everything it does, but I want every child in this country to have the opportunity afforded to my constituents.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Wales is very proud of its reputation for producing great musicians, actors and actresses—I will not try to name them all lest I forget people. My hon. Friend talked of the difficulties faced by people entering the profession and the worrying fact that the numbers might be dropping off. How does she think our state would be best placed to encourage people to go into the profession? Would that be through investing in buildings and education, or something else?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend. I think it is both; it is about making spaces that are accessible to communities so they can explore the creative industries, but the Government can also do something. Government money could be used more wisely in consolidating those funding pots so that they are utilised to best effect by focusing on specialist world-class providers, delivering both in communities and via our education system.

I finish by reflecting that since the general election the Government have made all the right noises to suggest that a stronger emphasis may be put on creative education. Will the Minister, when she responds, commit to a reform of the English baccalaureate and set out a timeline for our schools to reintegrate arts education into the core curriculum? Will any further work be done on the integration of in-school and out-of-school provision of arts education, such as additional funding for music hubs to include dance and drama?

Finally, I thank the Council for Dance, Drama and Musical Theatre for its work in this area. I encourage the Minister, in her spare time over the Christmas recess —in between enjoying carol concerts and pantomimes—to please read its manifesto for performing arts education.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish be called in the debate. If Members are creative and stick to just over three minutes, I think we will get everybody in.

16:43

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing the debate. I must declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on art, craft and design in education.

When the sunsets in your town are named after the painter who made them famous, when some of the most loved comedians of the 20th century lived and partied there, when classic books were written or set there, when music hall celebrities made their home there, when one of the most loved Victorian authors lived there and whole weekends are dedicated to celebrating his books, and when actors, musicians and creatives of all kinds flock there, you know that art and creativity are sewn into the fabric of the place that you call home. Everywhere someone turns in Thanet, they bump into an enormously rich heritage of art and creativity. Thanks to the energy, drive and vision of many individuals in our community, art and creativity are part of our present, too. From the Turner gallery to Ramsgate Music Hall, from Screaming Alley to the Pie Factory, and with award-winning artists such as Lindsey Mendick and our very own globally famous Tracey Emin, our home is the home of many artists. Back in the 1870s, we even had Vincent van Gogh, who taught at a school in Ramsgate.

Margate is obviously known as the proud home of the Turner Contemporary art gallery, which is a symbol of the creative sector’s potential to help regenerate coastal communities like mine. There is a long and proud British tradition of talking about the importance of the creative industries, but if we do not also champion creative education, we sentence that extraordinary history to a slow death. Creative education has suffered hugely since the introduction of the English baccalaureate and progress 8, with a dramatic reduction in the number of students taking arts-related subjects. The statistics that the hon. Member for Chichester referred to strike fear into the heart of those of us who know the importance of art and creativity to the wellbeing and advancement of not only our industries, but our young people. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for art, craft and design in education, alongside the chairs of many other APPGs that represent creative subjects, I am campaigning for the Department to scrap the EBacc and progress 8, as part of the curriculum review, so that we once again encourage all children to take up the arts.

It is important to note that private schools know the value of arts education, which is why they spend so much time, money and effort on encouraging it. We now have a situation in which 40% of people working in the film, TV and music industries were educated at private schools—I remind Members that 7% of the population were educated at private schools—but that is entirely unsurprising, because private schools understand and value the benefits of creative education. Talent is spread equally across all children, but opportunity most certainly is not. With the EBacc and progress 8, the previous Government created a situation of arts education becoming the domain of those who can afford it. If those children deserve an arts education, so do the 93% of kids in state schools. We risk missing out on so much untapped talent across the country. We do not know who the next Tracey Emin or Bob and Roberta Smith is, and if we restrict arts education, I fear that we never will know. Creativity is fundamental to the human condition. We should expand education, not restrict it.

Before I finish, I want to point out the importance of the creative sector to not only our economy, but learning for people with special educational needs. The crisis in our education sector for those young people is particularly significant, because creative education is a way of their accessing learning and helps them to live their fullest lives. I pay tribute to Sammy’s Foundation, which was set up by Patricia Alban, one of my constituents, after her son, Sammy, tragically died. It teaches heritage craft skills to neurodivergent young people to help them to realise their potential and become master artisans. The reality is that young people such as Sammy who are consistently failed by mainstream education could find their passion and career in creative education, and fill a huge skills gap in the craft and heritage workforce. The new Government have taken positive steps by outlining the vast potential of the creative sector, but if they want to unlock the real potential of the industry, they need to enable creative education to thrive, not wither.

16:48

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this timely debate and for her excellent speech, much of which I agreed with. I declare an interest as chair of the APPG on music education. I will therefore focus on the provision of music education across the country.

Since 2010, there has been a steady decline in the provision of music in our schools. According to data from the Independent Society of Musicians, music as a subject has experienced a 30% decline in GCSE entries and a 43% drop in A-level entries since 2010. There has also been a sharp decline in the number of music teachers, which means that in some schools, music is taught by people who are not qualified as music teachers. That is of deep concern.

We heard from the hon. Member for Chichester about the economic benefits of creative subjects, but there is also a personal benefit to students. Building confidence, teaching discipline and teamwork, improved health and wellbeing and even academic achievement are some of the benefits of a music education. However, music provision across the country is patchy, although there are examples of excellence in two schools that I recently visited. In the Aldgate school, less than two miles from here, all children in years 4 to 6 learn stringed instruments—I had the pleasure of seeing them perform at their Christmas concert. Similarly, children in years 4 to 6 at Welbourne primary school in Haringey learn the strings. The leadership of those schools has decided to do that, but those schools are the exceptions rather than the rule. The restructuring of music hubs, which are meant to oversee local music provision, involved a lack of oversight, so the quality of music education is inevitably patchy. We need an urgent review of the hubs to ensure that there is a high standard—as is the case in Haringey, from the Haringey music service—across the board.

Before the Government came to office, they made a pledge about the need to teach creative subjects in schools. The APPG for music education has fed into that review, as I am sure did many Members here today. What we hope for is a return to creative subjects being taught in schools and given the priority that they deserve. They should be taught by people who are suitably qualified to do so. Music and creative subjects are far too important to be demoted, as has been the case over the last 14 years. We want them to rise up the agenda and to be taught as positively as possible. If anyone has not seen Ken Robinson’s TED talk, I strongly encourage them to watch it because he makes the right points about how creativity is necessary to give us all the skills we need in our society.

I hope that the Minister will indicate when the review will report back and when, hopefully, creativity will be taught in our schools. Any other help that she can provide to make that happen will be greatly appreciated.

16:52

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for bringing forward this essential debate.

I am a GP in Stroud and I have been championing arts in healthcare for over 30 years because creativity makes you better, and there is now a lot of evidence that that is the case. The Gloucestershire integrated care board—the health authority—under Ellen Rule, is investing £600,000 in creative and social prescriptions, which is incredibly exciting. I am helping to run a campaign to try to make music instrument tuition available in every primary school in the country. I co-chair the APPG for opera, which shares that aim, and the APPG for creative health. I also learned the flute at school. Recently I was asked to join the Stroud Red Band, which was one of the most fun things I did as part of my campaign to become an MP, so I thank those involved.

There are serious problems. As we have heard, there are a lot of issues due to the 30% fall in uptake of music GCSE at school. Playing music has a massive impact on children’s mental health. If we are trying to prevent mental health problems, teaching children music is one of the most effective things we can do, and it can also be used to treat mental health difficulties. Our Tory friends might be interested to know that it actually helps with academic maths as well, which is really important. As many hon. Members have said, there are massive inequalities in provision. The Government are now putting £79 million into music hubs and spending £5.8 million through the music opportunity pilot for people with special educational needs.

I shall finish by showcasing a number of local organisations. Strike a Light, which brings drama and music to young people, is really inspirational. The Music Works in Gloucester is also truly inspirational, particularly for children from deprived backgrounds. We have the Prema arts centre in my village of Uley. Gordon Scott, the director, has been teaching the piano to countless children over the past 20 to 30 years. Let us campaign to get music teaching in every primary school.

16:54

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate and for her outstanding speech. The creative arts is a topic that touches the hearts of all our communities, whatever our constituency, and has a direct impact on the economy and our identity across all our nations and regions.

The Government estimate that creative industries generate £126 billion in gross value added to the economy and employ some 2.5 million people, yet sometimes people argue that there is an either/or when it comes to education and that the performing arts, and the arts in general, are not an economic contributor. In my own area, Kent county council reported that the number of creative jobs has increased by 24% in Kent over the last five years, with 35% of them in the new sectors of IT, software and computer services. None of that happens in isolation. As the hon. Member for Chichester identified, it links back to education in schools. Every actor, film maker and games designer has a foundation in our education system, yet in recent years we have seen a worrying decline in creative arts education.

A recent report published by the University of Warwick indicated that between 2009 and 2023, UK funding for the arts decreased, alongside a 47% slump in GCSE entries in arts subjects. It is absolutely right that the EBacc needs to be looked at alongside the curriculum review to indicate that there is not just a fixation on STEM subjects. As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for video games and esports, I can say that investment in games technologies and art is about not only the past, but the future, and significant revenue and numbers of jobs can be secured in those sectors. It is an economic necessity that we look at the full breadth of STEAM skills that a 21st-century economy needs.

Medway in my area has a great legacy of theatre, music and production. I myself was a chorister at Rochester cathedral. We celebrate the breadth of diversity in our area, but we are being let down through our education system. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will art be a key focus of the curriculum review so that all our children can fully access such subjects? Will she report back on some of the changing industries of the future, specifically around gaming, games technologies and e-sports, which represent a significant growth opportunity for our economy and were recognised in the investment programme recently announced by the Government? How can we encourage colleges and schools to look at those sectors of the future and invest in them?

The Local Government Association report says that for every £1 spent on arts and culture, £4 is returned to the local economy. How can we change the narrative that arts are not just a by-product of a successful economy? They are an essential part of our economy.

I will finish by saying that creative education is not just a luxury; it is an absolute necessity. It enriches lives, builds communities and drives our local and national economies. My area of Medway is a shining example of how creativity can transform places, generate prosperity and inspire generations, but we need to go further and faster for the future of all our citizens.

16:58

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for organising the debate. I am sure we can all agree that creative arts play a unique and invaluable role in enhancing the wellbeing and education of our young people. The evidence is clear: participation in creative activities and the study of artistic subjects significantly improves students’ mental health, resilience and overall academic achievement.

A report by the Cultural Learning Alliance reveals that students engaged in the arts are three times more likely than others to win an academic award, and five times more likely to be recognised for good attendance, and research from the University of Manchester finds that young people who take part in arts activities are 20% more likely to report higher levels of life satisfaction. Yet, for too long, access to creative education in subjects such as art and design, dance, drama and music has been unequal, with some students receiving little or no exposure. That has allowed creative education to become a privilege largely reserved for those from affluent backgrounds whose families can afford access to cultural and artistic experiences.

Evidence shows that under the last Government, there was an overall decline of 42% in the number of arts GCSE entries. Many schools no longer offer arts subjects at all at GCSE level, and we now have 14% fewer arts teachers than in 2010. That is a damning indictment of the previous Government’s attitude and approach to creative arts education and the wider cultural sector. If we are serious about giving every child the best chance of success, we must ensure that creative arts education is accessible to all, regardless of background or circumstances. I was delighted that the Government committed £79 million to a national network of music hubs, which will give children and young people the opportunity to learn to sing or play an instrument. The investment has the potential to transform lives, providing a pathway for creative expression and personal growth.

I also welcome the piloting of the new music opportunities initiative, with £5.8 million to support students with special educational needs and disabilities, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is essential to ensure that creative opportunities are inclusive and fair.

As a proud Halesowen MP, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the exemplary work of Halesowen college. It is a forward-thinking educational institution that offers a large number of vocational creative arts courses, including acting, dance, fashion, graphic design, media make-up and music. With state-of-the-art facilities, the college provides young people and adults in Halesowen the chance to explore and develop their creative talents. Exciting and creative educational opportunities are available within our community.

As we look ahead, we must continue to champion creative arts education as a vital part of our children’s development, wellbeing and future success. It is only by nurturing their creative potential that the next generation will thrive.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Jayne Kirkham. I am saving Mr Shannon for the finale.

17:01

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for obtaining this important debate on a topic I am passionate about.

Cornwall, where I come from, is rich in the creative arts. I have spoken previously about the world-class Falmouth University, which grew out of a 100-year-old art school, with a strategic focus on creativity and technology. I welcome the inclusion of the creative industry in the UK’s eight growth sectors in the recent industrial strategy. It is brilliant that it has been recognised as an economic driver.

Creative education has so many impacts. I will name a few, even though I should not need to, because each one should be enough on its own. The skills development, critical thinking and problem-solving skills gained from an arts education help to focus on future industries such as tech and digital media, driving economic growth. Creativity and entrepreneurial skills go hand in hand. Cornwall is teeming with small and medium-sized enterprises and one-man bands, which stimulate the independent sector and the growth of the area. That is well worth it in an area such as Cornwall that struggles with deprivation.

[Ms Billington]

On my hon. Friend’s point about helping to grow the local economy, can we stop the suggestion that art is anything other than a serious subject? We have had far too much of the idea that it is soft, easy and does not add to wider education and understanding. It is not just an economic driver but fundamental to the human condition.

[Jayne Kirkham]

You are right that it is an important subject in its sheer scope, alongside the sciences, maths and everything else. It does more than enrich our lives; it is a fundamental part of our lives.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. I am “you” and she is the hon. Lady.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I apologise. Creative arts are obviously a regional growth driver. We are lucky in Truro and Falmouth because those creative hubs can revitalise our region and bring in the visitors we need so much. The growth of the Hall for Cornwall, for example, has spread tentacles across the rest of the county, bringing in children and people who want to get involved in the creative arts but do not often have the opportunity.

Many students learn games design at the Launchpad at Falmouth University. They can then start up their own businesses, with the help to do so. We have the Poly, the Princess Pavilion and brilliant grassroots venues, such as the Cornish Bank, the Old Bakery studios and the Chintz, where some of the musicians who are learning in our town go to practise their art. We are also building premises for a community radio station in the park with our shared prosperity funding, which shows just how important the arts are to Falmouth. People come to us for the arts.

We have an alternative SEND provider called Player Ready Truro, which works with neurodivergent children; they blossom when they can do the things they love with tuition. It prepares them to go back into school and it builds their confidence. Would the Minister consider looking again at progress 8, because it does not contain an arts subject? We should definitely consider that. We must review the national curriculum so that the arts are in the prominent place that they should be.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Last, but definitely not least, I call Jim Shannon. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm.

17:05

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I first say this, Mr Mundell: you have done the long yards this afternoon—three debates. I do not know whether that gets you overtime or what, but well done.

I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on setting the scene so well. This is her first Westminster Hall debate and, on the basis of this example, I think it will be the first of many, so I wish her well.

The creative arts across the United Kingdom are something to be proud of. We have a fantastic range of arts and lots of enthusiastic people who make them what they are. I always love to take part in these debates to showcase the talent of Northern Ireland and, more importantly, my constituency of Strangford.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) referred to playing the flute—how we love to play the flute in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, playing the flute is like riding a bike, by the way: nearly everybody learns to play. There might be a reason for that, of course.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Give us a demo.

[Jim Shannon]

I have not brought my flute. I could whistle a tune, but I will not.

I always like to talk about something we have done in Northern Ireland. In late 2022—I know the Minister will be pleased to hear this, as an example of what can be done—the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Education Authority and the Urban Villages initiative announced funding for the continuation of the creative schools programme in 11 secondary schools, which was fantastic news for the education system across Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) referred to the importance of the arts. The arts are a vocation and many people need to recognise that. There are so many young people out there who see themselves going into the arts, film or the creative industries, so funding for our local schools through the Urban Villages initiative is good news. I have spoken before in Westminster Hall and the Chamber of the amazing talent that Northern Ireland has to offer, specifically in the film industry. We have made leaps and bounds in the film sector over the years.

I will give another example. I noticed recently in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies that controlled or commissioned graffiti is becoming massively popular within the creative arts industry. In Newtownards, which I represent, an Ulster Farmers’ Union building has historically always been subject to criminal graffiti, but now it has been transformed through the creative arts, and it looks fantastic. I have also seen many streets, alleys and walls completely changed by graffiti, and the work that goes into that should be respected and admired. Northern Ireland probably has a lot more graffiti than most, but we realised what could be done creatively with graffiti. At last, that is an indication of where we can go.

The creative schools programme initially launched as a pilot scheme in 2017 and so far 1,000 young boys and girls—men and women—have benefited from it. That is a fantastic number of people destined for stardom and progress. The programme places a focus on improving educational outcomes for children across a wide range of artistic sectors. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but it is crucial that we continue to fund it in Northern Ireland, so that we truly give young people the opportunity to showcase the amazing talent that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has to offer.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for five minutes.

17:09

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate, and I have enjoyed learning a lot about her illustrious background. I cannot claim to be anywhere near as accomplished as she is, but I used to love doing amateur dramatics at school and university, so I can see a Lib Dem drama club emerging at some point soon. Anyway, I will now move on to the serious part of the speech.

The Beatles, Damien Hirst, Amy Winehouse, Anthony Hopkins, Judi Dench and Vivienne Westwood are just a few examples of the brilliant artists who our country has produced over the past century. Our creative industries are renowned throughout the world and, as we have already heard, they contribute enormously to our economy, employing more than 2.3 million people every year.

It is vital that we preserve and grow our arts, which starts with promoting creative education in our schools. As we have already heard, the benefits of creative education are numerous, from developing a lifelong passion to helping children and young people with their mental health and equipping them with important life skills.

Sadly, however, creative education has not been treated with the priority it deserves and teaching in schools has suffered as a result. There are now 15,000 fewer full and part-time teachers of arts subjects in schools than in 2010. With fewer specialised teaching staff and increasingly constrained budgets, we have seen a drop in the number of children taking arts subjects, with enrolment at GCSE level falling by almost a half and at A-level by a third between 2010 and 2023. That means too many children are missing out on the opportunity to broaden their horizons and learn new skills.

At the heart of this issue is the fact that the arts have wrongly been labelled as unimportant and trivial. As a result, in the context of overstretched budgets and limited resources, arts subjects are the first to be cut back, with schools increasingly focusing on their core curriculum offer and extracurricular activities in the arts having to be scaled back.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our children’s education should be rounded and varied. Too often, Conservatives think that creative education is the sacrifice we must make for strong academic standards, but it should not be an either/or situation—it is always both/and. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that there is a link between participation in the arts and higher attainment. I hope that the Government’s ongoing curriculum review and the upcoming reform of Ofsted inspections ensures that all students can access a broad curriculum, including art, music and drama subjects, alongside a strong focus on high academic standards in other subjects.

As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) pointed out, the growing lack of arts provision in our schools, colleges and universities has widened inequalities between disadvantaged students and their peers. It is often only more privileged families who can afford private tuition, extra classes outside school or an independent education, because, as we have heard, the facilities of independent schools are often second to none in terms of the creative arts, thus disadvantaging children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

That has a direct impact on who goes on to work in the creative industries, with data showing that there are four times as many individuals from middle-class backgrounds in creative occupations as there are from working-class backgrounds. The arts should not be accessible only to the most privileged. If we want to harness the full talent of our children and young people to ensure that we continue to make the creative industries a powerhouse for our economy, we need to widen opportunities to the arts at every level.

It is not only schools that have seen the take-up of arts subjects plummet but further and higher education institutions. According to the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, over the past decade there has been a 57% drop in the uptake of creative courses in further and higher education. As we have heard, the exclusion of arts subjects from the English baccalaureate and cuts to funding for creative arts subjects at university by the previous Conservative Government have fuelled this decline.

That is why the Liberal Democrats would like to see arts subjects being included in the English baccalaureate to boost access to the arts. We also need to stop talking down and defunding creative arts degrees and vocational courses, and to drive up high-quality apprenticeships in this area.

Let us be proud of our world-leading institutions. Earlier this year, I visited Wimbledon College of Arts with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and I saw the amazing work that its students do in costume and set design, puppetry and performance. The college is part of the University of the Arts London, which is second in the world for art and design; we should celebrate that. In my own backyard, I went to the Rambert School of Ballet and Contemporary Dance in Twickenham last week, where the students put on the most incredible show. I know that many of them will go on to be talented performers in their own right.

The creative arts enable all of us to lead a fulfilling life, and they are also one of our country’s finest and most recognisable exports. Let us give our children and young people the opportunity to flourish fully, and let us develop a pipeline of talent into our arts sector to ensure that children and young people get the widest opportunity possible at school, college, university and beyond.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister to speak; you have five minutes.

17:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate, which, as well as being hugely informative and important, has been a pleasure to listen to. It has given us the exciting prospect of the Liberal Democrat drama club, which—given the exciting predilection of their leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), for doing his own stunts—holds all kinds of potential. The idea of a flautist-off between the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) is another exciting prospect.

We have heard thoughtful and important speeches from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and for Strangford. It has been an interesting debate.

This will be the last education debate of 2024—barring any surprises from the Minister tomorrow—so I want to thank all the hard-working teachers for their efforts over the year. When I meet teachers, as I have been over the last couple of days, I often find that they are quite tired at this time of year. For primary school teachers, the creative activity around the nativity is the thing that finally finishes them off and leaves them ready for Christmas. I end the year in the spirit of good will, and particularly thank our hard-working teachers.

In order to facilitate an answer that the Minister may wish to get from her officials, I will start by asking about a very specific thing: the music and dance scheme. On 21 November, the Secretary of State wrote to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to say that the Government were going to extend transitional support for that scheme: “From 1 January 2025, for families with relevant income below £45,000, my Department will ensure their total fee contributions will remain unchanged for the rest of the academic year.” In a sense, that is a pause or a stay of execution. When will the Minister make a decision on the future of that really good arts scheme, so that there can be certainty beyond the end of the academic year? Will she continue to hold down fees for those who benefit from it for the next year? Will she also commit to maintain a related project, the Choir Schools’ Association scholarship scheme? I enter those specific things into the debate at this point so that the Minister has a chance to respond.

Let me now turn to the wider debate. We have talked about some of the things the last Government did, such as music hubs, which I think are widely welcomed, but—without wishing to move away from the spirit of good will and Christmas towards being the dog in the manger—of course the issue is always time. Our hard-working teachers are already working flat out. In theory and principle, I love the idea advanced by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that it should not be an either/or, but unfortunately there are only a certain number of hours in the school day.

Now, if the Minister gets a wonderfully huge sum of money from the Treasury and manages to expand the school day so that we can do all those additional things, that is wonderful—I will be the first to welcome that—but our teachers and schools face some inescapable trade-offs. As the Minister will know by now, every week there are on average four calls from different groups for something new to be put on to the national curriculum or to get more time in our schools, but they cannot all have more time.

My only caveat to what Members have said today is the idea that there are creative and non-creative subjects. Some spoke about STEAM, which is a better concept, because the sciences and all those other things are creative subjects too. After a fall from 83% to 70% of pupils getting double or triple science between 2006 and 2011, it is a good thing that those subjects have rebounded to 98%. We have to be honest about what the trade-offs are. If we want to do more of one thing, we have to be clear and honest with people about what we are going to do less of—unless there is some sudden money gusher.

[Ms Billington]

I am interested in the idea that there is a limited amount of time in the state school curriculum, but there does not seem to be a limited amount of time for creative education in private schools. If it is important for private schools, then it is important for state educated children, so why can we not find the time for it?

[Neil O’Brien]

With respect, I am all ears, and it will be for the Government to say where they will find the time for those things. In principle, I have no objection, but I do not believe that the hon. Lady thinks that there is an unlimited amount of time in the school day, or that our teachers can all do endlessly more work. Of course that is not the case—no one believes that; there are choices here.

If I can return to the spirit of good will and Christmas, I want to commend something good that the Government have published: the evidence pack published alongside the curriculum and assessment review. It is a good piece of work that brings some nuance to the debate that is not always there. It shows that, although the numbers doing GCSE are somewhat down for some art subjects, the numbers doing other types of qualifications are going up at the same time. A lot of the bigger changes are nothing to do with art subjects whatsoever. We see less time spent on ICT in schools and more time spent on English, maths and science. I commend to hon. Members that very good piece of work by the Government; I strongly endorse the nuance that it brings. We all want to see more of these wonderful things happening in our schools, but I also beg that everyone is honest about the trade-offs involved.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Minister, I would grateful if you left a few moments at the end so that Jess Brown-Fuller can respond to the debate.

17:20

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

I will endeavour to do so, Mr Mundell. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, which, as has already been said, is probably the last education debate this year—what a lovely subject for the final one. I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing it. It was excellent to hear so much about her performing arts background—from teaching to advocating here; she obviously still enjoys it.

I am sure many of us are enjoying creativity during this festive season—maybe hon. Members have been to a pantomime or two, although I am not encouraging anyone to do one here. I look forward to seeing “Sleeping Beauty” in my constituency, and I am sure that many Members who have spoken about the theatres, creative arts and creative places in their areas are enjoying visiting them and partaking in the activity as well. It was excellent and lovely to hear about the many things that colleagues have mentioned, although of course we also heard about the many challenges and the changes that are needed. Hon. Members said that we need to go further, and I know that they will hold the Government to account on our mission statements and reforms.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) for her contribution, particularly about Sammy’s Foundation, and about the need to ensure that the creative arts are there for people with SEND and those who are neurodiverse.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for speaking about music hubs and the need to review provision for arts and creativity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) talked about the need to campaign. I very much agree that creativity and the arts help with children’s emotional health and wellbeing—I will be speaking about that later—but it was also lovely to hear that it helps with maths. Why wouldn’t we want to hear that? It is absolutely brilliant.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for talking about not only the worrying decline in the arts but the need to inspire generations to come.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for raising concerns about declining GCSE uptake, and for talking about hubs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about the missions and growth, as well as SMEs.

It was lovely to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speak about many things, including how the art of graffiti can make real and positive changes.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) spoke about many relevant things, as she often does, including the need to ensure that the curriculum is rounded, varied and broad—I could not agree more. I am sure that we are all advocating for more fun in our children’s studies and the encouragement of their creative abilities. Learning can be fun, and we hope that it is in our schools.

I am pleased with the many contributions that have been made, and I will endeavour to respond to them in the time I have, but I encourage Members to make contact with me if they feel they have not been answered. The Government recognise the immense value of creative subjects for every child and young person, extending far beyond career aspirations in the creative industries. Creative subjects support a child’s ability to express themselves, help their confidence and support their emotional wellbeing, and there are benefits in many other areas.

Creative subjects, like the arts, music, drama and many others, are significant elements of the rounded and enriching education that the Government want every child to receive. That is why creative subjects are part of the national curriculum for all maintained schools from the age of five to 14—and beyond for drama. Academies, too, are expected to teach these subjects as part of their statutory requirement to foster pupils’ cultural development. Indeed, many schools currently teach creative subjects as part of the curriculum and do so with great success, which enables children and young people to engage with subjects like music beyond the school day. The Government’s goal is to ensure that no child is deprived of the enriching experience that creative education provides. We aim to ensure a consistent approach across all schools.

The Government’s mission is to break down the barriers to opportunities that hold back many of our young people. We know that this will take time, but we are committed to taking the right steps to make it a reality. A crucial step in realising our vision is to ensure that our national curriculum strikes the right balance. It must embody ambition, excellence, relevance, flexibility and inclusivity. That is why in July we launched an independent curriculum and assessment review for ages five to 18, chaired by Professor Becky Francis CBE.

The review will seek to deliver a broader curriculum, with improved access to music, art, sports, drama and vocational subjects. It will look closely at the key challenges to attainment for young people and the barriers that hold children back from the opportunities that they should be able to access. This is an important process, and the recommendations put forward by Professor Becky Francis and her expert-led panel will be published in 2025. Many Members have mentioned that crucial review.

We recognise that although potential is widespread, opportunities are not. That disparity has held many young people back from fulfilling their true potential. To ensure that music education is fully inclusive, including for those with special educational needs and disabilities in both mainstream and special schools, music hubs are required to have an inclusion lead and to develop an inclusion strategy. Furthermore, the Government will launch a new national music education network. This initiative will help families, children and schools access broader opportunities and support.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I really do not have time, I am afraid.

Through the opportunity mission, we will work to break the link between young people’s background and their future success. Our focus is on supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, and we will continue to take steps to ensure that opportunity is not restricted by a young person’s location or background.

Our goal is to help families continue to support their children in accessing specialist music and dance courses, so we have made changes to the music and dance scheme for this transitional academic year. From January 2025, we will ensure that families with below average incomes receive additional support to prevent any increases in parental contributions due to the VAT change. This adjustment will benefit around half the families with a music and dance scheme bursary for their child.

I would like to give the hon. Member for Chichester some time to respond, so I will end on that note. I thank all Members for their contributions, and I wish everyone a very merry Christmas.

17:29

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank hon. Members, the shadow Minister and the Minister for talking about the importance of creative arts education and how it will foster the next generation of well-rounded and emotionally intelligent young people, who can thrive.

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