Westminster Hall

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 21 January 2025

[Matt Western in the Chair]

Auditory Verbal Therapy

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this fine morning, Mr Western. I thank all hon. Members, especially the new Members, who have come along to speak in this all-important debate, which I have the privilege of opening. I thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for attending.

I am delighted to see in the Gallery Sam and his parents, whom I met when I sponsored Auditory Verbal UK’s parliamentary drop-in back in October last year—how time flies! At that reception, I was talking to Sam and some of the other young people there, and I asked whether any deaf children had come along, only to be told that all the children I had been talking to were actually deaf, including Sam. That is the difference this therapy can make, and why I am so passionately supporting and making this case today.

Sam was diagnosed as being profoundly deaf at five weeks old. It was not until Auditory Verbal UK was recommended to Sam’s parents by a friend of a friend, by chance, that his fate changed forever. With the help of auditory verbal therapy, Sam learned to listen and talk just like his peers. Now 13 years old, Sam can speak and do anything he puts his mind to. He is doing really well at school, I am told, and will enjoy the same opportunities as his hearing friends.

For children like Sam, Auditory Verbal UK has been life-changing. Its specialist work and support provided to deaf children and their families is truly remarkable. I am therefore glad to also see representatives from AVUK here today. They will always have my support and should be very proud of the work they do.

Sam stands today as living proof that when deaf children and their families have access to early, effective support to develop language and communication, opportunities are transformed. If the Government, or anyone here or watching at home, need convincing of the clear, compelling and existing evidence of the benefits of auditory verbal therapy, they have only to look to children like Sam.

Although all deaf children would benefit extraordinarily from auditory verbal therapy, the truth is that they will not all be as lucky as Sam. The current reality is that more than 90% of deaf children under the age of five in the UK are unable to access auditory verbal therapy, because there is little to no provision through publicly funded services. Currently, there are a mere 33 certified auditory verbal therapists in the UK. It is clear that these wonderful therapists, who hold the potential to transform the lives of our deaf children, are sadly few and far between.

In the whole of the north-east, there are no qualified auditory verbal therapists. Deaf children in my constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, for example, are unable to access this support through publicly funded services. This postcode-lottery approach to healthcare is simply unacceptable. This is the situation in spite of public research that shows that a huge 83% of adults from the north-east believe that auditory verbal therapy should be available to all deaf children via publicly funded services. We know the therapy works and that there is public support for its roll-out throughout the country, so what are we waiting for?

Raising awareness that support is out there is just the first hurdle, because if impacted families are aware of the therapy but have no qualified therapists in their area, their challenges persist. Even Sam’s journey from discovering auditory verbal therapy to completing it was far from smooth sailing. With no access to the therapy via public services local to him, he and his family had to travel weekly to Oxfordshire from Eastbourne so that they could access this life-changing therapy. Not all deaf children and their families can afford the privilege of time or money to go to such lengths every week, as much as they may want to. Certainly, not all deaf children have the privilege of having a qualified therapist in their area, which is a clear problem. We absolutely need to address that inequality of access.

To extend access, we need to train more specialist practitioners in auditory verbal therapy. By equipping a small proportion of the speech and language therapists, audiologists and teachers of the deaf who are currently working in the public sector with additional skills in this approach, we can enable every family who wants their deaf child to learn to listen and talk to access auditory verbal therapy through publicly funded services close to where they live.

Training is already happening, with UK professionals already qualified and others on their training journey. This is possible only thanks to the fundraising efforts of the charity Auditory Verbal UK, including two teachers of the deaf in the north-east who remain in training. There is a clear route for professionals to become trained in auditory verbal therapy, as well as a cohort of public sector professionals who can then share their experience of training and how it has enhanced their practice. Research points towards the fact that as a result of pursuing the training and qualifying as listening and spoken language specialists, professionals recognise significant growth in their knowledge and skills, equipping them to train others who can then do the same—the “train the trainers” model.

There are around 50,000 deaf children in the UK, and 7,200 of them are under the age of five. They currently face the prospect of lower academic achievement and employment, and they are at a higher risk of poor mental health, bullying and social exclusion. Deaf children are almost twice as likely as all children to complete their first year of school without having achieved a good level of development in relation to the early years foundation. The statistics clearly highlight a stark difference between hearing and non-hearing peers in quality of life, educational attainment, employment rates and mental wellbeing.

If the moral argument is not convincing enough, surely no one can deny the huge economic returns. Economic analysis based on His Majesty’s Treasury guidelines shows that an investment of just £2 million per year for the next 10 years for training a proportion of the existing public sector workforce could deliver a whopping £152 million of economic benefit to the UK. That is a massive £11.7 billion over a 50-year period.

The economic savings are huge, including £3.4 billion through less need for one-to-one support throughout primary school; £1 billion of increased employment; £4 billion due to increased quality of life; a £7.5 million decrease in Government support; and £30.5 million saved through avoided injury. It is a small economic investment that will transform the lives of some of the most vulnerable children in this country, while also bringing us huge economic returns. Surely this is a no-brainer.

So long as the UK remains unconvinced, we are falling behind as other countries trailblaze the way. Auditory verbal therapy is already state-funded in countries including Australia, New Zealand and Denmark, and the success rates speak volumes. In 2022, following a successful Government-funded pilot in Denmark that showed that 84% of children acquired age-equivalent spoken language after just three years of AVT, compared with 30% previously, auditory verbal therapy became part of the standard healthcare system there. The irony is that here in the UK we are now training many Danish professionals in AV therapy to deliver it to children in Denmark, despite being unable to support our own workforce to enhance their skills to get those outcomes for children here in the UK. That cannot be right.

I thank the Minister for his time and leave him with three questions. First, what scope is there for the UK to implement a pilot scheme, in the same way that Denmark did, at least to prove the transformation potential of this therapy in a couple of areas, for those who remain unconvinced? Secondly, will he commit to supporting the need to increase access to auditory verbal therapy, and provide the investment needed when the funding allows? Thirdly, will he meet the deaf children and families charity Auditory Verbal UK, from which representatives are here today, to hear at first hand about the impact of early support, and the charity’s tangible plans to enable families to access the therapy wherever they live in the UK?

I thank the Minister in advance and look forward to hearing the other speakers. I look forward to the Minister’s response after he has listened to colleagues’ perspectives in this very important debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I never thought I would be saying these words, but it is my pleasure to invite Mr Jim Shannon to speak.

09:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Western. I wish you well in your new role as Chair for Westminster Hall debates. I hope there will be many occasions on which you will call me to speak, although maybe not always first. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his response. I look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, who has a deep interest in health issues. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for bringing this important topic to Westminster Hall for debate, and for her compassionate introduction. She has a deep interest in the subject matter and in making lives better, which is of course why we are all here.

This issue affects children throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The information sent across by Auditory Verbal UK is a challenging read. It states:

“Deaf children in the UK currently face a lifetime of disadvantage without access to early and effective support to develop language and communication and less than 10% of deaf children who could benefit from Auditory Verbal therapy to learn to listen and talk can currently access it.”

That is the key issue and our key ask. This debate gives us the opportunity to raise awareness and make help available for all the deaf children who need support across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The fact that 90% of children who could benefit from this therapy to improve their lives, including their social, educational and future working lives—I suspect the Government are planning for children with deafness not just for today, but for their future engagement in working life—cannot access such help does not sit well with me or anybody else here. I know the Minister feels the same angst about the issue, which is why I very much look forward to his response to our requests.

It is clear that more must be done to facilitate access to auditory verbal therapy, which is why I am happy to support the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South and speak on behalf of the deaf children in my area and throughout Northern Ireland. The Consortium for Research in Deaf Education found that there were at least 1,428 deaf children in Northern Ireland. Some 77% of deaf school-age children attended mainstream schools, 1% attended mainstream schools with resource provisions—which there should be—and 21% attended special needs schools not specifically for deaf children.

This is a devolved matter, so the Minister does not have any responsibility for that, but those figures reflect what happens in the United Kingdom mainland. Some 36% of deaf children were recorded as having another additional special educational need; that has increased from 27% in 2021. The stats do not make good reading because they illustrate the shortfall and where there is need. My staff and my office have been in touch with the Department back home to chase up the matter.

An issue raised by the research was that the number of qualified teachers of the deaf in employment and working in a peripatetic role, in resource provision and/or in a special school or college not specifically for deaf children has decreased by 7% since 2022—just in the last two years—and by 40% since the survey started in 2011. There is a real need to train people to help to give young deaf children the opportunity to do better and get ready for employment in the future. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts; perhaps there will be a role for an Education Minister in that work as well.

It is clear that there is a real need to focus on how we support these children, and that there is much more to be done. I suppose that is the ultimate reason for the debate. Some 80% of children who attend an auditory verbal therapy programme for at least two years achieve the same level of spoken language as their hearing peers—wow: that is why we need this; those are the results—rising to 97% of children without additional needs. They attain educational outcomes on a par with hearing children, and the majority attend mainstream schools. That truly speaks for itself.

With an investment of just over £2 million per year over the next 10 years, the Government could transform the landscape of auditory verbal provision and unlock £152 million of economic benefit. On the returns on investment, it is said that we have to speculate to accumulate; in reality, we have to spend time and money on the children to ensure that the economic benefit for all of us, but especially for them, rises to £11.7 billion within the next 50 years. We need to spend that money early and get the returns and, more importantly help people to prepare for life.

We must ensure that UK children have access to this most basic of support and that we give them the lifelong tools that are beneficial for them and for society as a whole. We are long past the days of believing that being born with a different ability means a different life; there are just too many success stories for us to believe that that is a death sentence for normality. I seek in this debate to ensure that young deaf children have the same opportunities as other young children. If we can manage that, I will be very pleased.

We know that a full life can be achieved, but the groundwork must be done in this place with sustained UK funding for auditory verbal therapy. I look forward to the Minister outlining how and when we can expect more for those who need it most. Has he had the opportunity, in the short time he has had, to make contact with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland and other responsible Ministers to see how we can exchange ideas, do it better together and raise awareness, which is very important?

09:48

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate. We come together today with a shared purpose to champion equity, opportunity and the unshakeable belief that every child deserves the best possible start in life. This debate is about more than a single policy; it is about ensuring that no family feels left behind when it comes to their deaf children’s future.

Some 65% of deaf children complete their first year of school without achieving a good level of development. That is not just a statistic: it is a rallying cry that demands urgent action. Why is this happening? The National Deaf Children’s Society offers a stark insight: we are failing to assess and invest in the right primary support mechanisms for each deaf child. That failure is a systemic one and strikes at the most crucial time, the early years, when the foundations of language and communication are laid.

The Deafness Resource Centre is clear that early childhood development is deeply social and emotional, thriving on successful interactions with caregivers. By failing to provide tailored support to deaf children, we risk leaving many feeling isolated, frustrated and deprived of the sense of belonging that every child deserves. I am deeply grateful that one such primary support mechanism, auditory verbal therapy, is being recognised here today. I am deeply grateful that one such primary support mechanism, auditory verbal therapy, is being recognised here today. For so many families it is truly transformative—the proof is here in this room—and I commend my hon. Friend for her unwavering commitment to improving its provision.

Let us be clear, auditory verbal therapy is not a silver bullet. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Every deaf child is unique, and so are their needs. Auditory verbal therapy is incredibly important, but I want to take a moment to emphasise the importance of addressing each child’s needs, case by case. Picture this: a deaf child in a deaf family, thriving in a sign-first environment where British Sign Language nurtures heartfelt, seamless connections with their loved ones. Now imagine another child, their confidence flourishing through intensive auditory verbal therapy. Both scenarios are valid and beautiful. What truly matters is meeting the unique needs of each child, guided by expert assessment.

Bolton Deaf Society, located in my constituency, is a charity I am deeply proud to represent and support in Parliament. Its work serves as a beacon of hope and heritage for deaf children and their families. It champions deaf culture, celebrates British Sign Language and recognises that oral communication is not, and should never need to be, for everyone. Although auditory verbal therapy can be life-changing, there are many in the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing community in Bolton who would not choose it, even if it were readily available. For some families auditory verbal therapy is tied to the medical model of disability, a framing that implies hearing loss as something to fix, potentially sidelining deaf culture, identity and pride. For other families, like many we have heard about today, that is not the case.

For the families in Bolton who are seeking auditory verbal therapy for their child, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South that we must urgently train more specialist practitioners to extend access. In Bolton alone, there are more than 300 deaf children; across the north-west, that number rises to 6,000, yet there are just five certified auditory verbal therapists in our region. Right now, as my hon. Friend mentioned, a postcode lottery determines whether a family can access the support that their child needs. That is not equity or fairness; it is a failure that we must urgently address. Deaf children in Bolton deserve better.

I strongly urge the Minister to expand access to AVT across the north-west. More than that, I urge him to expand access to primary support mechanisms across the board. Success lies in providing a well-funded, comprehensive, holistic system of support, ensuring that every child can thrive in a way that fits them best. I sincerely hope the Minister agrees.

09:52

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate and on her contribution to ensuring that this profound therapy is better heard, better known and more available to choose for a great many in our society.

When there is so much to resolve, so much to fix and sort out, it feels like smaller causes struggle to be heard or seen. Our politics seems too busy to care about even more causes; it is all just too much. Alternatively, it can be said that the last Parliament did good things for the deaf community, so to expect new money for new causes is a stretch too far, naive even. We must believe in better. Each Parliament has the opportunity to help the underserved, and there are always issues that, with the right political heat and weight, can be transformed. Such issues have long been on the roll of Government successes, whatever the political weather. Think of the long-standing injustices, new medicines on the NHS, or social equalities we have addressed.

The missions of this Government delivered their enormous parliamentary majority and a mandate to renew, reform and transform. Auditory verbal therapy takes the Government’s vital missions for health, for children, for the smashing of barriers to opportunity, and for growth, and it brings them to life. This cause gives the missions cause to blossom. There may not be a better example of a cause that, for such a fraction of an investment, can be transformational.

I know what we are asking for will not be green-lit today, but I know what we need. Former Health Secretaries I have met have spoken of the “whiteboard moment”, when we get the issue on to the whiteboard. That is the goal. It is the moment when the Minister asks their civil service teams to make something possible—to draft a plan to take us from where we are to where we need to be. It is a pilot, a tester, a starter for 10, where the Government do not just take our word for it, but see for themselves.

Should there be concern among our deaf community, let me say that this is not about undermining the celebrated protected status of British Sign Language. We celebrate BSL as a language—a unique cultural identity—and the last Parliament’s recognition of BSL in law was a landmark achievement. The argument for auditory verbal therapy is an argument for choice—choice for the child, their family and their future—and ensuring that families have the knowledge and support to choose the best path for them. It is not about competing choices, but having access to all of them. The demand is that these families’ cause is heard, and the majority of the country agrees. In a recent YouGov poll, 85% of UK adults believed that auditory verbal therapy should be available to all children via publicly funded services such as the NHS.

The first years of a child’s life are critical. It is when their brains are most receptive to language and communication. For deaf children, early intervention is essential. Auditory verbal therapy enables deaf children to develop listening and spoken language skills and equips them to thrive alongside their hearing peers. With AVT, 97% of deaf children without additional needs achieve age-appropriate spoken language within two years. That is the transformation we seek. It is not a big ask, but it has giant implications for the impact that AVT can have if we can reach that whiteboard moment and have civil service teams working with experts to bring this therapy into NHS early years programmes. It is preventive healthcare at its best: cost-effective, compassionate and life-changing.

For someone who learns that their child is deaf, navigating this new world is disorientating and complex, and they will feel unsure. It is also the moment where we should ensure that parents learn that there is a therapy that could help their child to communicate on a par with their hearing peers. The option of AVT should be as freely considered as learning to sign, and traditional or developing means.

Withholding this therapy after people have learned of its existence cannot remain the position, yet learning of AVT only to be told that it is unavailable, unaffordable or simply not an option where someone lives is the reality for far too many families. With only 33 certified auditory verbal therapists across the UK, access to AVT is exclusive and rare. Most families will never hear of it. By removing the barriers, we can give parents and their children the opportunity to decide for themselves. That means training more therapists—supported by Government bursaries—to meet growing demand, building regional hubs, expanding telepractice services so that no family is left behind, and raising public awareness to ensure that families know that AVT is an option.

If the heart of the argument does not move us, the head can. This therapy means economic growth and a sound investment in families’ futures and ours. This cause is transformational for not just them but the economy. For £2 million annually—a fraction, or a rounding error, when it comes to the NHS budget—we could ensure that thousands of deaf children access AVT. According to independent economic analysis, this investment would unlock £11.7 billion in benefits over 50 years, and here is how. We would reduce education costs, as early intervention means less reliance on one-to-one support, saving £3.4 billion. We would increase employment, with confident, independent deaf adults contributing £1 billion to economy. And we would improve quality of life, with thriving, independent individuals generate £4 billion in societal benefits. Without early intervention, the costs are far greater. Delayed support leads to unfulfilled promise or potential, higher unemployment, mental health challenges and long-term reliance on public services.

The new Government have wasted no time identifying waste to be cut from their spending. The Cabinet Office has pledged to reduce the £7 billion per year spent on consultants. Official analysis found that total spending on consultancy in 2022-23 was £1.2 billion, with the Department of Health and Social Care among the highest spenders, at £281 million. I share this Government’s instincts: the money saved must now transform the lives of those accessing AVT. Does the Minister agree?

For just £2 million a year, we can train more specialists in order to remove the barriers to opportunity, expand access through the NHS and ensure that every family makes informed decisions. We are not asking for those decisions today, but for a commitment to start this journey and to draft a plan that takes us from this underserved system to one that provides choice and opportunity for every deaf child and their family. With parents given every option to choose for them, their children are given the best chance to thrive. When all deaf children thrive, our society is stronger, more inclusive and more prosperous. This underserved issue can benefit from the Government’s mission to transform. As the campaign says, “Hear Us Now.”

10:02

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate, as well as colleagues who have spoken. I will not repeat what everybody has said, but I will mention a few things.

As has been said, auditory verbal therapy provides numerous benefits for deaf children, and that is particularly true of their educational prospects. We need to bridge the gap between the educational attainment of deaf children and their classmates, which is created by the barriers they face in integrating realistically in the classroom. With investment in an AVT programme, we can overcome those barriers.

In 2019, the average deaf GCSE student faced a gap of 17.5 months in learning, compared with classmates with no special needs. That is only a three-month decrease from 2011, so not a lot has changed. AVT would help to deliver the promise of bridging that gap, by intervening in the earlier stages of language development. Accessing that early intervention lays the foundation for a more successful future, which will help deaf children to realise their educational potential. It will also be an integral part of boosting their self-esteem, ensuring that they are not hindered in interacting with their friends and classmates or participating in lessons. AVT also has the potential to foster a sense of social inclusion, and therefore provide deaf children with the skills and confidence to succeed at the same level as their peers who have no special needs, both in the classroom and beyond.

There are currently 7,200 deaf children below the age of five, which is a target subset of AVT. As it stands, there are not enough qualified auditory verbal therapists—I believe there are only 33 in the whole country—so we need more of them to be able to see these children. However, one challenge faced by many families is that they do not have sufficient spare money to spend on these services. The fact that services are so limited, and provision is so hit and miss across the United Kingdom, presents even more of a challenge. A programme that trains speech and language therapists in AVT would make sure that all deaf children have equal access to quality therapy. It is a cause that it is well worth the Government spending money on.

We train professionals from other countries who then go back to their countries, such as Denmark and others. Our deaf children deserve the same care and attention, and we must not forget that there are 50,000 deaf children in our country. If we train more therapists, we can share in the success of such initiatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) said, it is morally right that we look after our young people, but it also makes economic sense to ensure that deaf children are well educated and able to integrate and to be part of the fantastic workforce we need for the future.

Finally, I thank the campaigners and the families who have been campaigning on this issue for the tremendous work they have done. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South for bringing this really important matter forward for debate. I have to declare an interest: although I am not deaf in the sense that these children are, I am hard of hearing, so this issue is quite close to me personally.

10:07

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for raising this incredibly important topic and securing the debate.

You may not know this, but Derby and Derbyshire have the largest deaf community outside of London. The Royal School for the Deaf Derby sits in the neighbouring constituency of Derby North, and the staff do an absolutely fantastic job supporting deaf children and young people to access the very best education they can. However, despite the work of such specialist schools, deaf children nationally face huge educational inequality, which is compounded by the lack of access to critical therapies such as auditory verbal therapy. It is staggering that only 38% of deaf children in England completed their first year of school having achieved their expected levels of development, compared with 66% of all children.

We have seen huge strides forward in support for our deaf community, with pioneering gene therapy delivered just last year, allowing a UK girl who was born deaf to hear unaided. Medical professionals across the country should rightly be recognised for their hard work in delivering such innovative treatments to support our deaf community. These success stories should be celebrated, but unfortunately access to critical therapies and support is often unequal, with less than 10% of deaf children in the UK currently able to access them.

Auditory visual therapy is one of those inequalities. Children in the east midlands and across the UK are missing out on the benefits it can offer. As we have heard today, those benefits are life-changing, with research showing that 80% of deaf children can achieve age-appropriate spoken language following AVT. They are missing out on an incredible opportunity.

Let us be really honest: it is no surprise that the provision of AVT is a postcode lottery, because years of Tory austerity have brought the NHS to its knees. I have been so pleased to see our Labour Government turning the page on that austerity nightmare, committing to the biggest NHS funding uplift since 2010, outside covid. It is vital that AVT provision sees the benefits of Labour’s investment in our public services, supporting deaf children and their families, wherever they live in the UK.

10:10

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for introducing the debate, as well as Sam, his family and Auditory Verbal UK for campaigning on this important issue. I confess that I am quite new to auditory verbal therapy, and it has been fascinating to research the issue more for the debate and to listen to hon. Members’ contributions.

The hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South made a hugely compelling argument for improving access to auditory verbal therapy, setting out not only the benefits for the children who would be able to improve their ability to listen and speak, but the economic benefit that would derive from what I think we can all agree is a small investment—as an accountant, I can confirm that £2 million is probably a rounding error in most instances. I also thank other Members for their useful speeches today, not least the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who highlighted the importance of early intervention, and the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who highlighted the educational impact that early access to appropriate therapy can have.

There are more than 50,000 deaf children in the UK. Around 7,200 of them are under the age of five. Some 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, who do not have the experience of dealing with hearing impairment. Although deafness is not a learning disability, deaf children face a significant attainment gap during their time at school, and their educational outcomes are poorer. There is also a higher risk of poor mental health. In addition, deaf people are less likely to have decent employment, and suffer generally from inequality as a result of being hearing impaired.

It is important to say up front that all deaf and hearing-impaired people have the right to participate fully and independently in society. Too often at the moment, those rights are not being fully realised. Liberal Democrats believe, as I am sure hon. Members from all parties do, that every deaf child deserves the best possible start in life, the opportunity to flourish and for their families to be supported, so that they can express themselves and communicate with ease, in the way that is most comfortable for them.

The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) highlighted that offering a range of therapies is the best way to support families who have a child who is deaf, and that they should be able to exercise choice when deciding which therapy is most suitable for them. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities in England have a duty

“to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need”

by providing

“a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.”

A child is defined as being in need if they are disabled, and the Act says that a child is considered disabled if they are deaf. We are therefore in a position where it seems that local authorities must be compelled to provide appropriate support for deaf children and their families. The National Deaf Children’s Society notes that

“in some cases, local authorities do provide funding to help”

a child “access AVT”.

The problem is that the Government have confirmed that audiology services are commissioned locally and that

“the responsibility for meeting the needs of non-hearing children lies with…National Health Service commissioners.”

That leaves us with the dreaded postcode lottery. It would be helpful if the Government provided guidance to local authorities on the level of support they should be providing, particularly, in the context of this debate, for AVT.

Locally in Shropshire, headteachers report an inability to access basic speech and language therapy for hearing children. The strain on local government finances will clearly have a significant impact on what is available to children in each area. Will the Minister confirm whether provision of AVT will be a responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care or local government? Therapies such as this might sometimes fall into the gap between the two, and it would be useful to understand how it can best be delivered.

As I mentioned, I am slightly new to this topic but Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for better support for people who are deaf, and particularly for those who communicate through British Sign Language. We would like BSL to have official, equal status to the UK’s other languages, and would like free access to sign language lessons for parents and guardians of deaf children. We welcome all the developments in improving outcomes for deaf children, including technology such as cued speech visual systems, for which there is a major centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).

I echo the call of the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South for a pilot scheme—that seems a sensible way forward. The existing research on AVT is promising but the evidence base is still narrow and a pilot scheme seems the best way to broaden that evidence base and convince those who have not yet been convinced by meeting children who have benefited profoundly from the therapy. More broadly, the Government should strengthen the availability of basic speech and language therapy training for people working with children to ensure that children who are struggling with hearing impairment can be identified, that their progress is monitored and supported, and that an equal outcome is found for them.

In conclusion, will the Minister confirm whether the provision of AVT is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care or a local government issue, bearing in mind that the provision of such assistance comes through local government? Will he also confirm that the 10-year plan will address services such as AVT for deaf children and adults? Finally, will he consider a pilot scheme to broaden our understanding of the benefits of AVT?

10:17

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on leading this debate and pay tribute to Auditory Verbal UK for its tireless advocacy in this area. I know that, to obey parliamentary protocol, I should never direct comments to the audience but I would like to say thank you to Sam for his advocacy and for being here to watch this debate. Maybe one day he will be on these green Benches, advocating for further changes, although I hope the Government will have served that purpose by then. If Sam is listening, I hope it is okay, Mr Western, to put those comments to him through you.

As Members have noted, the provision of auditory verbal therapy was previously discussed in the House in December 2023. In the aftermath of that debate, I understand that AVUK held discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and received support from two Ministers in the last Government: Maria Caulfield, the former Member for Lewes, and Dame Andrea Leadsom, the former Member for South Northamptonshire. I also understand from the charity that, before the election, the last Government were considering how to roll out training for auditory verbal therapy and to upskill the existing speech and language therapist workforce. That is part of the workforce plan for the NHS and I am pleased to see that the current Government are continuing in that vein.

Helen Keller said that the only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision. Since the election, it appears that the Government are possibly stepping back from this area. Recent responses to written questions have indicated that the Government have no plans to review the adequacy of the provision of AVT and have stated doubts about the strength of the current evidence supporting its effectiveness, but today we have heard arguments made about a range of studies that suggest AVT really can support deaf children to develop age-appropriate spoken language and attain educational outcomes on par with hearing children. It is not for us, at this point, to make a decision but it is for this House to raise this topic. As a first step, will the Minister commit today to meeting Auditory Verbal UK so that it can present the latest evidence and research from the UK and abroad?

We know that integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services for their local communities, including the provision of auditory verbal therapy. Thanks to charitable funding and efforts from AVUK, there are now 33 certified AV therapists across the UK. However, as other Members have noticed, there are still major gaps in provision, particularly in the public sector. Will the Minister therefore commission a review about the impact and effectiveness of the AVT that is currently taking place in the NHS? Although there are five AV therapists in Manchester, there is just one for the whole of the west midlands, and, as the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South mentioned, there are currently no AV therapists in the north-east. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) also said that there are none in the north-west. That highlights the postcode lottery, which needs to be addressed—especially when, as we have heard, there are 50,000 deaf children in the UK.

AVUK has argued that national guidance to ICBs could help to improve provision across England. Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has guidance on hearing loss for adults, there is no such guidance for children. We know we need an evidence base for guidance, and, given that NICE is the organisation responsible for that, it seems reasonable to focus our attention on it. Can the Minister commit to speaking to NHS England and NICE about current guidance for hearing loss and whether it needs to be updated in the light of the emerging evidence around AVT?

Much has been said by Members today about the return on investment we can see from putting more money into AVT. AVUK has said that for every £1 invested in therapy, there could be as much as a £4 return. We have seen in other areas—for example, the children’s hospice grant—how a small amount of national funding can go a long way in supporting community services across England. Therefore, as decisions are made on the allocation of NHS funding announced in the autumn Budget, will the Minister consider AVUK’s ask to provide funding to train more public sector workers in AVT? I think it was also Helen Keller who said, “I cannot do everything, but I can do something. I must not fail to do something that I can do.”

I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South on securing this important debate and raising these issues. Deaf children across the land are lucky to have an advocate in her—she is doing her part. I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Bolton North East, for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan); they too, are doing their part by raising the issue in this debate. I thank AVUK for all it does; it is doing its part. I hope, in raising constructive questions as His Majesty’s Opposition, I am doing my part, too. In turn, I hope that the Minister will answer my questions and others raised today, meet AVUK and assess its evidence, and make appropriate recommendations and changes with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS so that deaf children can reach their full potential—in doing so, he will fulfil his part.

10:23

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this vitally important debate, and for her powerful and moving contribution to our discussion.

I would also like to break with protocol and welcome Sam to Parliament today. He is clearly a remarkable young man, and an inspiration to us all—thank you for being here, Sam. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions today. We have had a range of contributions, including from the shadow Minister, and from the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). I think that may be all, but huge apologies if I have missed anybody. All their contributions were excellent and very well put.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South has done so much work to champion the interests of children with special educational needs and disabilities, including non-hearing children. I know that she also has an excellent partnership with Auditory Verbal UK, which I welcome to Parliament today. I would, of course, be happy to meet its representatives to follow up on all the points made in this debate.

This Government are committed to raising the healthiest generation of children ever. We will deliver on this ambition through the health and opportunity missions, and through the Government’s child poverty strategy. This is not about silos, with each Department delivering one part of a puzzle that does not fit together properly; this is about systemic, holistic change, and ensuring that we join up analysis, expertise and delivery across Government. Our mission-driven Government will drive long-lasting and sustainable change for children now and in the future. We will break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child has the best start in life. This includes all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including non-hearing children.

We know that developing early communication skills is a key foundation for life, and there are serious knock-on consequences when that development is delayed. That is why we are committed to improving access to early interventions so that every child can find their voice. With the right support, children with hearing loss can develop effective communication skills, live fulfilling lives and enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else. The Government recognise the importance of the earliest days of an infant’s life. There is strong evidence that the 1,001 days from conception to the age of two set the foundations for our cognitive, emotional and physical development. That is why we are giving a £126 million boost for families to give every child the best start in life.

Thousands of families across England will be able to access family hubs, which will act as a one-stop shop for help with infant feeding advice, parenting classes and perinatal mental health support, among other things. Figures from the National Deaf Children’s Society show that there were more than 45,000 deaf children and young people in the UK in 2023. Between one and two babies in every 1,000 are born with permanent hearing loss in one or both ears. This number increases to about one in every 100 for babies who have spent more than 48 hours in intensive care. Early and effective support is crucial for these children and their families. Permanent hearing loss can significantly affect a baby’s development, so early and effective support is crucial for these children and their families.

It is vital that we intervene at birth. The NHS newborn hearing screening programme—the NHSP—aims to find babies who have hearing loss as early as possible so that the right support and advice can be offered right from the start. As we all know, language is linked to social, emotional and learning outcomes. From birth through to childhood, children and young people with hearing loss might need a range of therapies, such as speech, language and auditory verbal therapy. However, as we have heard today, those children are not always receiving the support that they need.

We recognise the important role of auditory verbal therapy as one of the therapies that can be useful for children with hearing loss. NHS audiology services, including the provision of therapies for children with hearing loss, are locally commissioned, and responsibility for meeting the needs of children with hearing loss lies with local NHS commissioners, because local systems are best placed to meet the needs of their own communities.

After 14 years of Tory neglect, incompetence and austerity, our NHS and care service are on their knees, but this Government are committed to properly funding the NHS, and we recently provided a £26 billion boost for health and social care in the autumn Budget. NHS England is responsible for determining allocations of financial resources. Each ICB will then commission the services they need for their local area, taking into account their annual budget, planning guidance and the wider needs of the population they cover. NHS England is supporting integrated care boards to make informed decisions about the provision of audiology services so they can provide consistent, high-quality and integrated care to non-hearing children.

In July 2016, NHS England published “Commissioning Services for People with Hearing Loss: A framework for clinical commissioning groups”. The framework supports NHS ICBs to make informed decisions to address inequalities in access and outcomes between hearing services.

[Mr Frith]

Does the Minister agree that, for all the good intentions of ICBs, our healthcare system is atomised, but that if they were to take instruction from guidance provided nationally, the pillar-to-post experience of a lot of families seeking auditory verbal therapy would end? Will he commit to updating the nine-year-old guidance to ICBs, or at least acknowledge that it needs updating, with a national pilot that proves the efficacy of AVT for families seeking that intervention?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend will know that one of the constant challenges in the system is getting the right balance between empowering those operating at the coalface—those who are close to the communities and know them best—to ensure they are delivering the best possible services, and ensuring consistency and coherence, both strategic and operational, across the entire system. It is safe to say that we are not always getting that balance right. One of the key objectives of the 10-year planning process that we are going through will be to address the so-called postcode lottery—variation between regions—across the whole range of health and care. Without that cross-cutting strategic look at the system, it will not be possible to get the balance right. I absolutely take the point, but one thing I will say is that we are crystal clear when we issue guidance to ICBs that they must take that guidance into account, and their performance is monitored on that basis.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Am I right in thinking, from what the Minister has just said, that he will issue revised guidance following today’s debate? Am I right that the Government, having given an extra £26 billion to local areas, will give them guidance that they should be looking to commission these services on a much bigger scale, so that we have more than 33 AVT therapists?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that this is a very dynamic situation. A system never stands still. For a system to work, we have to be constantly reviewing its performance and whether it is delivering to its objectives. I believe that the 10-year plan that we are producing will absolutely lead to a radical rewiring of the way our health and care system works. It will be driven by three big shifts: from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention, and from analogue to digital.

There is no doubt at all that where there are therapies and treatments that are working—that are clearly delivering big results, and value for money for the taxpayer—it is right that we give those priority in the way that we deliver. It is clear that AVT has huge potential, and it appears to have unexplored potential. I cannot pre-empt today how this is all going to pan out in terms of the system and the reforms that we are looking to push forward, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to innovating and to building a system that is fit for the future.

In 2019, with input from the National Deaf Children’s Society, NHS England produced a guide for commissioners and providers who support children and young people with hearing loss. The guide provides practical advice on ensuring that non-hearing children receive the support they need. Auditory verbal therapy is one type of therapy to support children with hearing loss, and it is important that local commissioners know their population and have the discretion to decide how best to meet its needs. When it comes to commissioning and providing services for children with hearing loss, we have been crystal clear with ICBs and NHS trusts that they must take the relevant guidelines into account.

We recognise the real need to improve access to therapies for all children who need them, including children with hearing loss. In recent years, in very difficult circumstances, the NHS has increased the number of speech and language therapists working in the service, but we know that more needs to be done. That is why the Government are committed to fixing the NHS and building a service that is fit for the future, with the workforce it needs to get patients seen on time.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Minister rightly points out the need to try to deal with the postcode lottery and to ensure that there are reviews and sharing of best practice, but may I draw him back to my comments about guidelines? One thing he could do is ask NICE to look at the current evidence and consider what national guidance should be in place. ICBs have the right to choose what kind of treatment they think works best, and they will be driven by the clinical evidence and clinical guidelines; if there are no clinical guidelines, they will simply make their own decisions. Will the Minister commit to doing that?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Gentleman will know that NICE has a prioritisation board, and ultimately that is the decision-making process for prioritising guidelines and the entire operating framework for what falls under NICE’s remit. This is something that absolutely should be on the radar, and of course we are constantly in conversation with NICE about its prioritisation, but it is important that it takes an objective clinical stance on the question.

We have committed to develop a 10-year plan to deliver a national health service that is fit for the future. The engagement process has been launched. As we work to develop and finalise the plan, I encourage those concerned about the availability of services to support children with hearing loss, including auditory verbal therapy, to engage with that process to allow us to fully understand what is not working, as well as what should be working better and the potential solutions. I encourage all hon. Members present to go to change.nhs.uk to make their voice heard.

This summer, we will publish a refreshed long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service we will need to build over the next decade to treat patients on time and deliver far better patient outcomes. We are also in the process of commissioning research to understand the gaps between the supply and demand of different therapy types for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. That will help us to understand the demand for speech and language therapists and inform effective workforce planning.

[Helen Morgan]

I am pleased to hear that the Government have increased the number of speech and language therapists, which is so important for young people who are struggling to achieve their potential in an educational setting, but will the Minister address the specific point on commissioning by local authorities? Often, they are so strapped for cash that they are effectively trying to limit demand.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Commissioning is led by ICBs. It is important that ICBs have open channels of communication with local government. We in the Department of Health and Social Care have close contact and engagement with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and it is important that that relationship and interaction feeds down through the entire system, but the leading organisations on commissioning are the ICBs.

A number of colleagues raised the question of a pilot scheme to identify how our existing workforce can work differently. The early language and support for every child programme is an excellent example of different professions coming together to support children and young people—local authorities, schools, and the health and care system working together in the community to support our children and young people. The ELSEC workforce model focuses on recruiting pre-qualification speech and language therapy support workers into the workforce to improve the capacity and knowledge of staff who support children with emerging or mild to moderate speech, language and communication needs in early years and school settings.

Nine regional pathfinder partnerships are trialling new ways of working to better identify and support children in early years settings and primary schools. We have asked pathfinders to consider how to make the model sustainable after the project period. The therapy assistant roles have the potential to attract individuals to train to become speech and language therapists through the apprenticeship route. I understand that Auditory Verbal UK is progressing a National Institute for Health and Care Research grant application to support a pilot, and I would welcome an update from AVUK about how that is going when we get the chance to meet.

We welcome the work that AVUK is doing to upskill health professionals to deliver auditory verbal therapy. On the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, there are as yet no NICE guidelines on hearing loss in children, and NICE has not made any recommendations on AVT specifically. Decisions on the need for guidelines on new topics and updates to existing guidance are made by NICE’s prioritisation board, in line with NICE’s published common prioritisation framework. I understand that NHS England met with AVUK and discussed the need for more high-level research evidence for the intervention and the need to develop evaluations of impact. I am pleased that AVUK has been invited to join the chief scientific officer’s audiology stakeholder group, where it will contribute to decision making.

We recognise the impact on the lives of children of timely access to high-quality services, including different therapies to help children to develop the right skills to engage with education. The Government’s ambition is that all children and young people with SEND or in alternative provision receive the right support to succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. We will strengthen accountability on mainstream settings to be inclusive, including through the work of Ofsted, by supporting the mainstream workforce to increase their SEND expertise and by encouraging schools to set up resourced provision or SEN units to increase capacity in mainstream schools. That work forms part of the Government’s opportunity mission, which will break the unfair link between background and opportunity, starting with giving every child, including those with SEND, the best possible start in life. We will work with the sector, as essential and valued partners, to deliver our shared mission and restore parents’ trust.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South for securing this debate and sharing her insight on the vital issue of early interventions for non-hearing children. We recognise the importance of such services and the life-changing impact they can have on the lives of children. We are committed to ensuring that all children receive the support they need to live healthy, fulfilling lives. I will continue to work closely with NHS England and the Department for Education as we strain every sinew to deliver on those commitments.

10:43

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank everyone who has taken the time to come along and made such excellent contributions on this vital issue. I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who spoke for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who spoke for the Lib Dems, for listening.

I was happy to hear that the Minister will meet AVUK and explore the potential of a pilot. That is great news. I hope that he might also get a chance to speak to Sam today—that would be wonderful. I also hope that, if NICE deems—as we all have—that this therapy is both clinically and economically valuable, he will update the guidance to ICBs. The Minister also mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. I hope he recognises that it has already been nine years since the guidance was updated and that the issue needs urgent attention, perhaps towards the start of the 10-year plan rather than the end of it; otherwise, we will be getting on for 20 years.

Today, we have the opportunity—the Minister especially—to change the fate of deaf children in this country. They deserve the same opportunities and outcomes as their hearing peers. That surely cannot be a controversial position. These children are the future. We must invest in them, not only because it is the right thing to do morally, but because any financial investment will produce economic returns in abundance. Mainly, we should invest in them because our children deserve it.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I also thank Sam and his family for attending this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy.

10:45

Sitting suspended.

Northern Ireland’s Political Institutions

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I will call Sorcha Eastwood to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of Northern Ireland’s political institutions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will present three key points. I will show that Northern Ireland’s governance is structurally ineffective and keeps us trapped in cycles of instability and dysfunction. I will outline the modest, straightforward solutions to reform our institutions and unlock Northern Ireland’s potential. I will say why the UK Government must act, and why that action must be taken urgently.

Devolution in its most recent form began in Northern Ireland more than 25 years ago. Since then, Stormont has been without a functioning Government for almost 40% of its lifespan. I am not good at maths, but that is nearly half, so it is not a new phenomenon. Stormont has been held to ransom multiple times since its inception, with prolonged collapses in 2000, 2002 to 2007, 2017 to 2020, and most recently in 2022 to 2024.

Those collapses have left our institutions in a cycle of dysfunction, and our public services and finances in a state of decay. Some may question whether the subject of my debate undermines the Good Friday agreement, but that could not be further from the truth. I wholeheartedly support the Good Friday agreement and endorse its underlying principles, values and interlocking relationships.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will not; I will make some progress.

It is in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement that I campaign for reform of our governance. The Good Friday agreement must be understood as it was intended, as a foundation for future progress, integration and normalisation, rather than a permanent solution to the divided society that we had in 1998.

As far back as 1999, my Alliance party wrote of the inherent risks in embedding rigid consociationalism within our political structures. We have always been pragmatic about the need for our political structures to evolve. More than 25 years later, the political structures born out of the Good Friday agreement, and the subsequent agreements, no longer reflect the diversity and progress of our society.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make some progress.

Today, close to 40% of the population hold a national identity that is not exclusively British or Irish, while the proportion of Members of the Legislative Assembly designated as neither Unionist nor nationalist has more than doubled since 2011. The days of defining Northern Ireland’s politics in purely binary terms is over—I am proof of that—yet our power-sharing arrangements continue to do so, at the expense of stability and progress.

There is also a misconception that reform of the Good Friday agreement would be an unprecedented departure from our peace agreements. Again, that is untrue. For example, the changes made during the St Andrews agreement in 2006 on how the Executive operated were a significant departure from the Good Friday agreement, and increased instability and the unfettered power of the two largest parties to the detriment of good government.

The proposals that I will outline would move us closer to the original purpose of the Good Friday agreement’s provisions. Although we will have had an Executive in place for the past year, the truth is that our institutions are no more stable today than on the day they collapsed. It is my firm view that it is not a matter of if Stormont collapses, but when. Over the past 12 months, any number of the political events that have unfolded could have triggered a collapse. That risk is never far from my mind or those of my Lagan Valley constituents.

Most of all, that constant looming threat prevents the transformative, bold action necessary to get Northern Ireland’s public services and finances in order. That will remain the case for as long as our power-sharing structures grant individual parties the ability to veto the functioning of government. Who bears the brunt of ransom politics and those perpetual cycles? It is the people of Northern Ireland, whether they are Unionist, nationalist or neither, such as myself.

For decades, our communities have yearned and fought for progress only to be shackled by a system that is fundamentally flawed. It is a system that allows one party to veto progress as and when it pleases, leaving the people and public services of Northern Ireland in limbo and decay. The outworkings of this system have been immensely damaging. As many hon. Members will be aware, Northern Ireland has by far the highest health waiting lists in the UK. Our schools are underfunded, our roads in disrepair, and our public services stretched to breaking point. At the same time, our talented young people are leaving for opportunities elsewhere because they see no future in a system that continually fails them.

I asked myself whether I would mention that we have some of the longest waiting lists and that our public services are under pressure, because hon. Members across the UK—and we in Northern Ireland are part of the UK—have the same issues. The outlier is that we have the biggest spend per head in the UK on health, yet we have the worst outcomes.

[Robin Swann]

On Northern Ireland having the biggest health spend, will the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that that in its recent publication, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council equated the spend in Northern Ireland to that of north-east and north-west England? It is therefore incorrect to say that we have the highest spend. What we have are the challenges resulting from dysfunctional single-year budgets since 2016 to support our health service, which does not allow for the transformation it needs.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. I am not sure of the provenance of that line on spend; as the former Health Minister for Northern Ireland, he will be aware of the intricacies. His point is well made, however, because there are structural issues within Northern Ireland. Simply put, our health issues in Northern Ireland are linked to the fact that we cannot manage to have Government long enough to embed a long-term system of public transformation, which is exactly what we need.

For years, Alliance has championed practical, achievable reforms to restore stability, hope and trust in Northern Ireland’s governance. First, we must change the way that we nominate the First and Deputy First Ministers. Currently, the process allows one party to block the formation of an Executive, holding the entire system hostage. Indeed, whenever I was first elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, I sat in my seat on more than one occasion and we voted across the Chamber to elect a Speaker but, due to the rules of the game, we went away time and again for nearly three years because we could not form a Government. Reforming that process would ensure that no single party could veto democracy.

We also need to replace the outdated system of parallel consent, which entrenches division rather than promoting collaboration. Instead, we should adopt mechanisms that reflect the diversity of our society and encourage cross-community support. The petition of concern is another area crying out for reform. Originally designed to protect minority rights, it has been weaponised to block progressive legislation time and again.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make progress.

That tool has been used not to protect but to prevent. It is time to reclaim it for its intended purpose. Those proposals are modest and should not be controversial; they do not alter the fundamental principles of the Good Friday agreement. The reforms are not about party politics, but about people. I am sure that every single Member of this House who represents Northern Ireland, and every single Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, wants to put their constituents first and does not want a system in which they go without Government. How in all good conscience could they support such action?

Finally, I turn to why Westminster must act. Some may argue that reforming Northern Ireland’s institutions should be left to the local parties, but let us be honest: that ship has sailed. The Secretary of State’s reliance on consensus has stalled progress and it is the people of Northern Ireland who are paying the price. Indeed, it is the people of Northern Ireland—whether they are Unionist, nationalist or other—who constantly say, regardless of their dearly held political beliefs, that they do not believe it is fair for one player to walk off the pitch and thereby, at a very basic level, deny people government.

The UK Government are the co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. They have both a legal and moral duty to ensure effective governance in Northern Ireland, and there is a precedent for that. In the past, when consensus has been unachievable because of our institutional framework, the UK Government have stepped in. On Irish language rights, marriage equality, organ donation and reproductive rights, consecutive UK Governments have stepped up to the plate to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland, which is a constituent part of the UK, are not held back by our institutional failure. Westminster acted because it was simply the right thing to do to implement what I would regard as long-held and settled policies across the rest of the United Kingdom.

The reform that I am discussing today is in not just Northern Ireland’s interests, but all our interests. A stable Northern Ireland reduces Treasury costs and boosts economic growth across the UK. Many MPs have rightly questioned—indeed, the hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned—

[Robin Swann]

South Antrim.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Sorry, I mean the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann)—North Antrim was his old life; the new hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is here in Westminster Hall. What do we have to show for those Treasury costs? The outcome is directly related to our inability to plan and budget long term, and to take the brave action necessary to reform our public services.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying listening to the hon. Lady’s speech, as I suspect are many hon. Members. She has touched on the important role that Westminster can play, which of course is true—this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom—but what more does she think the political parties in Northern Ireland can do? The whole premise and substance of devolution is about ensuring that local people can dictate what their communities and their future look like.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will simply state, as I have already said, that time and time again we hear from people across Northern Ireland—whether they are Unionist, nationalist or other—that they do not want this system of collapse to be permanently baked in. When we stood for election to represent our constituents, we took a job.

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I will make progress.

All of us in this House, regardless of our political opinion, took a job to do what is right for people. I do not want to think that there are people who have different political persuasions from mine who think that it is right to deny people government.

I do not regard myself as being better than anybody else because I do not designate as a Unionist or nationalist. Indeed, as time goes on, I sometimes have sympathy for a Unionist perspective and at other times I have sympathy for a nationalist perspective. Both those traditions are a huge part of my life. My family is drawn from across Northern Ireland and nobody can tell me that a Unionist is lesser than a nationalist, or that a nationalist is lesser than a Unionist.

However, the system that we have has an in-built bias towards people such as me, who are drawn from across the community, and it says, “You are lesser than them. Your vote does not count the same as that of a Unionist or nationalist.” Although that may have been the predominant viewpoint at the time the Good Friday agreement was signed, it does not reflect the Northern Ireland that we live in today.

This issue is not about people saying, “We are better than you, because we don’t involve ourselves in a debate.” That is absolutely not what we are about. We are about making sure that the Northern Ireland that we live in today, which is made up of minorities—there is no one majority view—is represented. I think others would do well to consider that viewpoint. If that is the situation, every single political viewpoint must be regarded as equal, not just because that would take my party up to the level it should be at, but because it is simply unconscionable for us to have a system that collapses time and again, and then to turn round and ask why our public services, our economy and everything else are not working.

What else would hon. Members expect me to say? I am standing here because these proposals are what the people of Lagan Valley want me to ask for. I simply say to the Minister that they are modest proposals, which are not against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. In fact, I would say that they bolster the spirit of that agreement. Surely, that is the legacy that people of my generation—a new generation—were promised. Let us now get on and deliver.

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this important debate—I believe it is her first debate since her election—and on the constructive and sensitive approach that has been adopted. She brings an important contribution to the debate. Since her arrival in July, the hon. Member has already demonstrated her passion for the issue and her enthusiasm in making a case for the potential evolution of the Northern Ireland institutions in future. I agree with her that stable political institutions and a devolution settlement that works for all the people of Northern Ireland remain a priority for this Government and, I am sure, for all in Westminster Hall today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is important that we place it on the record that I, as a Unionist—as well as all of us Unionists on the Back Benches here today—am committed to finding a way forward that politically can bring us all together. However, does the Minister of State agree that there can be no effectiveness of the institutions when hampered by EU interference, with no representation, and that effective devolution will take place only when we can make those devolved decisions in the best interests of Northern Ireland, not of the EU?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for his shared commitment to finding a way forward. I think that is what everyone in Northern Ireland wants to see. It is the Windsor framework that enables the UK internal market to be protected post Brexit, and it has established powerful democratic safeguards for the Northern Ireland Assembly. They are what should be used to enable the institutions to function effectively for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what I am going to outline in my speech. However, what do we mean by effectiveness?

[Jim Allister]

The Minister talks about the Windsor framework protecting democratic standards. Surely, as the Windsor framework surrenders more than 300 areas of law, on which the decisions should be made either in this House or in the devolved Assembly at Stormont, it is the very antithesis of democracy. That is because it submits Northern Ireland’s citizens to laws that they do not make and cannot change—laws made by a foreign Parliament, rather than their own Parliament or Assembly. How does that even begin to be democratic?

[Fleur Anderson]

We have debated at length the pros and cons of the Windsor framework, and I know we have different opinions on it. The Windsor framework enables the internal market to work and the smooth flow of goods, at the same time as allowing democratic institutions—the Assembly—to have their say and to have those democratic safeguards, as has been demonstrated recently.

We need to establish what we mean by the effectiveness of the political institutions. In Northern Ireland, the key measure of effectiveness in the institutions is peace. The Good Friday agreement remains an unparalleled achievement for Northern Ireland. Almost 27 years on from its signing, it has brought an end to armed conflict in Northern Ireland, and it has enabled a generation to grow up in relative peace, increasing prosperity and allowing the people of Northern Ireland to take steps towards reconciliation.

The journey to the signing of that agreement required incredible political courage and imagination from the Northern Ireland parties. They were required to set aside their deeply felt differences and commit to working together in a new suite of institutions in the hope of a better tomorrow. As we stand here in 2025, I recognise that the same commitment to collaboration, and to helping Northern Ireland achieve its full potential, is among the parties, is witnessed here today, and remains strongly in the Northern Ireland public.

I am delighted that the strand 1 institutions that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley focused on, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, are fully operational again, having been restored nearly a year ago, in February 2024. I am extremely grateful that in full operation, they are doing what they were established to do: enabling power to be shared between communities in Northern Ireland. It is through devolved government that decisions can be taken locally on the issues that matter most to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the stability of institutions, does the Minister agree that there used to be a complaint about the use of the petition of concern, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), but which has not been used in the past year at all since Stormont returned? We can proceed only when there is agreement between the divided communities in Northern Ireland, and that has to be the basis on which we proceed.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. There was stability for 10 years when power sharing was enabled, and that is at the heart of what must be enabled by the institutions there. Unless there is a real change shown in various different ways, we need to ensure that those institutions maintain that power sharing. That is what has worked to give us peace up to now, but the stability has been in question. That is why it is good to have these debates, as we are today.

[Adam Jogee]

I very much echo the Minister’s points about the commitment of this Government and those on the Government Benches to supporting the people of Northern Ireland. As she is touching on the Executive office, its functions and stability, will she give us her view on the merits of redesignating the offices of Deputy First Minister and First Minister as joint First Ministers? Does she think that would assist in bringing communities together?

[Fleur Anderson]

We need consensus for change. I welcome the proposals for change laid out by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley today. Everything I can see from the political parties and the debates in Stormont shows that we are still a long way from agreeing what those kinds of changes should be, whether those are the specific ones mentioned by her or others. If anything, what we need now is to focus on delivering for public services, as she also outlined.

A measure of effectiveness is stability. It is clear that the institutions have not always proven as stable as the people of Northern Ireland have a right to expect. There was a period of 10 years of stability from 2007 to 2017, which shows that it can be done. The question now is: can these institutions deliver what they need to deliver, or do they need to change? That is the question posed by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. The institutions have been inoperable for 40% of their existence, and that has shaken the Northern Irish public’s faith in them and had detrimental consequences for the delivery of public services.

Despite the challenges, the people of Northern Ireland agree that power sharing remains the best basis for Government in Northern Ireland. I recognise that power sharing is challenging, but the UK Government are committed to upholding the Good Friday agreement in letter and in spirit, and to a positive and active partnership with the Executive.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Fleur Anderson]

No; I will make some progress.

Our partnership approach enables us to work together to overcome joint challenges and to strengthen the institutions through delivery.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Minister give way?

[Fleur Anderson]

No; I will make some progress.

One of the most important contributions that we, as the UK Government, can make is to provide that long-term certainty and stability to Northern Ireland after the tumult of recent years. It is the focus of the UK Government and, I am sure, of all the Members here present. We do not want Stormont to fall into a pattern of collapse, as we have seen previously.

I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley feels strongly about the political evolution of those institutions, as do many in Northern Ireland. I remain committed to listening to those conversations going forward and to listening to all the views of MPs and Members of the Legislative Assembly, but the priority must be to support the Executive to deliver on those most pressing public service issues—health, jobs, the cost of living and education.

The third measure of effectiveness is delivery. Although the strand 1 institutions have been a significant success, more remains to be done to ensure that Northern Ireland is the thriving, successful place we know it can be. Northern Ireland has much to be proud of, benefiting from increasing economic prosperity and investment since 1998, both from the UK Government and the private sector. Northern Ireland has thriving tourism, film, TV production and cyber-security sectors, which are a leading dimension of Northern Ireland’s diverse economy.

However, from my conversations with many people in Northern Ireland, I know that palpable frustration remains at the state of the public services, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley outlined. I am very aware that receiving medical treatment in a corridor or waiting more than 12 hours in one of the hospitals across Northern Ireland has become normal, that some children with special educational needs wait for more than a year for the educational support they are entitled to, that social housing waiting lists are increasing, and that court delays remain a challenge, with a significant difference between court delays in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I do not highlight these examples to be critical, and I know from my many conversations with Northern Ireland Ministers that they are fully aware of these challenges and serious about addressing them.

Improving public services is, rightly, the responsibility of the Executive, so the key question is whether the institutions, in their current form, can deliver on public services. The answer is yes, they can. The Executive now have the political will and stability, as well as a record funding settlement of £18 billion for Northern Ireland in 2025-26, which is an increase of £1.5 billion. Funding for the Northern Ireland Executive in the autumn Budget exceeds 124% of comparable UK Government funding per person in the rest of the UK, and the Executive have all the levers they need to tackle these challenges. The UK Government are focused on delivering our five missions across the UK, are a willing partner with the Executive in this and want to help the Executive to seize this opportunity. We are committed to working collaboratively and ensuring that Northern Ireland’s institutions can work effectively to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Robin Swann]

I raised the issue of the £235 million transformation fund that the Government have given with the Minister in Northern Ireland questions. I know the Minister and I agree that it is crucial that we get that transformation money released to the Executive and spent in Northern Ireland to transform those services as soon as possible.

[Fleur Anderson]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. There is a £235 million part of the restoration package focused on transformation, and it is transformation that can demonstrate the effectiveness of the institutions. This is a demonstration of the UK Government’s willingness to work together in partnership for genuine transformation. I know that these projects will be agreed by the Finance Minister shortly, and I agree that this needs to be done quickly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, transformation takes time. There needs to be collaboration, willingness and political will, and we have that with the Executive right now.

In conclusion, Northern Ireland’s political institutions, arising from the Good Friday agreement, have been extremely effective in embedding and upholding peace. They have enabled locally accountable decision making and brought increasing prosperity to Northern Ireland since the signing of the agreement in 1998. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley has outlined the challenges and frustrations felt by many in Northern Ireland, and we are politicians in challenging times. The focus of Government policy in Northern Ireland remains the securing of a brighter future for generations to come.

The UK Government remain committed to working with the Executive—in a spirit of collaboration and partnership that was not seen with the previous Government—to support the transformation of public services and ensure the institutions’ long-term effectiveness to deliver on those issues that every Member in Westminster Hall today will agree matter most to people in northern Ireland—economic growth, the cost of living, safety, jobs, education and health.

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for her contribution to this debate; an ongoing debate needs to happen all the time on the reform of Northern Ireland’s institutions.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Knife Crime: West Midlands

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

14:30

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sarah Coombes to move the motion, I ought to explain that this is my first time chairing a debate in Westminster Hall, so I expect you to be very gentle with me. If you are not—well, I am in the Chair.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention of knife crime in the West Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your first chairmanship, Sir John. I want to open this debate by talking about a knock on a mother’s door—the kind of knock that too many parents have experienced and too many more dread. Last week, a woman from my area told me her story. She had already heard through friends that something had happened that night. Her sister was out searching the local hospitals. She had rung the police and been told someone would be there soon. Then she heard a knock on the front door. She said:

“What happened to my son was what I was always worried about. He was the kind of person who always protected his friends. That’s what happened—he stepped in front of his friend to protect him and he was stabbed.”

The loss of a child in this way feels too enormous to comprehend. She explained to me the ways it had affected not just her life but those of her other children:

“My daughter is so angry, but she won’t talk about what happened. She feels there is no justice for her brother. She’s only in primary school but she’s self-harming.”

We are here for this debate because we have got to stop this happening—families being shattered and communities destroyed by knives. It is my duty, as the MP for West Bromwich, to do everything I can to work with the police, schools, constituents and my community to stop this nightmare happening in the first place. In the west midlands, we have the highest rate of knife crime per capita of any region in England. But I do not want to talk about stats today. I want to talk about the stories of the victims, of those who live in fear, and even of those who have committed these terrible crimes. This debate is focused on prevention, so I will talk about the role that policing has to play in that, as well as intervention by schools, communities and families to keep young people safe.

Last year, I went to a football tournament in memory of one of the young players, who was stabbed to death. I spoke to some of the teenagers there and was truly shocked by what I heard. They were angry and distrusted the police, but they still felt there should be more of them around. They felt trapped in places where crime was all around them. They felt they had no opportunities for a different and better life. One teenage boy said to me—I will never forget this—that he did not think he would live to the age of 22.

This past week I got in touch again with the coach and asked for the young people’s thoughts on what the Government need to do to tackle knife crime. Here is some of what they said:

“The gang violence and knife crime is getting worse in my area. We need more youth centres and funding to help stop this.”

“Could we do more to stop youths from buying knives on the internet?”

“Why aren’t there more police patrolling the town centres that are known for knife crime or gang violence? Our local area is getting worse and no one seems to care enough to do anything to help it.”

“Education around knife crime should happen at a much younger age. A majority of young people don’t take it seriously because it has not happened to someone close to them, so maybe education needs to be by someone who has really suffered as a consequence of knife crime.”

The mother I mentioned earlier felt similarly:

“There is no support, no prevention—not enough youth clubs…It’s too easy to access these weapons. You can go and buy them online with no proof of ID. There’s nothing for young people to do now. My youth club provided experiences—things like white-water rafting. Now the youth clubs are all gone, social media has come in and crime is through the roof.”

After years of cuts to policing and youth services, it is no surprise that we have not been able to turn the tide on knife crime. Our new Labour Government have shown important ambition in committing to halving knife crime in a decade. I would appreciate the Minister going into detail about how we plan to achieve that. The young people I mentioned identified some themes that get to the heart of the matter: visible policing as a deterrent, reducing access to knives, and early intervention and education. How are young people being involved in policy design to ensure that the action the Government take is effective?

The police service in the west midlands was slashed in the austerity years. We still have 800 fewer police officers and 500 fewer police community support officers than we had in 2010. The knock-on effect of that is obvious. It is not just seeing police walking around our town centres and crime hotspots that keeps us safe, but police and PCSOs having the time and space to build key community relationships and gain the trust and vital intelligence that can stop crime. One of our most important pledges during the election was to restore neighbourhood policing, and I look forward to us having 13,000 extra officers and PCSOs across the country. As well as wanting to see police on our streets, people often raise with me the need for strong sentences to deter people from carrying a knife. Fundamentally, we have to reduce access to these legal weapons.

On the rates of knife crime per capita, West Brom has the highest rate for possession of weapons in Sandwell. We had a dreadful incident before Christmas when young people were running round West Bromwich in broad daylight wearing balaclavas and wielding machetes. That was terrifying for the people who were there and has a huge knock-on effect on local businesses and the entire area. West Midlands police has set up the Life Or Knife initiative, which provides education in schools and allows people to anonymously report when someone is carrying a knife. Our police and crime commissioner has also funded weapon surrender bins across the region. But we have to cut this off at source.

My local paper, the Express & Star, ran an award-winning campaign with a Wolverhampton mother, Pooja Kanda, to ban zombie-style knives and machetes. I applaud the paper for that important work and I fully support the Labour Government’s commitment to ban them. As the victim’s mother I talked about earlier said to me, online retailers must be held to account. Now that the ban has been in place for a few months, will the Minister say whether it is proving successful? In particular, what enforcement action is being taken against online retailers who deliver zombie-style knives straight to people’s homes?

Police presence and reducing access to lethal weapons are important, but perhaps the most important thing of all is education, early intervention and constant support for young people who could get caught up in violence. Research shows that young people who are excluded from education are at greater risk of getting involved in violence, which is why it is so important that we do everything we can to keep young people in school. In the last few years, there have also been important programmes with organisations such as St Giles Trust that have supported young people at teachable moments, such as when they are in custody or A&E.

But in too many cases the intervention comes too late—as in the next case I will talk about. This might be slightly unusual, but I will read the words of someone on the other side: a constituent of mine who went to prison for 14 years for his involvement in the murder of a man using a knife. His words are powerful and important, because, as we have heard, young people respond to others’ lived experience. When I asked him how he feels now about being involved in a knife attack that took someone’s life all those years ago, he said:

“I feel so many emotions. I feel ashamed, I feel embarrassed, remorseful, unequivocally. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t my plan and I didn’t wield the knife. Ultimately decisions I made that night led to that and if I hadn’t made certain decisions he would still be here. I feel dirty for that...I don’t dream often but when I do they are bad dreams, violent, people trying to kill me...Whenever I see knife crime stories about mothers losing their sons it takes me back. It’s the ripple effects...the people whose houses back on to the park where it happened, the first responders, the guy who was walking his dog who found the body. All these lives are changed forever.”

Having spent so much of his life so far in prison, he now wants to work with young people to stop them following the same path of violence. I asked him what would make the difference for young people now to stop them committing such a terrible crime, and he said:

“It’s more than what to say, it’s what I’d do. The authenticity and realness and empathy is so important.

You need somebody like me who has the life experience. So you can openly talk about their home life, parents, friends, family, hobbies, hopes and dreams. And build the trust and rapport. And show love…Take them on positive trips—take them places they’d never usually be able to afford and show them that this could be your life.

It has to be a 24/7 thing, support all the time.

That night of the offence when I would have reached out—it would have been late and you need someone to be there then. Not office hours and then they turn their phone off. You need someone to say ‘Where are you, I’m coming to you, stay where you are.’”

There is so much more of my conversation with him that I think it would be useful for Members to hear, but there is not the time, unfortunately. I hope the Minister will address the importance of wraparound and consistent support for young people, and the need to make interventions and offer mentoring from a very young age, not just at the point when a child is suspended or already in trouble. My constituent’s key message about what will reduce knife crime is that we need

“education from an early age, in the right way, delivered by the right people.”

Knife crime does not just destroy families. It destroys communities. It destroys towns centres when people are afraid. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) could not attend this debate, but she asked me to reflect on the impact that knife crime also has on schools such as Wodensborough academy, where a pupil who was killed will forever be remembered. I am proud that this Government are so committed to stopping the nightmare of knife crime in our communities, and I see it as my role as the local MP to do everything I can to be part of that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they want to attract my attention, they need to bob. But I can see they know that already.

14:41

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John, during your first chairmanship in Westminster Hall. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate and for providing many of us from across the west midlands with the opportunity to contribute. The tragic and devastating effects of knife crime have been a central concern for communities across the west midlands and in the Walsall borough, particularly for those of us who represent constituencies that have been impacted by such violent acts.

Knife crime is a problem that cannot be ignored. It requires the attention and action of all of us in this House and beyond. In December 2023, I secured a debate on knife crime in the west midlands and highlighted the shockingly high rates of violent incidents in our communities. Sadly, as we enter 2025, the statistics remain deeply troubling. In the 12 months to March 2024 alone, West Midlands police recorded 7,000 knife-related offences, which is sadly a 70% increase from 2016. But these are not just numbers: families, friends, loved ones and entire communities are affected.

We must, as a nation, reflect on the devastating toll that these crimes take on real lives, because behind each statistic lies a story of personal loss and grief, of families torn apart, and of communities shaken to the core. In my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, we are reminded of the heart-wrenching consequences of knife crime through the loss of James Brindley, who tragically lost his life in 2017. James was just 26 years old when he was fatally stabbed by a 17-year-old as he walked home from a night out.

James’s death sparked an outpouring of grief in the community and led his parents Mark and Beverley to found the James Brindley Foundation, a charity committed to reducing youth violence and promoting positive change in our community. The foundation’s work, particularly its #LifeOrKnife campaign and its commitment to providing knife amnesty bins across the Walsall borough, plays a vital role in providing young people with the tools and support they need to make better choices. The installation of the bins, coupled with education and mentoring, which is also crucial, and partnerships with local businesses, is an inspiring example of grassroots action to tackle knife crime.

One initiative I want to highlight is Project Ray of Hope, which was born from the success of the visit of the “Knife Angel” to Walsall in 2023. I went to see the “Knife Angel” and it is one of the most poignant sculptures I could ever have imagined. Just to stand and see it is incredibly powerful. The project, which the James Brindley Foundation is working on, aims to create a permanent public art installation in the heart of Walsall to serve as a poignant reminder of the damage caused by serious youth violence. Importantly, the project aims to engage young people throughout its development, providing them with an opportunity to shape the future of their community through creative expression. This collaboration between the James Brindley Foundation and Walsall council exemplifies the positive role that local organisations can play in raising awareness and providing solutions.

I am aware of the Government’s announcement of the coalition to tackle knife crime. I urge Ministers to include the James Brindley Foundation in this critical initiative, if they have not done so already. The Government should be working closely with this type of organisation, whose expertise and community engagement are essential to exploring effective solutions to this pressing issue. As we all acknowledge the important contributions of organisations such as the James Brindley Foundation, we must also turn our attention to the broader question of how we as a society are responding to knife crime. The Government have a critical role to play, but so too do our local leaders and public services.

The Labour police and crime commissioner and the Mayor have significant responsibilities to ensure that our communities are safe. Yet I fear that, in many cases, we are not yet seeing the level of leadership required to tackle this scourge effectively. Policing and public safety must remain a top priority. The west midlands has one of the highest rates of knife crime in the country, with 175 knife-related offences per 100,000 residents recorded in the region last year. Yet at a time when we need effective leadership, the response from our police and crime commissioner and the Mayor is not good enough.

I have long campaigned for a greater share of police resources in my constituency, including maintaining the police station in Aldridge, which is crucial for ensuring that our community feels safe and has the support it needs to tackle crime at the local level—yet it still remains under threat of being sold off by the police and crime commissioner.

The police must also be empowered to act swiftly. The proposed devolution of powers over policing to the Mayor could, if handled correctly, provide a more direct and focused response to this ongoing issue. I very much hope that the police and crime commissioner will not waste valuable taxpayers’ resources by taking legal action to resist the proposed changes.

It is time for strong leadership. It is time for a change in approach—one that acknowledges the scale of the problem and responds with the urgency it deserves. That includes ensuring that local authorities, our police and our third sector organisations work together more effectively to prevent knife crime and protect vulnerable young people from falling into the trap of gang violence and criminal exploitation.

I believe that one area where we can make a tangible difference is in education. I have long added my voice to calls for the integration of knife crime prevention into the national curriculum, an initiative that could serve as a powerful tool to raise awareness and shape the next generation’s understanding of the devastating consequences of carrying a knife. We need to teach our children about the risks, but we must also equip them with the support they need to resist peer pressure and make better choices. That is why I continue to back the campaign for knife crime prevention to be made a compulsory part of school education. It is a move that has already garnered significant support.

Furthermore, the Government should widen the scope of knife bans. Far more knives are banned now than was the case in 2010, which is good, but it is an issue that all parties should be concerned about. I know the Government continued the policy of banning zombie knives in September, which is great. However, more can and should be done, which is why the previous Government sought to increase the maximum penalty from six months to two years for the offences of private possession, importation, manufacture, sale or supply of prohibited offensive weapons, and for selling knives to those who are under 18.

I am aware that the current Home Secretary commissioned a rapid review to understand how such weapons are sold online and delivered to under-18s, to identify gaps in legislation and to find the most effective ways to close them. I commend that effort, but now we need to ensure that it leads to swift action that strengthens our laws and holds those responsible to account. Rapid reviews must lead to rapid actions.

I reiterate the importance of collaboration across all levels of society. We must work together to reduce knife crime and ensure that our communities and our young people have the support they need to build a future free from violence.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I can see that a lot of people want to contribute on this important subject. Before I call the next speaker, I therefore suggest that you restrict yourselves to speeches of about five minutes. We will then get everyone in and have plenty of time for the spokesmen to speak and for the mover of the motion to say a few words at the end.

14:50

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this timely and important debate and highlighting the real-life impacts of knife crime in her constituency. Knife crime is a public health crisis. I speak as an ex-cabinet member for public health and an ex-children’s services manager when I say that it is essential that we tackle both the causes and effects of knife crime.

In July, the Office for National Statistics found that knife crime in England and Wales had risen by 78% over the past 10 years. That is a staggering increase and sets out the scale of the challenge facing the new Government in reversing that terrifying trend within a decade.

I am sad to say that the West Midlands police force area is responsible for 10% of knife-enabled crime in the whole of England and Wales; only the Met police have more cases. However, the statistics alone never tell the real story and, as the MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, I have been witness to some horrific cases in recent years. Jordan Moazami, who was 18 years old and described as a “role model” by his peers, was stabbed and killed on Tennal Road in my constituency in 2019. Muhammad Hassam Ali, 17 years old, was followed and killed by a 15-year-old after a four-minute conversation in Birmingham city centre. And in 2021, Dea-John Reid, my constituent, 14 years old, was hounded by a gang of five boys and grown men before being stabbed in the chest and dying.

I cannot do justice in words to the horror of those cases. In every one, what struck me immediately was the senselessness of it. And in many ways that is where we need to start when thinking about finding meaningful solutions to the epidemic of young boys taking each other’s lives. Prevention has to be our watchword.

Understanding the root causes of knife crime is complicated. It is often a picture of poverty, drugs, gangs, exploitation, school exclusion, domestic violence, adverse childhood experiences and being in care. One of the two 12-year-old boys who killed Sean Seesahai in Wolverhampton in 2023 had experienced significant trauma in his life and been at risk of child criminal exploitation. According to the defence, he had been groomed, exploited and trafficked by men in the community, so there is a complicated story to tell there.

One of the questions we ask ourselves is, “Who is looking out for these boys?” I think child criminal exploitation is often misunderstood by professionals, which prevents the early identification of child victims. Too often, child victims of exploitation are criminalised rather than safeguarded—something that exploiters and organised criminal gangs anticipate and utilise to their advantage. The services that might identify them as at risk—schools, youth services, mental health services—are all under strain: youth mental health services are in crisis, school exclusions have been at a record high and youth services have been cut to the bone. The tragedy is that sometimes it is that absence of a safe space that is putting children at risk.

Some of the stories we hear are absolutely bleak. A Barnardo’s practitioner at a service dealing with child exploitation shared evidence that, during winter, groups of children often gathered outside a leisure centre and sat by the air vents, as that was the only place they could feel warm and safe. That became a spot for exploitation, described as

“a hotspot for adults or older teens with cars driving by and offering lifts…and McDonald’s”.

Of course, that is how the dynamics of exploitation start: the favours, the debts, the escalating patterns of criminality.

I was struck recently by a comment by Martin Griffiths, a consultant trauma surgeon in London and NHS England’s national clinical director for violence reduction—an incredible practitioner who has done some amazing work through his charity. He said:

“County lines drug carriers are all being exploited, whether it’s knowingly or not, by individuals or organisations who utilise them because they are impressionable. They are mentoring these kids to do bad things. These are children who are low on support, self-esteem and resources.”

It is precisely that lack of spaces and opportunities that is part of what puts children and young people at risk. Research by YMCA in 2021 found that, in England, local authority spending on youth services totalled £379 million, a £1.1 billion cut in youth services on 2010. I am hugely relieved that, in Birmingham, despite the current challenges for the council, all youth centres will now remain open and be retained by the council or partner organisations. It is a huge testimony to the importance that residents and young people place on these services in our city, and I want to thank everyone who made their voice heard in the recent consultation.

Communities and families have solutions, and they need to be part of the plan for change. I am really excited about the 10-year Young Futures programme the Home Office is working on, as it has the potential to do great things in my city. The creation of a new network of youth hubs is exactly what we need, and I should be grateful if the Minister would meet with me to discuss the provision in Birmingham.

There were 50,000 knife-related crimes in the year to March 2023 across England and Wales, around 5,000 of which were in the West Midlands police force area. I am heartened by the Home Secretary’s categorical commitment that every youngster found carrying a knife will trigger a rapid intervention, including a prevention plan, to stop them reoffending. Identifying those young people before it is too late is half the battle, and when the signs are there, we must act on them. Can the Minister say more about the plans laid out in our manifesto this summer to place youth workers and mentors in A&E and pupil referral units?

I want to pay tribute to brilliant charities, such as Redthread in my patch, which has been working at the Queen Elizabeth hospital for several years. I mentioned Martin Griffiths, a surgeon and clinical director; the work he has pioneered at his A&E as a trauma surgeon is extraordinary. Young people that he had seen many times before would often turn up on his operating table. He realised that A&E admissions were a critical opportunity to intervene. He has a multidisciplinary team at his hospital, based in A&E. Instead of just patching up children and sending them on their way, the team help them to get education, work or somewhere to live. There is mental health treatment and advice on special educational needs, and the police provide protection and support for those who want to get out of a gang. The hospital allows the patients to stay there until it is safe for them to be discharged. The results have been incredible: readmission rates have dropped from 30% to 4%.

Redthread has a similar model and has demonstrated similarly remarkable results. Some 90% of the young people supported by Redthread did not return to hospital for a violence-related injury in the following year, and six months after the intervention 100% of the young people supported said they felt as safe or safer than they did before the incident. Young people who engaged in the full programme were 51% less likely to reattend than those who did not. A cost-benefit analysis showed that for every £1 spent, there was £4.90 of economic and social benefit. Can the Minister say more about the multidisciplinary and multi-agency work to address violence or exploitation?

Finally, we need to crack down on the criminals and routes into serious violence and crime. It baffles me that we still do not have a specific statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. There have been multiple definitions, resulting in a confused, fragmented response by authorities, and investigators have to use laws on modern slavery to punish those coercing or forcing children to move drugs. A new offence of criminal exploitation of children would allow us to go after the gangs that are luring young people into violence and crime. I look forward to working with the Government on their plans to introduce this new law in due course.

I am proud of the swift action the Government have taken to tackle knife crime so far: banning zombie-style blades and machetes, which were used to kill Ronan Kanda in Wolverhampton, setting an ambitious mission to halve knife crime in a decade, and launching a new coalition to tackle knife-enabled crime working together with technology companies, sports organisations and the health service. But there is undoubtedly a lot more to do. When does the Minister hope to bring forward the crime and policing Bill, so that we can move ahead with the Young Futures programme and strengthen those laws?

The message we need to send to young people is one of hope and opportunity—that our society cares about them and that we are invested in them and their futures. Tackling knife crime has always been about prevention and protection as much as prosecution. After 14 years of abject failure by the previous Government on this issue, I am looking forward to working with the Labour Government to deliver change that saves more lives.

14:58

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. Knife crime continues to be a devastating issue across the UK, and the west midlands is no exception. The number of recorded offences—over 3,600 last year, a 6% increase on the previous year—underscores the urgent need for more robust preventive measures. As hon. Members have observed, a return to proper community policing will contribute to making our communities safer.

The tragic murder of my constituent Cody Fisher, a young and promising footballer and PE teacher, in a Birmingham nightclub in December 2022 highlights the devastating impact of these issues on families, friends and the wider community. Cody was fatally stabbed with a smuggled zombie knife, exposing serious failings in venue security. His mother, Tracey, has shown incredible courage in campaigning for Cody’s law, which would mandate bleed control kits and metal detectors in late-night venues—practical, cost-effective measures that would save lives.

Tackling knife crime requires more than reactive measures; we must address its root causes by prioritising investment in youth services, which have been cut to the bone, education in schools, and community-led programmes that offer young people opportunities and alternatives. We also need to tackle the online advertisement and sale of knives to our young people. Cody’s law is an essential step towards reducing knife crime in licensed venues and must be part of a broader strategy to protect young lives and create safer communities. I urge the Minister to adopt the proposal and ensure that no more families endure the senseless loss that Cody’s family suffered.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. Because of the character of the debate, I will prioritise Members from the west midlands. I hope hon. Members from other places will understand that. I think it is reasonable and fair.

15:00

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your premier chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for calling this important debate and for her passionate speech. It is fantastic to hear from both the victims and the perpetrators of these crimes.

As the MP for Halesowen, I am all too aware of the scourge of knife crime across our region. Many people from my constituency still remember the tragic death of Ryan Passey, a promising young footballer from Quarry Bank who was stabbed to death in a nightclub in 2017. Ryan was killed as his assailants were able to carry a knife into the venue without being stopped and with no fear of being caught. It is shocking that no one has been found guilty of his murder. His family are still fighting for justice more than seven years after he was killed.

Since Ryan’s tragic death, knife crime has continued to blight our community. In August last year, three youths attacked and slashed a man on Silverthorne lane in Cradley Heath. In September, students at Leasowes high school were placed under lockdown for their safety after masked youths were seen hanging around outside the school with machetes. The number of young men and boys carrying and using knives with impunity across our communities is deeply worrying. Residents are scared, with many telling me that they no longer feel safe leaving their homes alone. That is unacceptable. People deserve to feel safe in their communities, and students should not have their learning disrupted by threats of violence.

The figures on knife crime in our region are terrifying. Research by the Office for National Statistics shows that the west midlands has the highest rate of knife crime of any region in the country, with more than 5,000 offences reported last year. The rate of knife crime in our region has increased year on year since 2015, and it is now higher than London’s. Worryingly, that seems to be driven by a big increase in children and young people carrying knives. Last year, over 3,200 young people aged 10 to 17 were charged with knife offences, up 20% on a decade ago. As MPs for the west midlands, we should be deeply concerned about those statistics.

The truth is that the situation is a legacy of a poor decisions over the last decade by the Conservative Government—a legacy of cuts to neighbourhood policing and youth services, rising child poverty, and a failing youth justice system that works in the interests of no one. This Government have a moral responsibility to act now to tackle the crisis, and our response requires a multifaceted approach. First, we must focus on preventing weapons from reaching our streets. That means making it harder for young people to access dangerous weapons such as machetes, ninja swords and zombie blades, and I welcome the Government’s new ban on those weapons.

Secondly, the police must have the resources and powers to stop and seize weapons from young people on our streets. I was shocked to learn that the rate of police stop and search in the west midlands is less than half that in London. As we put more bobbies on the beat, police in the west midlands should be using stop-and-search powers more frequently to respond to rising knife crime.

Finally, and most importantly, we need to address the root causes of offending. We must offer young people hope, opportunities and positive alternatives to destructive pathways. The Government’s creation of the Young Futures programme, which includes prevention partnerships across England, is an important step to intervene early and stop young people being drawn into crime. It is also important to act when people come into A&E departments with violent injuries. That is a time when social workers and youth workers should step in and offer pathways away from violent behaviour. There is no room to let people fall through the cracks.

I have seen the impact that knife crime has on our communities. The families of victims like Ryan Passey deserve real action to prevent these tragedies from happening again and again. I am confident that we can work together to prevent more knives from getting on to our streets, to deter people from carrying them, and to make people across the west midlands finally feel safe.

15:05

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

It is an honour and a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. I hope to be somewhat succinct. I echo the sentiments expressed by other hon. Members, but I want to talk about my personal experiences as someone who grew up in an area that has had, historically, the highest deprivation, high crime and a gang culture—the area of Aston.

I grew up in an environment where young lads would hang around on street corners, in the local park or in local shopping centres, and we know the phrase “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”. What was it that allowed me and my siblings, and people closely affiliated with me in my social surroundings, to achieve so much coming out of an area such as Aston? I reflect on my personal experiences, and one of the most important factors that allowed me to remain out of gang culture, not standing on corners or in the local park or shopping centres, was the youth centres.

I had two prominent youth centres within walking distance of my home. One is now called Saathi House, and there was a play centre within Aston park. We had youth workers. I chuckle when I talk about the youth workers that helped steer my life—Fat Phil was the name of one of them, and Sandra was another. They were instrumental, because they took us away from standing on corners, and from the local shopping centres and parks. They took us out on weekend trips. I came from a family that was not wealthy. My father worked 12-hour shifts and I hardly ever saw him, and my mum was very keen to ensure that we stayed on a straight and narrow path. It was the youth centres that took up all my evenings and weekends. It was all the social activities that they took us on that meant we were out of the gang culture, which was rife.

While the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) rightly points out that Birmingham council, although it originally decided to slash youth centres, has now decided to keep them all open, the resources are not being provided—staffing levels are being reduced. I urge the Minister to review what we have in Birmingham. The debate is on the west midlands, but the statistics show that there were 6,185 knife-related incidents in the last three years just in Birmingham.

If we are serious about tackling knife crime, of course prevention is vital, and youth centres are instrumental in that, but we need to resource them appropriately. There is no point having a youth centre where children cannot go to events or play football at a local football stadium because they cannot afford the £7 per child—parents simply do not have that money. Resourcing youth centres adequately is very important, so that they can provide the sort of things that I experienced.

Hon. Members have talked about social media, and I am glad that the Government are taking strident steps to address that aspect, but the online purchase of weapons is critical. It is not just about closing the gap by making sure that Amazon, eBay and other online retailers are held to account; we also need tougher rules and sentences for adults who purchase online and provide weapons to young children. That is important, given what we understand about gang culture and the way that young children can be coerced into that environment.

Police officers and PCSOs are also important. We had community support officers in inner-city areas setting up equipment for football, rugby and cricket. They would be in charge and take young children to local parks and interact with them. It has already been mentioned that we had a significant reduction in police officers and PCSOs. I hope that the additional officers will assist, but they cannot assist if they are not adequately resourced to do the things that can drive young people away from gang culture.

In closing, I again thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich for securing this debate. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take away my personal experiences, and the need for additional resources in Birmingham, especially when Birmingham city council has an enormous deficit of more than £376 million. It simply does not have the resources to deal with this issue, and it requires additional funding from the Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I have got two more west midlanders, and I am relying on them to make time for the Members for Strangford and for Worcester to get in.

15:11

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing the debate.

In 2022-23, the west midlands reported 180 incidents per 100,000 people, giving it the unenviable title of knife-crime capital of the United Kingdom. Knife crime is the leading cause of homicides in England and Wales. Around 11,300 knife crimes occurred in the west midlands between November 2020 and October 2023, and Wolverhampton, where my constituency lies, accounted for 7.6% of those crimes.

I am pleased by the action that the Government are taking, and to see that they have launched a coalition to tackle knife crime, working with the actor Idris Elba and the Elba Hope Foundation. I look forward to seeing how that coalition will work to bring together campaign groups, families of people who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime, young people who have been impacted, community leaders, technology companies, sports organisations, partners in the health service, education and the police, and experts, to try to understand and appreciate what causes young people to be dragged into violence and knife crime. I hope that will provide the evidence to drive Government policy.

I am also pleased that the Government are committed to strengthening the laws around the online sale of knives, and to see the creation of the Young Futures programme, with the new local prevention partnerships, and particularly the creation of a new network of youth hubs. But we need to do more in the west midlands, with the West Midlands police and community initiatives.

We need an increase in neighbourhood teams to carry out specific patrols in knife-crime hotspots at the times of greatest risk. We need to continue the knife amnesty programmes that encourage people to give up their offensive weapons in exchange for avoiding prosecution for possession. In Wolverhampton, 185 weapons were safely deposited, 97 of which were handed in close to the Tabernacle Baptist church in Whitmore Reans in my constituency.

The community initiative to reduce violence will be run in the cities of Coventry and Wolverhampton, funded by the Home Office through the Youth Endowment Fund. It is part of a global initiative seeking interventions with young people involved in violence and connecting them to an exit pathway from gangs. I hope that that will be focused throughout the west midlands.

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for raising the issue of youth clubs, because we must realise the importance of youth clubs and youth services in preventing knife crime. We need to have trusted role models in youth workers, and we need our youth to have activities in a safe, welcoming place where they can exercise their passion and drive and have access to support mechanisms that are provided through proactive strategies.

In my constituency, we have the Way Youth Zone, which has had a positive impact on knife crime prevention by providing engaging activities and programmes; building positive relationships; taking safeguarding approaches; bridging the empathy gap by bridging the gap between young people and law enforcement; and having partnership projects with other organisations. We need to have more of that.

15:15

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I extend my deeply felt thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for bringing forward this important debate. Before I continue, I want to express my deepest condolences to the victims, their families and everyone who has been affected by this devastating crime.

My constituents and I often ask why we have come to this: a situation where we have children murdering children. We have young people who feel they cannot carry on with their everyday lives without carrying some kind of weapon. We have easy online access to such awful, graphic, extreme violence. Tragically, in the west midlands—the knife crime capital of the UK, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss)—that is the reality we face.

In my former role as a deputy headteacher, I saw how schools are in the eye of the storm. I will never forget the devastating impact on our community when two young men were murdered near a school where I worked. It was incredibly sad. Their names were Ronan Kanda and Shawn Seesahai. Innocent lives were taken due to senseless violence. Shawn was only 19 years old. He was walking through a park with his friend. He saw two 12-year-olds sitting on a bench, and they murdered him. It is senseless. Ronan Kanda was mistaken for someone else. At the age of 16, just a few steps away from the safety of his home, he was cruelly murdered. I have seen the courage of Ronan’s mother and sister, Pooja and Nikita, as they fight for change so that no family endures what they endure day in, day out. Their strength humbles me, and I stand with them and with every family affected by these senseless tragedies.

Staff in schools have a motto: “It can happen here.” We are always on high alert, as we know that knife crime can happen anywhere. But we should not be fooled by stereotypes; this is not just about street corners and gang culture. This problem has not been dealt with, so it has diffused into wider society. All communities are at risk and affected to some degree by the dangers of soaring knife crime. We must act not just with stronger enforcement, but by addressing the causes of knife crime. I welcome the new Government’s commitment to prevention, education and engagement, alongside robust enforcement.

When it comes to prevention and education, we all know that education is often the first line of defence. I personally saw the power of programmes that brought mentors with lived experience into schools to show students the real consequences of knife crime. We will invest in early intervention, helping those at risk through targeted support for families, schools and communities.

Secondly, there is the issue of engagement. We know that knife crime often stems from a feeling of utter hopelessness—of being stuck in a rut, with a lack of opportunity, and therefore being vulnerable to the grip of negative influences. I welcome investment in programmes such as the Young Futures programme—a version of Sure Start for teenagers—in youth centres and youth workers and in bringing local services together to offer young people a safe space and better opportunities.

There is also the issue of enforcement. Police must have the resources they need to crack down on knife crime—curfews, enforcement of penalties, drug and alcohol interventions, mental health treatment, and stronger action against the criminal gangs that are drawing young people into this crime. This Government have acted to close the loopholes and get ninja swords, machetes and zombie knives off our streets, but I continue to call on Ministers to work at pace.

Victims of knife crime and their families deserve our unwavering commitment to prevention and change, to create a society in which no young person feels the need to carry a knife.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The winding-up speeches will begin at 3.30 pm.

15:20

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I wish you well, Sir John, as Westminster Hall Chair. I also thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for leading this debate and setting the scene so well.

Knife crime prevention in the west midlands is of course no different from knife crime prevention in Northern Ireland, London, Wales or Scotland. So the issue is prevalent and pertinent to everyone in this Hall, and it is always good to address issues that are pertinent across the whole of this great nation.

We are very much aware of the increase in knife crime. I have listened closely to what hon. Members have said and to their thoughts on how to address these issues. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because she always gives us encouragement in her responses to the questions we ask, and I will ask her a question at the end of my speech.

I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich for sharing experiences from her constituency and for addressing the horrors of knife crime. Knife crime remains a significant concern in the United Kingdom. In the year ending March 2023, there were approximately 50,500 offences involving a sharp instrument—a 4.7% increase on the previous year. The Metropolitan police recorded around 15,000 offences in 2023-24—the highest number since 2019. When we think that that is a four-year high, we grasp just how important this issue is and why it is so important that we speak about it today.

The figures are shocking. Every week—or nearly every day, unfortunately—we seem to hear or read online or in the paper about yet another knife attack. There are many that stick in my head. I always think of the murder of Lee Rigby, the solider who was outside his camp, and of Ben Kinsella. More recently, we had the horrific Southport stabbings, on which there was a statement in the House about an hour ago. Three lovely wee girls at a dance class were killed, and others were severely injured.

The horror of knife crime cannot be underlined enough. It is accepted that Northern Ireland does not have the same problem as other areas of the United Kingdom, but the stats are still shocking and must be addressed properly. In the 12 months leading up to July 2022, there was an 8.4% increase in violence on the year before. There is also data showing that a disturbing percentage of sexual offences in Northern Ireland involve knives or sharp instruments. In 2023-24, the Belfast city police district recorded the highest number of crimes in Northern Ireland—some 33,000. That shows the high prevalence of the crimes we are talking about in urban areas.

In Northern Ireland, attacks on women and girls are unfortunately at the highest level in the United Kingdom. One of the women murdered was Natalie McNally. She was brutally stabbed the week before Christmas 2022. Natalie was 15 weeks pregnant. The Northern Ireland Policing Board has expressed concerns about the prevalence of knife-related crimes. The impact on communities is significant.

I often think about the families. I know that you, Sir John, and others in the Chamber will feel the same compassion at someone’s loss of a loved one as a result of such a violent and horrific crime. It is a grief that one can never get away from, so we must do more to address this issue.

I have a question for the Minister. This issue is her responsibility, and if we are going to address it centrally here at Westminster, how can we better share experiences, push together the legislation and give advice to some of the regional Administrations? I am thinking of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, in particular, as well as the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

I have every hope that we can do more to make our towns, villages and constituencies safer. As always, we must give thanks to the police and the emergency services, who do their bit to save lives and keep people safe in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I hope that knife crime will become a thing of the past, but there is much to do yet.

15:25

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I recently met the young people representing our county in the Worcestershire Youth Cabinet, and they shared with us their priorities, the highest of which, to my shock, was crime and safety. They are very concerned by the issue, and knife crime was at the top of their list of concerns. They suggested actions, and we discussed all the things my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) raised: visible policing, prioritising the restriction of access to knives, and early intervention and education, including restoring youth centres and youth services. However, their key ask was that we do the work to understand the root causes and motivations behind knife crime among young people.

My first takeaway from that conversation was how keen young people are to collaborate on this issue as we start to tackle it. My second takeaway was how important it is that we do not work from assumptions, but really try to understand, from the perspective of young people, what is driving this problem—that we listen to, involve and empower young people. That is all the more important when we realise just how fuelled this issue is by fear, apathy and disenfranchisement.

Young people care deeply about this issue. They are ready to engage, and they deserve a voice. On behalf of the young people in Worcester, I want to echo their call and their offer: let us act urgently at all levels of policing, disrupting and preventing knife crime, but let us, as we do that, put young people at the very heart of that response. We will tackle this issue most effectively when we put our influence, power and resources in their hands, so let us put young people at the centre of what we do as we tackle and end the problem of knife crime.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I thank hon. Members for their brevity and their co-operation in making sure that all colleagues contributed. I want to leave some time for the mover of the motion to speak at the end.

15:27

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate and for her passionate speech. It has been deeply moving to hear from Members across the House about the horrific experiences their constituents have had to endure. It is tragic that the names of so many victims of knife crime have been read out today.

As the House knows, the tragedy caused by the knife crime epidemic is, unfortunately, not confined to the west midlands. Although I represent a constituency in a different metropolitan area, it is key to highlight that these issues blight cities and towns across the country. There is something uniquely challenging and disturbing about the vicious cycle of collapsing communities, poverty and gang violence in our cities. That should unite us across this House in a new-found resolve to tackle the issue head-on.

As a Liberal Democrat spokesperson for London, I am acutely aware of the scale of this epidemic of violence across our capital city. Just two weeks ago, 14-year-old Kelyan Bokassa was murdered on the 472 bus in Woolwich. In my own community, in December 2023, we were devastated by the senseless loss of 17-year-old Ilyas Habibi, who was tragically murdered outside Sutton station. Ilyas was a young man with his entire future ahead of him. He had aspirations, potential and opportunities that a blade cruelly stole from him on that cold winter’s day. My heartfelt thoughts are with his family and friends as they continue to cope with such a heartbreaking loss. It is particularly painful that the alleged killer remains free overseas.

Knife crime in our capital has risen year on year, with more than 14,588 offences recorded in 2023 alone. We have all seen tragic stories of teenagers stabbed to death on buses, in their local highstreets, and outside their schools. No young person in this country should have to live in fear of such violent crime when they leave their home. Parents should not have to worry each day about sending their children into the world, and dread the threat that they may fall victim to a senseless stabbing that would tragically cut short their burgeoning life.

The crisis was not properly addressed by the previous Government, or by the current or past Mayor of London, and must be urgently addressed today. It is encouraging to see the Government take new steps to clamp down on the sale of ninja and samurai swords, and to give the police greater powers to seize and destroy weapons, but there is much more to do and a whole-of-society approach is desperately needed.

One huge step forward, on which the Labour Government need to focus, would be a return to proper neighbourhood policing, where officers are visible and known in their local communities. In my constituency and across London, we are increasingly seeing safer neighbourhood officers being abstracted from their areas to other forces and other parts of London, leading to a significant reduction in the capacity for ongoing proactive policing in our communities. Although the level of abstractions has dropped in my constituency and across Sutton in recent months, they are still a problem.

We have also seen a massive reduction in the number of police community support officers. The number of PCSOs in the Metropolitan police declined by 32% from 2015 to 2023. The data shows that in 2015 there were 1,787 PCSOs, but that number dropped by 572 to only 1,215 in 2023. Although that is a startling statistic, more dramatic were the cuts made under Mayor Johnson. Between 2008 and 2016, PCSO numbers dropped from 4,247 to only 1,626, so under the last Conservative mayor, PCSO numbers were cut to 38% of the level that they were at when he took office. That means that fewer than two in five PCSOs remained after his eight years running the capital.

The failure to protect proper community policing, under both Labour and Conservative administrations in London, is deeply concerning because it undermines the important role that visible policing plays in creating a sense of security and, of course, in deterrence. Research consistently shows that having officers on the beat serves as a powerful deterrent to violent crime, including stabbings, with criminal activity dropping significantly in areas where police are actively engaged and present.

The surge in violent crime only highlights the dangers of reduced police presence in our neighbourhoods. It is extremely concerning to think that the tragic murder of Ilyas occurred just minutes from a police station, outside a busy train station and a packed bus stop—an area where policing should have been as visible and as proactive as possible. That tragic incident, among many others, should be a wake-up call for the Government to get the Metropolitan police to take seriously the scale of the problem of repeated abstractions, and should underscore the importance of maintaining dedicated officers in our communities. We need to ensure that all areas are adequately staffed with officers, who can prevent crime before it happens and respond quickly when needed. Only then will we see a reduction in knife crime.

On the community side, we must not forget that the previous Conservative Government made the problem worse by savagely cutting youth services. Those services are often on the frontline in the war for young people’s hearts and minds; they stand as a buffer between a life of violence and a life of opportunity. Too often those services are derided as a waste of money, or belittled as merely another community project. That is utterly misguided. As Members on both sides of the Chamber have already made clear in this debate, youth services should be recognised for offering a vital public service: early intervention.

When they are well funded, such services are able to fulfil a vital role, alongside the police, schools and other third sector organisations, in developing what we really need: a public health approach to knife crime. That approach—which Liberal Democrats, in London and across the country, have long called for—is the right one. It would mirror the approach that Glasgow took, which has been shown to yield results.

Let us be clear: results in this area are measured in something more important than profit or efficiency; results in this area mean lives saved, lives nourished and lives reinvigorated. A society that stands by and watches youth services wither away is not one that is truly committed to delivering for young people and preventing knife crime. Let us move forward with the renewed conviction that the measure of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable, as we must also remember in the context of young people.

15:34

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, privilege and honour to serve under your chairmanship on this first occasion, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. Hon. Members have shared the horror and pain caused by knife crime, which has been suffered by too many across this country.

The rate of knife crime in the west midlands has been and remains too high. Knife crime is a blight on the region, creating challenges that go beyond injuries or, tragically, fatalities. It undermines communities and leaves people feeling unsafe, and in some cases deters people from going about their daily lives. Any Government would be right to prioritise this issue and they have set a worthy goal in committing to reducing knife crime by 50% in the next decade. Precisely how they intend to achieve that goal remains uncertain, however, and it will require difficult and targeted action.

As many hon. Members will know, the number of offences, excluding fraud and computer misuse, dropped by 50% between 2010 and 2023. The number of fraud and computer misuse offences also dropped by 20% from 2017, when it was first recorded, to 2023, and there were also significant decreases in cases of violence with and without injury. We know, therefore, that substantial reductions in crime are achievable, but the specific challenges posed by knife crime will require tailored solutions. Will the Minister elaborate in greater depth on how the Government plan to achieve that ambitious reduction?

People need to know that when they make the decision to carry a knife, there is a good chance they will be caught and face the full force of the law. Police officers need to know that when they make the decision to stop and search, the state will be on their side. We cannot take knives off the street without trusting, empowering and properly resourcing our police officers. That should include utilising violence reduction units and ensuring that the police are deployed in the right places at the right times using hotspot policing.

Continued funding for serious violence in the police funding settlement is welcome, but it appears to fall short of the £55 million a year previously allocated to the 20 violence reduction units. The last Government outlined plans to increase that by 50% to support preventive interventions. I understand that funding for those initiatives is often drawn from multiple sources. Can the Minister clarify how much funding the units will receive and whether further increases are expected in future years?

There are now more police on the streets than ever before, but police forces have raised concerns that they might need to reduce headcounts over the next year due to funding pressures from the recently announced settlement. That issue has been exacerbated by the increase in employer national insurance contributions, and there are projections that as many as 3,500 officers could be lost. Although the Government have indicated that they will increase the number of neighbourhood police, can the Minister assure us today that total officer numbers will not decline over the coming years? A reduction in officers would pose significant challenges to investigating knife crime and delivering justice.

There are also areas where I hope we can find agreement. The Criminal Justice Bill, which was unable to pass prior to the general election, contained measures to strengthen knife crime legislation, including addressing the sale and use of weapons. One proposal was to increase the maximum penalty for selling knives to those under 18 from six months to two years’ imprisonment. Another was the introduction of a new offence for the possession of a knife or offensive weapon in public or private with the intent to use unlawful violence, which carried a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment. When the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Bill Committee, they expressed full support for the proposals. Do the Government intend to include such measures in upcoming legislation during this Session of Parliament?

Turning to the west midlands specifically, knife crime is undeniably a significant issue. The crime survey for England and Wales, released in October, revealed that 10% of all knife crime occurred in that region. Although there was a small positive development, knife or sharp instrument offences recorded by West Midlands police saw a 1% decrease compared with a 16% increase recorded by the Metropolitan police. Overall levels remain far too high. Indeed, the total number of offences recorded by West Midlands police is still 2% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

It is worth noting that NHS data from September 2024 also shows a small decrease in hospital admissions involving sharp objects or firearms, compared with the previous year, with 10 fewer incidents recorded in the west midlands. However, we all agree that we need further reductions. Both the local police force and the Government must strive to reduce the levels of knife crime in the region.

As hon. Members from the region will recall, the police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy—PEEL—assessment by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services was critical of West Midlands police. Improvements have undoubtably been made since, but there is more to do. One positive example highlighted in the assessment was the force’s use of a knife prediction tool, developed by its data analytics lab. The tool uses three years of data to predict, up to four weeks in advance, where injuries caused by knives are most likely to occur. Measures are then put in place to reduce risks in those areas. Between April and August 2023, compared with the same period in 2022, the force reported a 4.4% reduction in recorded cases of serious youth violence involving knives, and an 11% overall reduction in serious youth violence.

Furthermore, in 2022, West Midlands police benefited from 20,612 additional patrols, funded by the Home Office’s Grip and hotspot policing initiatives. With continued advancements in technology, it is reasonable to expect further gains. Can the Government confirm that they will ensure sustained financial support for those effective policing methods?

Despite those examples of progress, the inspectorate identified areas requiring improvement. One key recommendation was to ensure that officers have the skills and capabilities needed to carry out high-quality investigations. That concern is reflected in the statistics. In the year ending March 2024, 30.1% of offenders who were charged or summonsed for possession of weapons offences nationally were successfully prosecuted. In the west midlands, however, that figure was just 17.4%. Although the figure encompasses various dangerous weapons, knives remain among the most common. How do the Government intend to work with West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that offenders are brought to justice?

Finally, I wish to raise the matter of devolved powers. As hon. Members from the region will be aware, the former Mayor of the West Midlands and the previous Government sought to transfer police and crime commissioner powers. Although that proposal was not supported by the Labour PCC, it raises questions about the Government’s future plans. In the light of the devolution White Paper, does the Minister foresee the mayor assuming the powers of the PCC?

I am confident that the Minister understands the scale of the challenge to reduce knife crime. It is by no means an easy task, so I hope that we can work together in this Parliament to support measures that will take meaningful action to reduce knife crime, not only in the west midlands but across the country.

15:42

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate you on your impeccable chairing of Westminster Hall this afternoon.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this debate, and for her powerful and eloquent opening speech. I am grateful to her and to all the other hon. Members who have contributed. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) has a long-standing interest in the subject, and she highlighted the important work of the James Brindley Foundation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) referred to the Labour party manifesto commitment in July for a mandatory referral to youth offending teams for young people caught carrying knives, which is very important. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) talked about tragic cases in their constituencies.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) talked about his personal experience of youth provision and how important that was in his life. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) talked about the coalition to tackle knife crime, which I will say something about in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) brought her enormous experience as a former deputy headteacher to the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the horror of knife crime and attacks, particularly on women and girls, and the need to work together throughout all the nations to bring together experience of what works. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) made a compelling speech about young people and putting them at the heart of the response to knife crime. I am grateful for all those contributions.

It has been made clear throughout the debate that knife crime is a source of harm, fear and, in the worst cases, unbearable grief. The debate has focused on the west midlands, but the truth is that this issue affects far too many communities across Britain. The stories that we have heard so powerfully today affect families up and down the nation. We have seen that yet again in recent weeks, with a number of fatal stabbings of young people in different parts of the country. We can only imagine what the loved ones of those who have lost their lives will be going through, and all our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives. That is why we described the issue as a “national crisis” in our manifesto, and why, as part of the safer streets mission, which is central to the Government’s plan for change, we aim to halve knife crime within a decade. We have already taken some important steps since the general election. I will touch on those and on further measures we will take as I respond to the points that have been raised.

First, I want to deal with the issue of resources being available to police in the west midlands. For the coming year, the total funding for police forces overall will be up to £17.4 billion—an increase of nearly £1 billion compared with 2024-5. West Midlands police will receive up to £838.4 million in funding in 2025-26—an increase of £48 million compared with the 2024-25 settlement, and 3% more in real terms.

We have talked a lot today about neighbourhood policing and the idea of visible policing being important to our communities. The Government are determined that neighbourhood policing will be rebuilt, and that communities in the west midlands will benefit from our neighbourhood policing guarantee. As constituency MPs, we all know the impact that good neighbourhood policing has on local community confidence and on preventing crime, and that should never be underestimated. Local officers and PCSOs who know their patch are the building blocks of every aspect of policing, be that tackling knife crime, serious or organised crime, or extremist and terror threats. That is why the restoration of neighbourhood policing is at the heart of our plans to reform policing, and why we have committed to delivering an additional 13,000 police officers, PCSOs, and special constables in neighbourhood policing roles.

I also want to refer to violence reduction units, because one of the big challenges in dealing with knife crime is getting all the different agencies together. Violence reduction units have been an essential part of bringing partners together to understand and tackle the drivers of serious violence in their areas, and to deliver a range of early intervention and prevention programmes to support young people away from a life of crime. That includes activity in Coventry and Wolverhampton to support high-risk young people and to connect them with an exit pathway from gangs, violence and county lines. I can confirm that all VRUs have the A&E navigator programmes as part of what they provide locally.

I will move on to the specifics of what the Government have introduced to tackle knife crime. First, we have taken swift action to take dangerous weapons off the streets. We ran a surrender and compensation scheme for zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes between 26 August ’24 and 23 September ’24. Following that, the ban came into force on 24 September and it is now illegal to sell or own those weapons.

Secondly, we ran a consultation between 13 November ’24 and 11 December ’24, seeking views on the legal description of a ninja sword, to help our plans for an effective ban.

Thirdly, we have commenced a review into the online sales and delivery of knives, led by Commander Stephen Clayman, the national policing lead for knife crime. That will identify gaps in the current processes and legislation and the most effective ways to address them. The review will report to the Home Secretary at the end of January, and I very much hear the need for rapid action when that review is produced.

Fourthly, we have consulted on introducing personal liability measures for senior executives of online platforms or marketplaces who fail to take action to remove illegal content relating to knives and other weapons. The consultation was launched on 13 November and closed on 11 December, and we are analysing the responses.

I pay tribute to the coalition to tackle knife crime. We are clear that we will not succeed in our ambition to halve knife crime in isolation. That means working together with those who share our vision for safer communities. That is why, in September, the Prime Minister launched the coalition to tackle knife crime, bringing together campaign groups, families of those who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime, young people who have been impacted and community leaders—all united in their mission to save lives. We are delighted to have representation from the west midlands, with Pooja Kanda, Lynne Baird and Mark Brindley members of the coalition. I pay tribute to all the families who have campaigned so hard in this space and have had to do so for far too long. Having the lived experience of young people is critical to the coalition. We are keen to ensure that they have a platform to share their views, ideas and solutions to make Britain a safer place for the next generation.

That leads me to the next issue: far too many children and young people today face poorer life outcomes, including becoming involved in knife crime, because they are not effectively identified and supported early enough. To address that head-on, we have committed to the creation of the young futures programme, which will establish a network of young futures hubs and young futures prevention partnerships, to intervene early to ensure that that cohort is identified and offered support, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities through the provision of, for example, open access to mental health, mentoring and careers support. Young futures hubs will bring together the support services that tackle the underlying needs of vulnerable children and young people, making the services more accessible to those who need them. Young futures prevention partnerships will bring together key partners in local areas across England and Wales to identify vulnerable children and young people at risk of being drawn into crime, map local youth service provision and offer support in a more systematic way to divert them.

Let me say a few words about knife-enabled robbery. This is another of my top priorities, and it is incredibly distressing and dangerous for victims. Levels of knife-enabled robbery are unacceptably high and have risen by 11% nationally in the past year. That is why I chair a new taskforce on knife-enabled robbery, bringing together chief constables and other criminal justice partners to take urgent action to tackle it. Working with the College of Policing, the taskforce has used the latest data and evidence to establish what works when tackling this crime. I have asked taskforce chiefs to consider how they will implement those insights in their plans.

Through the taskforce, I have heard directly from West Midlands police about what action they are taking locally to combat knife-enabled robbery. Under the leadership of Chief Constable Craig Guildford, the force has bolstered prevention-focused activities in its hotspots, made improvements to how priority offenders are identified and managed, and taken steps to ensure and enhance the quality of investigations. Recent results are very promising, with considerable reductions in offence levels and increasing numbers of suspects brought to justice.

I also want to refer to serious violence reduction orders in relation to stop and search. West Midlands police is one of the four forces piloting serious violence reduction orders. The two-year pilot, launched in April ’23, is due to finish in April this year. Those court orders can be placed on adults upon conviction of a knife or offensive weapons offence. They provide the police with the power to automatically stop and search individuals convicted of knife offences, with the aim of deterring habitual knife-carrying behaviour.

Stop and search is an important tool, but it must be used fairly and effectively. In the 12 months to March ’24, 1,293 offensive weapons and firearms were found by police through stop and search in the west midlands. However, as we know, the tactic often disproportionately affects ethnic minority communities, so it needs to be deployed in a targeted way and with sensitivity. Although the Government welcome reductions in the ethnic disparity and disproportionality of stop and search in recent years, there is more work to do. In the west midlands, black people are still 2.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people.

Another issue that we need to talk about, and which several hon. Members raised, is county lines. To achieve our goal of halving knife crime in a decade, it is essential that we tackle the drugs gangs that drive violence and exploit children into criminality. That is why our manifesto included a commitment to introduce a new offence of child criminal exploitation. County lines is the most violent model of drug supply and a harmful form of child criminal exploitation. The west midlands is one of four urban regions in which we are funding a dedicated task force to close lines, prosecute violent offenders and safeguard vulnerable people. Last month, West Midlands police took part in the national week of intensification targeting county lines gangs, and it achieved excellent results, making over 80 arrests, safeguarding more than 90 children and 20 vulnerable adults, and taking dozens of dangerous bladed weapons off our streets.

I repeat my earlier thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich and all who have participated in this debate. Whatever side of the House we sit on, and whatever our constituency, this issue matters deeply to us and the people that we represent. We all have a responsibility to do everything in our power to tackle the scourge of knife crime.

15:56

[Sarah Coombes]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I appreciate the very moving contributions from everyone in the room.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), talked about the James Brindley Foundation and the “Knife Angel”, which we also had in Sandwell. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) said that this is a public health crisis, which it absolutely is. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) talked about Cody’s law, which she has been campaigning for. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) talked very movingly about the terrible case of Ryan, who was also killed in a nightclub.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) talked about the importance of youth clubs and his experience growing up in Aston. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) talked about the west midlands being the knife crime capital of England; we need to change that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) talked about her experience in school and the impact it can have when there are horrendous incidents nearby, such as those involving Ronan and Shawn.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked powerfully about the impact on women and girls of knives being used in sexual violence and the case of Natalie, which is extremely tragic. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) talked about the importance to young people in his area of tackling violence.

I appreciate everything that the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), said as well. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) talked about welcoming the commitment to reduce knife crime by 50%, which is good—although our views on the figures about police in this country differ.

I appreciate the Minister talking about how one of the top missions of this Government is to make our streets safer. That is about putting more resources into policing and about how we get those knives off our streets. I am glad that we are reviewing every bit of the current legislation and looking at the gaps regarding online retailers and how people are still getting these knives. Personal liability for the people who are selling them is absolutely essential. I am also glad about the work of Idris Elba and others around the coalition to tackle knife crime. It was great that the Prime Minister welcomed that coalition to the Cabinet table in September to tackle this issue.

If we fulfil our commitment to halving knife crime in a decade, the rewards will not just be lives saved, but higher levels of trust in our communities, streets that feel safer and town centres that are more successful. The prevention of knife crime is not easy. There are no quick fixes for this, but it is our duty to try.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the prevention of knife crime in the West Midlands.

Welfare of Doctors

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the welfare of doctors.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Our NHS is described as “broken”. Gigantic waiting lists; ambulance delays; collapsed confidence that the NHS is there when we need it; poor access to general practice, dentistry and pharmacy; and, disgracefully, falling life expectancy in some places—these are all failures of the last Government, who could not look after the NHS despite record funding. Labour must mend the NHS; we have no choice. We invented the NHS. We fixed it before and we will fix it again.

In this debate, I speak about the people who work in the NHS. There are nearly 1.5 million of them, all contributing in their own way, but let me speak specifically about our doctors. Doctors in this country are in crisis. They are leaving the profession, retiring too soon and emigrating. Who is looking after our doctors? I come to this place as a surgeon. I am one of the very few surgeons ever elected to Parliament.

My dad was an RAF medic, who served in Aden in world war two before joining the newly invented NHS in 1948. He became a consultant physician in Teesside, where I grew up, and then a professor of geriatric medicine in Melbourne. He wrote an excellent account of his life called “New Ideas for Old Concerns”, which is full of fascinating accounts of his medical experiences during the war and later in the new NHS. It was a time of such hope and optimism, and I sincerely wish that we will be able to recreate that hope today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand about bringing up an issue that I think is important. I commend him on securing this debate, as the welfare of doctors is so important. He will be aware that GPs in Northern Ireland pay the highest indemnity costs in the United Kingdom, and that adds to the primary workforce pressures. The Medical Defence Union is working with the Government in Northern Ireland to find a long-term solution. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that support would help the Northern Ireland Executive to address this issue and get our GPs and doctors in Northern Ireland on par with those here?

[Peter Prinsley]

I will speak of general practice shortly. My son is an A&E doctor here in London, and I am therefore one of three generations of doctors who have served the NHS continuously since it began; the welfare of doctors is personal for me. This Government have already done much for doctors, who are on the frontline and not the picket line for the first time in several years, but burnout, fatigue and stress are still very real problems that threaten to undermine the efficacy of our NHS.

Today’s new doctors graduate into the profession with debts of nearly £100,000. They immediately enter a lottery to be appointed to their first jobs as pre-registration doctors, sometimes ending up miles away from family and friends in places they have never visited before. Now that reminds me of another job that I just started. Young doctors are left immediately responsible for life-and-death decisions, sometimes with insufficient support. They are left scrabbling at the very last minute for somewhere to live—the on-call accommodation that my generation remembers has disappeared—and I have known several of them to sleep in their cars.

It has not escaped my notice that the new name for junior doctors is “resident doctors”. Resident doctors? That is the very last thing they are. If they are lucky, there is a place for them to rest, but many a time I have arrived to find a young doctor fast asleep from exhaustion at an office desk.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Given the desperate need for more doctors in the NHS, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be looking after doctors’ welfare to encourage more people to enter the medical profession?

[Peter Prinsley]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as he will see.

There are odd shifts, night duties without hot food, and days and weeks that go by without an opportunity to meet supervising consultants. Short clinical attachments mean that the relationships previously created with senior mentors are rare. Just last week, I received an email from a surgeon who was my consultant in 1986. He had noticed in a surgical journal that I had become an MP, and I remembered him as the brilliant surgeon that he was. These are the relationships that make people feel as if they belong within a wider profession, but I doubt whether the young trainees of today would have the chance to make such lasting connections.

There is little security of employment, because doctors are obliged to apply every year or two for another post, probably in another place. The doctors’ mess used to be a place where young doctors could find a sort of surrogate family in an unfamiliar place, but that is now sadly a thing of the past. According to research from the British Medical Association, fewer than 10% of UK trusts or health boards offer hot food after 11 o’clock at night.

The demands of the job affect relationships. Many young doctors are in relationships with fellow doctors, but lucky indeed are the couple who can work and live in the same place, or even contemplate raising a young family together. Sadly, relationship difficulties and breakdowns are commonplace. Holidays must be taken at odd times, and rotas are inflexible. Doctors are left unable to take a day off to attend a wife’s graduation, a sister’s wedding or even their own wedding—all true.

Progression in a chosen career depends on a multitude of competitive interviews and hugely costly professional exams. There is no security of employment. In a survey called “Fight Fatigue” conducted by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, 50% of respondents said that they had had an accident or a near miss when driving home after a night shift—I recall fatalities like this in my own hospital; 84% were too tired to drive home after a night shift; and only 64% had access to any rest facilities. What would we say if the same were true of airline pilots, to whom anaesthetists are sometimes compared?

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Last week I met with a GP in my constituency, and she described very much what the hon. Gentleman is talking about: at the end of the day, after blitzing through 25 patients, back to back, she sometimes found herself sitting in her car, simply too tired to drive home for half an hour. Does he agree that we are expecting too much of our medical staff in relying on their dedication to go beyond the call of duty?

[Peter Prinsley]

I agree with exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.

In a recent survey, 29% of hospital doctors said they were unable to take any breaks at all during the working day; for GPs, the figure rose to 40%. That is simply not safe, for either doctors or patients. In a 2023 survey conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons, half of respondents cited poor working conditions as the main challenge in their job. It is no wonder that so many colleagues are retiring too soon. The average age for a radiologist to leave the NHS is now 56, yet we are desperately short of these vital specialists. This is happening across many specialties. Just in 2023, 23,000 English doctors left the profession prematurely.

We cannot afford to lose our most experienced doctors. Too often they are discouraged from continuing in practice by a bureaucratic and costly appraisal and revalidation process, and they simply throw in the towel. Their experience is a vital asset to the NHS, and we must think carefully about how we retain them or return them to the workforce. One solution will be to create simple routes for experienced doctors to practise flexibly.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Langport surgery, in my constituency, is in the all too common position of struggling to attract and retain staff because of stretched budgets that limit its ability to offer attractive terms and conditions to those working in these challenging roles. Does he agree that the recruitment and retention crisis—particularly facing rural GPs—is negatively impacting doctors’ welfare, and that urgent steps must be taken to address that?

[Peter Prinsley]

I agree completely with the hon. Member, which will be no surprise.

The training of doctors is under threat. I spoke in the House about how cash-strapped universities are issuing redundancy notices to clinical professors, with no real plan on how to teach the increasing number of medical students or to continue the vital medical research for which our country has such a strong reputation. There was a 31% decline in the number of clinical academics in the country between 2004 and 2022. Something must be done about that.

Our GPs are under pressure as never before. Who is looking out for them? They face massive lists of patients and huge demands. We know that we must support them, for they are the front door of our NHS.

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

I thank the hon. Member for his articulate and persuasive statement. In my constituency, we have surgeries such as the Al-Shafa medical centre, which has more than 6,000 patients. Given the pressure on the NHS, more work, such as basic analysis and experiments relating to cardiovascular disease and so forth, now needs to be done in local surgeries. Does the hon. Member agree that when such GP practices have the additional burden of paying increased national insurance, there need to be more methods, or maybe redirection of income, so that they can sustain their great work in constituencies?

[Peter Prinsley]

I agree that we must put resources into general practices to deal with the Government’s plan to move care from the hospital out into the community. I am sure that needs to be addressed.

The partnership model, which has served us so well, is now surely threatened as fewer young GPs are prepared to take on the responsibility or the financial risk of general practice.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate, which I feel could have been easily extended beyond a mere 30 minutes. On the pressure and responsibility for GPs looking to become partners, I cite the example of Silverdale practice in Burgess Hill in my constituency. In December and January, it had a problem with the sewers being blocked up, which resulted in contaminated water coming up into the surgery and car park. The point is that it has taken weeks to get support from the NHS; the pressure on those GP partners and practice managers must be huge. Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be more support for GPs who are prepared to take on the responsibilities of a partnership?

[Peter Prinsley]

I do agree. I believe that the Government intend to do something about the somewhat terrible state of GP premises; the Health Secretary confirmed that only yesterday.

There are serious questions about the support that individual GPs receive, especially for mental health. At present, GPs rely on the NHS practitioner health service for addiction and mental health support.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

We should not be looking to the old saying “Physician, heal thyself” within our national health service. It is critical that the practitioner health service should be available across all parts of the United Kingdom; the hon. Member may not be aware that it is not currently available in Northern Ireland. Would he encourage the Government to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that all our health professionals get the same standard of care that they want to give their patients?

[Peter Prinsley]

I was not aware that the practitioner health service was not available in Northern Ireland; I certainly agree that it ought to be.

The practitioner health service was designed to be used by only 0.5% of GPs, but in fact it is accessed by 10 times that number. Ensuring that such services are fully funded will be important. There is alcohol and drug abuse, loneliness, depression, insomnia, anxiety and, sadly, suicide—including two of those who I graduated with from Sheffield, both in their very first year of medicine; and two doctors, a psychiatrist and a neurosurgeon, from my own road in Norwich. One of my own trainees was rescued at the last minute from a very serious attempt. All doctors know of this problem, but few speak of it.

Last week, I informed the House of my former student who described the terrible flashbacks and post-traumatic stress disorder of the young clinical intensive therapy unit staff who witnessed 40 or 50 covid admissions die at a hospital in Yorkshire, and the complete lack of support they received. Many are reluctant to seek help and do not know where to turn. Itinerant junior doctors not registered with GPs are known to self-medicate. We simply cannot leave them on their own.

In conclusion, I will respectfully make some suggestions, which have little or no cost implications. In making them, I am thinking especially of our resident doctors. They include to provide identified mentors, not simply people called educational supervisors; simplified contracts, transferable across trusts and between hospitals; clear, early information for doctors about what they will be paid and their rotas, timetables and holidays; hot food at night, and places to rest and sleep; to cover exam fees and make examinations fair and achievable; and to provide parking at the hospital and, crucially, a GP for every doctor and simple access to mental health support.

Medicine is a brilliant career—satisfying, interesting and rewarding. Let us look after the doctors who look after us.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

May I ask the Minister to finish a little before 4.30 pm so that I can put the Question?

16:16

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I will of course adhere to your instruction, Sir John.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for bringing this important topic to the House. I know it is close to his heart, as a working doctor. I thank him for his continued dedication to the NHS, as a surgeon and an MP, and I thank his family, too, for their dedication to it. We welcome the knowledge and expertise that he has already brought us, and he has done so again powerfully today. What a lovely memento he has of his own father’s service.

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the incredible role that resident doctors play in our NHS. We absolutely recognise the challenges that they face as they progress through postgraduate training. We are committed to giving them the support that they need to develop and thrive in the NHS. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the welfare of doctors. Let me acknowledge, as I know he would, the tireless professionalism and dedication that all health professionals show across the NHS daily.

The NHS is broken, but we have a plan to fix it. In his investigation into the state of the NHS last year, Lord Darzi identified that this Government have inherited an NHS that is in serious trouble, with record waiting lists, people struggling to see their GP, and quality of care often lagging behind other countries. He found that too many staff are disengaged, that levels of sickness absence are worryingly high, and that many people working in the system are still exhausted from the pandemic and its aftermath, which has resulted in

“a marked reduction in discretionary effort across all staff groups.”

The Government completely agree with that assessment. We are on a mission to fix our broken NHS by driving fundamental reform to bring our analogue health service to the digital age. Through our 10-year health plan, we will cut waiting lists, reduce waiting times and get the health service delivering for patients and staff once again. Those ambitions will be possible only thanks to the hard-working staff, so it is essential that doctors and others are properly valued, supported and looked after at work.

Employers across the NHS play a pivotal role in looking after doctors. Strong and effective leadership is fundamental to building a healthy organisational culture and too many NHS organisations are falling short in that regard. I have been shocked to hear stories, some of which we have heard again today, about the lack of support received by resident doctors, whether on shift patterns and rota changes, access to rest breaks while on duty, or really basic things that we should expect from any employer, such as hydration and the provision of decent food. We have heard about people sleeping in cars and not being able to go to a close relative’s wedding or to be the best person at their best friend’s wedding. It is unbelievable, really, and it cannot continue. It has to improve. We expect better from trusts and employers and we will make sure that that happens.

We brought an end to the industrial action by resident doctors that was impacting the NHS’s ability to deliver a good-quality service and having such a corrosive effect on the morale of the workforce. As part of that deal, resident doctors and dentists in training received an average uplift of just over 4% into the 2023-24 pay scales, on top of the average 8.8% uplift they received for 2023-24. The Government have committed to improve the current exception reporting process, and to work in partnership with the BMA and other health organisations to review the current system of training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket highlighted, and rotational placements. That is in addition to the work being undertaken by NHS England to improve working lives.

We want to work with the unions on the key issues that doctors face on the frontline, and improve their working lives. That applies to all NHS staff. For example, we are working at the moment with the BMA resident doctors committee to improve the exception reporting process. We know that is important to residents, and we agreed to address it as part of their pay deal.

It is vital that we look after the health and wellbeing of the whole NHS workforce. High-quality care and support for patients cannot be effectively provided without a compassionate and inclusive working environment. My hon. Friend listed a number of actions, some of which are more easily addressed than others. We would expect many of them to be included as part of a supportive culture in trusts. I accept that some are more challenging and involve discussions with NHS England, the Government and trusts, but I do not think that many are beyond local trusts and systems, working with the profession, to resolve.

The mental health of doctors and all NHS staff is incredibly important. We saw the strain and trauma placed on staff during the pandemic. They do so much for patients, and we owe it to them to ensure that they are properly supported in return. The NHS offers occupational health and wellbeing services for staff when they need them, but provision can be patchy. There is a drive to improve the quality of those services across the NHS. Not only can that reduce sickness absence and improve retention, but proactive and preventive occupational health can lead to improvements in productivity and, in the long run, save taxpayers money.

Access to specialist mental health support is important. I know that services such as the practitioner health programme, which we have heard about this afternoon, are highly valued by many doctors. NHS England is currently reviewing the mental health and wellbeing support available across the NHS, and looking at how it can be made more equitable and sustainable. There is no doubt that we need to continue to improve the mental health support available to NHS staff, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that review. NHS England is also moving forward with a joint initiative with NHS charities to invest £10 million in health and wellbeing initiatives for staff. That will provide grants for better facilities and invest in improved wellbeing support.

I want to make a point about violence, which I do not think my hon. Friend particularly highlighted in his speech. Sadly, the threat of violence in the workplace is another thing that NHS staff are dealing with, as we saw in last week’s horrific assault in Oldham—I extend my wishes to the nurse and her family for a speedy recovery, as I know we all do. I reiterate that the Government take a zero-tolerance approach to that type of behaviour. Doctors, nurses and all healthcare workers are the backbone of our NHS and should be able to care for patients without any fear of violence or abuse.

At a national level, NHS England is focused on improving workplace experience, with the NHS people promise and the NHS retention programme addressing the issues that matter to staff, whether that be improving opportunities for flexible working, tackling racism and discrimination, preventing and reducing violence in the workplace, or improving facilities so that staff have the basic opportunity to rest and recover. Resident doctors face many challenges as they progress through postgraduate medical training, as my hon. Friend outlined. Expanding access to less than full-time training, rationalising and reforming statutory and mandatory training, and increasing choice and flexibility in rota management are just some of the things we are looking to do to improve their working lives.

We are also working with NHS England to support the GP workforce, including with measures to boost recruitment, to address the reasons why doctors are leaving the profession and to encourage them to return to practise. The NHS is working to address training bottlenecks, so that there are enough GPs for the future and patients can get the care they need. We have provided £82 million of additional funding for 2024-25 to address GP unemployment and support the recruitment of more than 1,000 new GPs.

In conclusion, through the 10-year plan, we are engaging widely with staff, patients and the public and listening to their views on how we need to reform and modernise the NHS. That applies equally to the NHS as an employer. Our ambition is for the NHS to become a modern, innovative and supportive employer. That is a necessity if we are to continue to attract and retain skilled and experienced professionals, give them the support they deserve as they care for the nation, and build a robust and resilient NHS. I look forward to working with NHS England. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will bring great expertise to this work in the House, as will Members more broadly, to make it a reality.

Question put and agreed to.

16:24

Sitting suspended.

Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of re-opening hotels for asylum seeker accommodation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and a privilege to speak in this Chamber on an issue that is important to the British public and that needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see that colleagues from both sides of the House have made time to discuss an issue that is emblematic of the failure in our current immigration system. The failure is, I concede, one of both sides, but it is worsening under the latest Government.

This issue cuts through to the public because it is so visible. These are not—

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but there are Divisions in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first Division and an additional 10 minutes for each further Division. There are to be three Divisions, so we will return in 35 minutes.

16:31

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

17:05

On resuming—

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The sitting is now resumed and can continue until 6.5 pm. I will call the Front Benchers to speak at 5.43 pm.

[Jack Rankin]

It is a privilege to speak on an issue that I know is important to the British public and needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see colleagues here from all sides of the House.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that there are no Members from the Government Benches here to take part in this debate?

[Jack Rankin]

I was trying to be generous in my remarks, but I think the point has been made for the record.

This issue is emblematic of the failure of our current immigration system. I will accept, for the Minister, that this is a failure of both sides of the House, but I would say that it is deteriorating under the new Government. The issue cuts through with the public because it is so visible. These are not detention centres in specific coastal areas or on the fringes of our towns. They are often hotels at the very heart of our communities throughout the country—north, south, east, west, rich and poor. Constituents can see how their taxes are being misspent and how their borders are being mismanaged, and they mark the state’s homework. Why are we allowing tens of thousands of people to enter this country illegally each year? Why are we entertaining a farcical so-called asylum system benefiting only those who break the law, and lawyers funded by taxpayers?

Datchet is a lovely Thameside village in my constituency, of about 4,000 people. At its heart is an old-fashioned village green with a church, a pub and—unusually for a village that size—a hotel. The hotel is enabled by Windsor castle being less than a mile and a half away. Datchet sits on the north bank of the Thames, and literally just the other side of the river is Home Park, the private area of Windsor castle, where both Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales live. In November that hotel—the Manor hotel—was reopened at great public expense to 85 “single adult males” who in my view are illegal economic migrants. If they are in such a location as Datchet, a mile from Windsor castle, then they are everywhere.

The Manor hotel is just one of 14 asylum hotels that have opened since the election, evidence of Labour’s broken manifesto pledge to close such hotels. With 220 hotels around the country now being used for such asylum accommodation, I am told that one in three Members of Parliament will be dealing with this problem. That shows just how endemic it is. This reopening was thrust upon my constituents with just 24 hours’ notice. Commandeering hotels at such notice without consultation requires some efficiency. Just imagine if that pace and efficiency could be used to deport these very migrants.

That is to say nothing of the detrimental effect such a change can have on local pride and community cohesion. With 85 adult men in a small village of 4,000 with no warning and no information provided about who they are and where they came from—if any vetting at all has been done—my residents, and the constituents of Members across the House, are right to be concerned. When the hotel was previously open for a public meeting, residents raised numerous concerns about antisocial behaviour associated directly with the hotel, including verbal abuse, public defecation and the photographing of children outside schools. These are the real-life impacts of this effective asylum amnesty.

I have since pressed the Minister in the main Chamber to provide my constituents with a timescale for the ending of the misuse of the Manor hotel, but my question was brushed aside, as many similar questions posed by colleagues on this topic have been.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He touched upon the lack of notice that was given to his constituents, and that is certainly what I have experienced with the Roman Way hotel in my constituency. There is a lack of information forthcoming from the Government. He refers to numbers of 220 hotels—14 of those opened since the election, but that figure had to be forced out of the Government by an urgent question. Does my hon. Friend hope that the Minister will be open about how many hotels have been opened since the general election, the total number and, most importantly, when they are going to be closed?

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I am sure the Minister takes note of his questions. My view is that yes, the public simply deserve transparency on this issue. The men individually cannot really be blamed; they are acting, arguably, in their own best interests, but we, collectively, are the fools for putting a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow—we need to remove it.

Ultimately, to stop the use of asylum hotels we need to stop the boats, and there is only one way to do that—deterrent, deterrent, deterrent. Nobody who comes to this country illegally should be able to claim asylum. France is a safe country. They should be arrested immediately and deported within days to their country of origin or a safe third country. With the correct political will, it really is as simple as that, but Labour scrapped the deterrent before it could even begin.

Instead we have an incentive system that, at every step, encourages illegal economic migrants to chance their arm. For example, smuggling gangs know that they can equip migrants with unseaworthy vessels because they know they will be picked up by the British authorities before they sink. Migrants know that once they land, armies of lawyers and campaign groups will fight to keep them here while they are housed in hotels and given an allowance for the trouble. The latest data shows that a staggering 66% of those arriving on small boats are granted asylum. We have a system that works against the interests of the British people.

The Labour Government say they want to smash the gangs and end the backlog by recruiting caseworkers, but without deterrents those commitments are meaningless—the flow will continue. The Minister admitted—in my view—the futility of smashing the gangs when she described it as playing whack-a-mole. The Conservatives spent years trying to do the same, and although we made progress on cutting crossings from Albania—note, with deportation—the wider problem remained. Repeating the same exercise and expecting a different result is madness.

While the initial cost of housing is funded nationally, when that asylum is granted that cost—in my understanding—falls on the local authority. Could it not be the case that the extra caseworkers provided by the Government will simply be rubber-stamping asylum claims to cut the backlog, but then simply transferring the cost to another one of the taxpayer’s pockets through social housing benefits and the welfare state? Increased processing simply means more asylum cases granted, and pushed and smeared into the welfare state. One of my local councils, the Lib Dem-run royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, has recently asked to increase council tax by 25%; how can it be expected to find extra resource for 85 illegal economic migrants entering our welfare system?

In the main Chamber, the Minister celebrated processing 11,000 decisions a month. The approval rate last year was 52%, which could mean as many as 66,000 illegal economic migrants granted asylum and entering our welfare system every year.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we have more people processing these claims, and we process these claims even quicker, more people will come? That is actually a pull factor, because they can get through the system much more quickly than they have been.

[Jack Rankin]

I agree wholeheartedly, and that is why I have broadened my remarks. To talk about cutting the backlog is not of interest to me, if that simply means processing people into the welfare system. That is getting a number down artificially. We need to stop people entering the top of the funnel, as it just becomes a problem elsewhere.

In 2010, the approval rate for asylum cases was 26%—so we have seen an unprecedented rise in the acceptance of these cases. I will also note that in 2010, hotels right across this country, including in my constituency, were used to house tourists rather than asylum shoppers. I appreciate that the Minister has provided a March target for closing nine hotels, but with 23,000 individuals crossing on small boats since the Government were elected—up 29% on the previous year—where will those new arrivals go? We will have to wait for the summer, when small boat crossings are at their highest, to truly measure any progress.

Whilst I am sure we would all welcome the closure of asylum hotels in our constituencies, I am concerned that the Government are simply transferring this problem to other parts of the state, and that also hides the issue from the public and fails to tackle the root cause. At my most recent surgery, a constituent told me that her son was being served notice by her private landlord because the local authority was able to offer landlords much more for private rented accommodation to house illegal economic migrants who have just been processed. They are simply being passed into the welfare system and a taxpayer is being displaced, with the housing benefit being provided to a foreign citizen. That is a truly stark warning. It is my fear that the Government’s current proposals in this area, including extra caseworkers, are a surface-level solution to a deeper underlying problem.

I ask the Minister to address the concerns outlined in my speech, including by providing the latest update on the closure of hotels, particularly the Manor hotel in Datchet, her plans for bringing in deterrence, and an update on the impact of approving hundreds of thousands of claims on the welfare state up and down the land.

17:16

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. My comments today need to be viewed in the context of my interest as a local councillor.

My constituents in Broxbourne have borne the brunt of this policy in recent years. I hear loud and clear on the doorstep how angry they feel. The Home Office took control of the Marriott hotel in Cheshunt in 2022. It was just one of three hotels in my constituency at the time. In my general election campaign, I said I would fight daily to ensure that the hotel was closed to asylum seekers; and when I was leader of Broxbourne council, I fought tooth and nail to prevent another two sites within my constituency being used as asylum accommodation. The hotel in Cheshunt has since supported one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers in the east of England, while Hertfordshire as a whole was the individual council with the most hotels housing asylum seekers in 2023.

The situation we are discussing is plainly unsustainable, with millions of pounds a day being spent on these hotels across the country. My constituents have been feeling the impact on already overstretched public services. You cannot get your child into the school you want and you have to wait longer to see a GP locally.

I welcomed the actions that the last Government took to reduce reliance on asylum hotels, but there is no getting around the fact that my party made mistakes. However, it is definitely getting worse under this new Labour Government. Ultimately, it is only by deterring people from coming to the UK illegally in the first place that we will be able to get a grip on the asylum system and the immigration system. The Labour manifesto promised to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers, but the Government have been more focused on delivering promises that were not in their manifesto: increasing national insurance on business, imposing the family farm tax and stripping winter fuel payments from pensioners.

I am seriously disappointed that, in January 2025, we are discussing the reopening of hotels for asylum seeker accommodation. There were 35,651 people in hotel accommodation at the end of September, up 21% from the end of June 2024. That is a 21% increase since Labour was elected on a manifesto commitment to end the use of asylum hotels. The downward trend that was started by the last Government has been reversed, and since the general election, 14 more hotels have been taken over for the purpose. Hotels were supposed to be a temporary measure, but they are starting to feel anything but temporary to my residents in Broxbourne. The Minister has said that nine hotels are scheduled to close by March, but I have my doubts that the Government will meet that commitment.

The Government have failed to take the necessary steps to deter the number of asylum seekers coming to this country illegally in the first place. Small boat crossings are up since July, and so are the number of cases awaiting a decision in the asylum backlog. I urge the Minister to put the words “smash the gangs” into action by getting a proper deterrent in place, ensuring that every failed asylum seeker is removed, closing all the asylum hotels and significantly cutting immigration.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I should have said before the previous speaker that if Members wish to speak, they need to bob.

17:20

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate.

Illegal migration, an often overlooked issue in the country, was frequently raised on the doorsteps of Mid Leicestershire during the recent general election campaign. I am sorry to say that the last Conservative Government failed to make significant progress in this area, but as the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, the dreadful Labour Government are doubling down on the mistakes of the past. At the general election, the Labour party promised to smash the gangs and reduce the number of hotels used as asylum accommodation. Let me ask the Minister, how is that going?

The vile gangs profiteering from the exploitation of vulnerable people remain firmly in operation, the camps in Calais are still run by criminal networks and hundreds of illegal migrants are crossing the English channel daily, all while the UK Government seem to be sitting idly by and doing very little about it. Instead of reducing the use of hotels for asylum seekers, the Government have actually increased their number. Communities are forced to accept those hotels with little to no consultation, creating significant community tensions and leaving local authorities to foot an enormous bill. Astonishingly, the Government have compounded the already dire situation, so let us look at the numbers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) said a moment ago.

Since 5 July, nearly 20,000 people have crossed the English channel, which is a 23% increase on the same period in 2023. For a Government that pledged to smash the gangs, those figures are nothing short of an abject failure. Indeed, the National Crime Agency has said that without a deterrent, the numbers are likely to rise.

Under the Labour Government, 220 hotels across the UK are now being used for asylum seeker accommodation. Without seeking to pre-empt the Minister’s response, I suspect that she will tell us that the Government are likely to reduce that number by the end of March. How can my constituents trust the Government? Migrant numbers are rising and the Government have no credible plan beyond the slogan to “smash the gangs”. The costs keep going up: the taxpayer is now footing a £3.1 billion bill to house 35,000 illegal migrants. That is a slap in the face to the millions of pensioners who recently lost their winter fuel payments.

Within Mid Leicestershire, two of the three boroughs that straddle my constituency have more than 245 illegal migrants housed there. Those migrants are costing the hard-pressed taxpayers of my constituency £35,000 a day—more than £12 million a year. The impact on the local economy is equally damaging, because hotels that once supported our villages and brought in tourism revenue are now closed to the public. Local jobs have been lost and, worst of all, communities feel deceived and disempowered by the Home Office’s lack of transparency.

The Minister will no doubt attempt to shift the blame to other parties, but let us be clear: the situation has worsened under the Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, has said, we need to have a serious conversation about the UK’s continued membership of the ECHR. Leaving the ECHR would give us the tools to take back control of our borders and challenge the influence of left-wing activist lawyers who undermine efforts to enforce robust immigration measures.

Deterrence works. Australia has proven that with its own deportation schemes, which dramatically reduced illegal migration. Laughably, even Germany is now using the framework established in the Rwanda scheme developed by the last Government, yet our Government clearly lack the political will to follow in the footsteps of those successes. The Government have also decided to double the length of time that asylum seekers can stay in hotels from 28 to 56 days. That single policy change adds £4,000 to the bill of accommodating each migrant, and it must be reversed, particularly if the Government hope to close more hotels. My constituents in Mid Leicestershire should be under no illusion that this dreadful Government are making things worse. They have no plan, they have no credibility and they have no commitment to solving this spiralling crisis. It is time for action.

17:25

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing this important debate. As a Conservative, I firmly believe that people who enter our country illegally have no right to stay here. We need to have strong borders, we need an effective deterrent to stop people making what is often a perilous journey, and the Government must take all possible steps to drive down numbers of illegal crossings.

I am not going to repeat all the numbers that have been cited, because I think people, in this House or in the country at large, are aware of the scale of the issue. We have seen numbers go up as a direct result of the Government’s decision to scrap the Rwanda deterrent and repeal the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which prevented those who came to the UK from claiming asylum. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor that more than 60% of them are granted asylum and leave to remain. That increase in the numbers means that Labour has increased the number of hotels open since the election—I think the number cited was 14.

Communities across the country, including mine in Bromsgrove, have a legitimate fear that hotels are going to emerge in their area, where people have not previously seen the benefits of such accommodation being used to house illegal migrants pending the processing of their applications. The reopening of such hotels is a political choice by the Government—they chose to do that; they did not have to. They could have chosen to use alternative accommodation sites, including military barracks or the Bibby Stockholm barge. They also chose to repeal tough legislation to protect our borders.

Bromsgrove has hosted asylum hotels in the recent past. Fortunately, it does not at the moment, but there have been three instances in recent years.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Constituents in South East Cornwall have expressed concern about the use of a hotel in the Fowey valley. Does the hon. Member agree that it is essential for asylum seekers to be housed appropriately where facilities are available and where infrastructure exists to avoid undue strain on local communities?

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the appropriateness of the location. We all recognise that hotels are often based in rural areas or in an economy without any relevant services nearby, which is wholly inappropriate.

To return to the broader question of the Government’s approach to dealing with illegal migration, I am grateful that, in Bromsgrove, every one of the unsuitable sites that was previously used is no longer in use. There is a more fundamental point, however, about fairness to the UK taxpayer.

Successive Governments have tended to view people as an economic unit, but they cherry-pick the category of person they define either as a net economic contributor or as a draw on the economy. Students, for instance, go through university and accrue student debt, which is a debt to society that will be repaid after graduation when they are net economic contributors. When illegal migrants arrive in the UK, however, a financial accrual starts ticking that includes everything to do with the cost to the state of processing applications, the cost of hotel accommodation and the cost to the UK taxpayer of giving them an allowance to spend while they are out and about in the communities where they are residing.

On the point about fairness, that does not feel equitable to many of my constituents and, I am sure, many constituents across the country. It strikes me as perverse that students accrue debt while they are at university and, when they become economic contributors, that is drawn down through the PAYE—pay-as-you-earn—system from their earnings, yet we allow a seemingly bottomless pit of funds to accrue as a debt to be absorbed by the UK taxpayer. Why do the Government not explore a scheme whereby, if asylum seekers are deemed to be genuinely in fear and are allowed to integrate and remain in the UK, they repay their debt when they become economic contributors and are active in the workplace? It could be a tiered, sliding scale that recognises the cost that the UK taxpayer is expected to shoulder for people fleeing from a state of alleged persecution.

We must significantly redress the balance in favour of the UK taxpayer. I speak to numerous constituents who are concerned about the extent of the debt that the state is accruing. We have heard about increasing dependency on welfare, and countries across the west already face a demographic time bomb and a demographic twilight as populations age and burdens on the state grow. We in the west do not have enough of a pipeline of economic talent coming in at the bottom end, so we already face what we could call a time bomb of indigenous welfare dependency, exacerbated by the additional costs of processing illegal migrants on ludicrous timescales that the general public laugh at. Frankly, they feel short-changed by the efforts of—I will be quite honest—successive Governments, who have failed to get a grip on the situation.

In short, we desperately need to redress the balance. We cannot be in denial about the extent of the cost to the British state. Any migrant who comes to the UK and is able and willing to make an economic contribution will almost certainly always be welcome—we have dozens of potential growth industries that our economy desperately needs to support—but this is about getting the balance right. If the Government choose to view people as economic units, the interests of the UK taxpayer must be first and foremost. We cannot view UK taxpayers as just being there to shoulder a bill and disregard their concerns for their communities, while the Government at the same time choose to consider asylum seekers for more than just their economic value.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman, although he has not bobbed throughout the debate despite the fact that I said that was the appropriate thing to do. With the exception of the Minister, the shadow Minister, myself and Sir Gavin, we are all new Members here, so it is important to respect the conventions and courtesies.

17:32

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

Thank you very much, Sir John, and apologies for not bobbing appropriately. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Our message to the world has to be this: if you come here illegally, you will be deported. Not housed in luxury accommodation, fed and cared for at the taxpayer’s expense; deported. Not allowed to roam the streets entirely unchecked, with no limits; deported. Not free to apply for asylum under whatever lie the Home Office is buying this week; deported.

Removing those with no right to be here is not cruel; it is not heartless; it is necessary. Language matters, and these men are not desperate asylum seekers; they are not irregular migrants—they are illegal migrants, and they should be treated as such. Spreading them across the country into unsuspecting communities is pure insanity. Members should ask themselves honestly: if a hotel at the bottom of their road was suddenly filled overnight with young foreign males who had entered the country almost entirely unchecked, would they be happy for their teenage daughter to go out after dark? The answer is no.

[Anna Gelderd]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that women across the country face very difficult situations walking home at night, and that often the tone of debate is incredibly important to maintain our safety in all situations?

[Rupert Lowe]

I do not think the tone of the debate is in any way relevant. What is relevant is what the Government do to protect the interests of the British people.

The answer to the question I asked is no, and if Members disagree they are even more deluded than the Home Office. When I try to explore the actual cost of these hotels and the surrounding healthcare, travel, translation, recreational activities and more, I am denied vast swathes of information by the Home Office. It is a cover-up. It says that it does not pay for x or y, but that is because it is all subcontracted out on billion-pound contracts spread over 10 years. The list of further subcontractors on those contracts is fully redacted. Why might that be? Again, it is a blatant cover-up. Let me be abundantly clear: the full cost of these hotels is being concealed from the British public. I am doing everything in my power to uncover the truth.

Locals are not even informed about what has happened in their town. I asked the Home Office to develop a consultation process with residents before a hotel is hijacked. It refused and reminded me of its obligation to care for illegal migrants. What about the safety and needs of taxpaying local residents?

Hotels are being filled with young men in close proximity to girls’ schools. Does anyone here find that acceptable? I have pushed the Government to undertake a review of the impact on British women and girls of crime emanating from these hotels. Again, they refused. Who is the Home Office actually serving? Sadly, I have little doubt that far more crime is being committed by illegal migrants than we are being told.

I have raised the matter time and again with the Government. Nobody seems to care. There are roughly 30,000 illegal migrants in hotels around the country. As we know, the vast majority are young males, many from cultures that do not respect women. That is not racist, far right or whatever else; it is a reality, and one we must start to deal with.

Secure detention is required, not open hotels. If the facilities do not exist, build them. If we get serious on deportations, they will not be necessary for long. Send the following message and the boats will stop: “If you come to the UK illegally, you won’t be met with luxury accommodation. What will the British Government do to you? Two words: detain and deport.” That is the only way.

17:37

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of reopening hotels to accommodate asylum seekers. Despite repeated ministerial promises, we continue to see the result of a broken system—a system that has caused immense hardship for asylum seekers and communities and has placed a significant burden on taxpayers.

Let us be clear that this debate arises only because of successive Conservative Governments having failed to deal efficiently with the growing backlog of asylum claims. According to the Migration Observatory, the number of outstanding asylum applications under the Conservatives soared from 27,000 in 2018 to 132,000 by 2022. As of September 2024, Home Office data indicates that over 97,000 cases involving 133,000 individuals still await an initial decision, with a further 127,000 in the appeals and removal process. Despite repeated assurances, most claimants still wait beyond six months for any clarity on their status. During that process, asylum seekers are trapped, unable to work, unable to integrate and forced to depend on Government funds.

The reliance on contingency accommodation, whether in the form of hotels, barges or former military barracks, is an expensive sticking plaster to cover a deeper wound. It provides neither dignity for asylum seekers nor value for money for the taxpayer. We have heard Ministers assert that these hotels are only a short-term measure, yet Home Office figures show that there were over 35,000 individuals in hotel accommodation as of September 2024. Successive Governments have spoken of reducing dependency on this provision, yet the number of people in hotels remains persistently high. Worse still, the backlog remains alarmingly large and we are left grappling with new, reactive announcements rather than a cohesive plan.

The situation benefits no one. The fundamental problem is the time it takes to make decisions on asylum claims, coupled with the ban on working. It is the worst of both worlds: forced inactivity for those seeking safety and to pay their fair share, and an unnecessary bill for the public purse. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that granting the right to work would generate £1.3 billion in additional tax revenue and would reduce expenditure by as much as £6.7 billion each year. We could address the backlog more effectively and reduce the public cost if we ended the rigid prohibition on work, yet time and again Governments have resisted such a solution.

The Liberal Democrats have advocated a clear, sensible plan. First, we propose creating a dedicated, well-resourced processing unit that is separate from the Home Office, with a singular mission of resolving cases quickly. Secondly, we propose reinstating a six-month service standard so that claimants receive an initial decision quickly. Finally, we would grant asylum seekers the right to work after a set period, allowing them to pay their fair share instead of languishing in costly Government-funded accommodation or on street corners.

As we consider whether to reopen asylum hotels for asylum seekers, we must remember that no one genuinely wants this. Asylum seekers deserve dignified conditions, local communities deserve to feel safe from people loitering with nothing to do and taxpayers deserve an end to the wasteful spending brought on by Government’s incompetence. I urge colleagues from all sides of the House to support practical reforms as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which will finally clear the asylum backlog, end the expensive overreliance on temporary accommodation, such as asylum hotels, and allow those who are seeking refuge to stand on their own feet and contribute to society.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I would like to call the Minister at 5.53 pm, which will give her 10 minutes.

17:41

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir John, for chairing your third debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for proposing this discussion on an important issue for many MPs and their constituents across the country.

If we need to provide accommodation for those who arrive in the UK seeking asylum, it is critical that we do all we can to ensure that that accommodation is cost-effective and does not unduly burden our communities. Unfortunately, we know all too well that hotel accommodation for asylum seekers fails to meet either of those criteria. Despite the disagreements that have been expressed today, this is an issue on which all Members of the House can and should agree.

As the Minister is aware, significant steps were taken by the last Government to reduce the number of people housed in hotel accommodation, which went from a peak of 56,042 in September 2023 to 29,585 at the end of June 2024. That is a 47% decrease. That was accompanied by the closure of many hotels from their peak number. It was therefore welcome to see this Government’s manifesto promise to close asylum hotels entirely. The pledge was clear: the Government would “end asylum hotels”. That is a goal that we all hope they will achieve, as it would undoubtedly benefit communities across the country.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that since this Government took power, we have gone in the opposite direction. Official Home Office statistics show that as of 30 September, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, an increase of 21% since the general election. Instead of hotels being closed, we have seen the contrary: the Minister informed the House last week that there has been a net increase of six hotels since the election. We have heard from MPs that announcements about new hotels are often made with little notice, leaving minimal time to prepare and a lack of clarity. Although the Government should undoubtedly improve that process, surely the most impactful approach would be to reduce the reliance on hotel accommodation altogether.

Sometimes it is too easy to focus on statistics. Although they provide an important part of the picture, it is through speaking to residents that we hear about the very real consequences for communities. In November, Councillor Nathan Evans invited me to visit Altrincham to see the huge impact of such a hotel on his community. I spoke to residents, business owners and the local chamber of commerce about the direct and indirect effects of Labour’s decisions. They emphasised the need for safety, security and clear communication. Those were reasonable requests that they felt had fallen on deaf ears at both the Home Office and the local authority.

As well as the concerns about security, there was a very evident impact on the local economy. In Altrincham, the loss of nearly 300 hotel places in the local hospitality sector was huge. Families who had worked day and night for years to create incredible small businesses, operating in an already challenging environment, now had to deal with another huge and unpredicted blow to their footfall. I suggest that the Minister considers visiting Altrincham, not only to see some incredible small businesses with a unique offering, but to see the impact of the decisions she makes.

Too often, places like Altrincham receive information at the last minute, leaving them unable to prepare and taken aback by the sudden loss of normal business generated by these hotels. That lack of warning undermines trust and further fosters animosity towards the system. I understand that this is a complex issue, but will the Minister consider the suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), made in November: that greater notice be given to MPs before a hotel opens in their constituency? I also ask the Minister how sites are chosen and what consideration is given to proximity to local schools, care homes and centres for the vulnerable, as well as the impact on the local business community.

I recognise that the Minister and other hon. Members will point out that the number of people housed in hotels was too high under the last Government. They are correct, and my party does not shy away from that fact. The Leader of the Opposition has been clear that mistakes were made regarding immigration. Nevertheless, the last Government were taking steps to rectify these issues by closing hotels and attempting to halt illegal immigration. Since the election, however, we have seen increases both in contingency accommodation and in dispersal accommodation.

Ultimately, the Minister, like the rest of us, knows the root cause of the problem: the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. As of 19 January, 24,132 people had crossed the channel in small boats since the election, a 30% increase on the same period in 2023-24. What is more, the number of those being deported is actually going down.

We need a deterrent. If people arrive here illegally, they should not be allowed to stay. Until that is the case, they will continue to arrive in ever increasing numbers. Despite pledges to “smash the gangs”, it appears that the gangs remain active and evasive. This behaviour underscores the importance of deterrence, as highlighted by the National Crime Agency and reportedly by the head of the Government’s Border Security Command.

Policing alone is insufficient. The rise in small boat crossings illustrates that scrapping the UK’s deterrent policy before it had even started was a short-sighted decision; in fact, it was a decision of national self-harm. The deterrent approach has been successfully implemented in other countries such as Australia, which managed to resolve similar issues through decisive action. We have even seen it working here in the UK, with the Albania returns agreement reducing arrivals by more than 90%. Given the increasing numbers and the failure to reduce small boat crossings into this country, will the Government reconsider whether their approach to illegal migration has been effective thus far?

On costs, the Government’s policy is to expedite asylum decisions. Consequently, the costs associated with accepted migrants risk being obscured within the welfare system. The Home Office has previously acknowledged that it has no estimate of the potential cost of benefit claims and council-housing bills for those individuals. Will the Minister commit to recording and publishing the costs for migrants whose asylum claims are accepted?

I know that the Minister has previously stated that hotels are a temporary measure, not a solution. While she may be well intentioned, the continuing small boat crossings suggest that the need for contingency accommodation is unlikely to subside without decisive action. Can the Minister therefore explain whether there is a contingency plan should small boat crossings persist? Additionally, will the Government ensure that every possible policy option is explored to reduce the number of people in hotel accommodation in a cost-effective manner?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum. Minister, I hope that you might finish at 6.03 pm to allow the hon. Member for Windsor to say a few words at the end.

17:49

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Having sat in the Westminster Hall Chair many a time, I can report that in this Parliament it seems to be much warmer in this room. It used to be freezing, but perhaps my complaints about the heating when I was in the Chair have had a positive effect in this Parliament—for the comfort of us all, I hope.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I’m going to take all the credit.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing it and thank all Members who have contributed.

I remind hon. Members of the strained asylum system that this Government inherited. Listening to all the contributions, I had to pinch myself and think about the reality: we had 14 years in opposition; we have had six months, getting on for perhaps seven, in government—yet everything is somehow our fault. There was a slight nod in some of the contributions, including those of the hon. Members for Windsor and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), towards the mistakes that were made in the running of the asylum system during the past 14 years. Mistakes certainly were made, and they leave legacies: messes to clear up and difficult things to do.

We inherited a system with massive backlogs. There was an attempt to introduce a completely different system, the so-called Rwanda deterrent and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which distracted the Government from the day job, as I have called it. Because of the design of the Illegal Migration Act, we also had a huge build-up of those who had arrived in the system from March 2023, when the switch was meant to be being arranged. They were put in hotels with absolutely nowhere to go, with no prospect of having their claims looked at and awaiting a theoretical trip to Rwanda. No trip ever happened.

To those who say that the Rwanda scheme was a deterrent, I gently point out that from when it was first announced in the Bill to when it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats. If that is a deterrent, it is a very peculiar one. Deterrence is difficult to achieve when people are desperate. We have to look to see whether that worked, and I do not think it did. It led to a huge build-up. The hon. Member for Stockton West hinted at that when he pointed out that the previous Government had more than 400 hotels open at one point. That was because of the build-up in the old system and the build-up in the new system. In the old system, people were in huge queues. With the new system, the previous Government’s idea was that they would not even process any of them: they would just hold them in hotels until the new system was up and running. In essence there were two backlogs.

The previous Government then decided that they would make a massive attempt to clear what they called the legacy backlog: the people who arrived before the Rwanda scheme was designed and announced. They did that for first asylum decisions in 2023. Those who were granted asylum left the system, and many ended up homeless, but those who were not granted asylum appealed. Those who were not granted asylum in that gallop to deal with the legacy backlog are still in the appeals system. The number of people in the appeals system doubled as a result of the previous Government’s work on the legacy backlog. We then had the legacy backlog dealt with at first hearing, with half of those cases going into the appeals system, and a growing number of asylum seekers who had arrived after March 2023, with no prospect of being dealt with at all, just filling hotels. That is why the previous Government had more than 400 hotels.

We can disagree about whether the Rwanda scheme would have worked. Personally, I do not think it was a deterrent—that so many people crossed the channel while it was in prospect demonstrates that it was not a deterrent. It also cost a great deal of money: the National Audit Office said that the payments the Government agreed to make to people who were going to be deported to Rwanda amounted to around £156,000 per person over five years. In theory, they were going to deport 250 people a week. I do not think that was realistic or that it was ever going to be deliverable. Opposition Members are entitled to a different view, but the view of the Government is that the scheme was not going to work.

We are dealing with an issue with no easy answers. There are international agreements that we have signed up to, including the refugee conventions that give protection to people who are fleeing danger and were put into place after the second world war. We are now in an era where we have more people on the move because of events around the world than we have had since the second world war, which has put pressure on the asylum systems of all countries.

There are asylum seekers and there are economic migrants. When listening to the hon. Member for Windsor’s contribution, I was a bit distressed that he did not distinguish between the two; he seemed to think that everyone who arrives is automatically an economic migrant who ought to be deported. That is his view, but it is not the view of the law. The previous Government, under his party, had a system that tried to see whether people who were claiming asylum were actually asylum seekers or were failed asylum seekers—there is a difference.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister outline her Government’s policy and what she is going to do? She has given us a history lesson on what has happened, but what are the Labour Government going to do moving forward? Can she give us a date for when they are going to meet their manifesto commitment to close the last asylum hotel?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am happy to go on to what we are doing, but the legacy that one inherits is important and has to be taken into account when thinking about how we deliver for the future. We said that the Rwanda scheme was not going to work and that we would restart asylum processing. We also said we were going to set up the Border Security Command, which has been done. Opposition Members will know that there is legislation pending on border security and asylum, which hopefully will come before the House in the not-too-distant future. It has taken shape, but it is going through various processes to get agreement on when we can publish and introduce it.

Given the concern of Members in this Chamber, I hope they will attempt to engage positively with the new Bill when it is published, so that we can get the Border Security Command up and running as quickly as possible with the correct powers, including counter-terrorism powers. That will allow us to take more effective action to start dismantling and disrupting the activities of the smuggler gangs. In the last few years we have seen them be allowed to grow across the channel, becoming increasingly sophisticated and industrialising their processes. I hope all Members will agree that we have a duty to take action. We want to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates compassionately and efficiently. That will enable us to exit hotels and bring down the cost of the asylum system by billions of pounds.

Let me address the motion specifically. The strain on the system has necessitated the continued use of hotels in the medium term to enable the Home Office to deliver its statutory responsibilities to house asylum seekers while their claims are looked at. Of course, the more efficiently and effectively we can look at the claims, the less trouble we will have trying to house people—as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said. I disagree with her comments about the right to work. There are legal ways of trying to get into this country with a right to work that are processed through the visa system. We cannot have people getting around that by coming illegally and then having the right to work. That would be a huge pull factor that we simply do not want to countenance. She and I will disagree about it, but that is the Government’s view.

Since the general election, nine hotels have closed. Fifteen hotels were opened temporarily, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Windsor for the speed with which that had to be done. It is not ideal and I would not want to be in that position again. I have asked Home Office officials to be more open and transparent, as far ahead of time as possible, to try to give warning. We do not want any nasty surprises, but the hon. Gentleman had one. I have apologised for that—

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I will be happy to, but let me finish apologising. I apologised to the hon. Member for Windsor in my response to the letter he sent me. It was not an ideal situation and it is not one we want to get into again.

[Matt Vickers]

What would the Minister say is a sensible period of notice that she would like the Home Office to give before migrants arrive in a hotel?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We do not want to get into that situation, because we want to go down rather than up, but I would want notice of significant changes to be “as much as possible” because, sometimes, operational things occur. A hotel site can be lost—for example, we lost one in Manchester during the floods. Unexpected things can happen that have certain implications, so I will say it is as much notice as possible.

[Matt Vickers]

And MPs would know in advance?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, as much as possible and, I hope, more in advance than we managed during the openings that I talked about.

Since the general election, nine hotels have closed. There were 15 opened temporarily—which is what this debate is really about—and nine are scheduled for closure by the end of March 2025. I certainly hope that, as we look for more dispersed accommodation and a more effective, faster system, we will get to the stage where we do not have to open any more. I cannot give the hon. Member for Windsor any date when the hotel in his constituency might close but I am working to close all such hotels. As I have said on the record, the use of hotels is undesirable and is not value for money. It is unsustainable in the long term and we want to get away from it.

Given that it is 6.03 pm, I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor on securing the debate. I am happy to stay in touch with him about what is happening with the hotel in his constituency.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Please finish just before 6.05 pm, to leave time for me to put the Question.

18:03

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I thank everybody who has contributed to this crucial debate. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson); my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford); and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). I thank the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for taking part, even though I did not necessarily agree with their contributions.

The Minister is right to say that the Conservative party failed in this policy area and that she has a mess to clean up, but she is wrong about the reason for that mess. She seemed to suggest that the Rwanda deterrent distracted from the day job, which she seems to think is processing all these people. I do not think that is the problem. We want to stop the people coming. The reason why the Rwanda deterrent failed is because there was never enough political will behind the Conservative Government for them to do everything that was necessary to make the deterrent work, notwithstanding the provisions on human rights and the international accords that the Minister mentioned. I thank her for her pledge to continue to close the nine hotels by March, and for her apology. I welcome her comment that she will keep us all informed on which specific hotels are to close.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of re-opening hotels for asylum seeker accommodation.

18:05

Sitting adjourned.