Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22 January 2025

[Matt Western in the Chair]

Listed Places of Worship Scheme

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Listed Places of Worship Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. There are around 20,000 listed—

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Western. Before my hon. Friend develops the debate, may I inquire about the fact that, according to the Order Paper, the fourth of the written statements to be made today, by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is titled “Future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme”? If that statement is being made today, would it not be convenient for us to see a copy of it before this debate begins, so that it can inform the debate, rather than that being left until after the debate?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Sir Christopher, thank you for your point of order. I am sure that that is something the Minister will attend to in his winding-up speech.

[Bradley Thomas]

There are about 20,000 listed cathedrals, churches and chapels in use across the UK, belonging to a wide range of denominations, together with a number of important listed synagogues, mosques and temples. The buildings are valued for their architecture and history and for the economic and social benefit they bring to the communities they serve. These beautiful buildings, with storied histories, serve both as sacred spaces for the religious community and as spaces for the wider public.

The listed places of worship grant scheme supports faith communities by allowing them to reclaim the full amount of VAT spent on eligible repairs, alterations and additions to their building. That includes vital repair works to roofs and stonework, and improvements to facilities such as kitchens and toilets and to the thermal performance of the building.

At present the scheme, which spends only around £30 million per year, is due to close on 31 March 2025, and no extension or alternative is yet known about. If the scheme is cancelled or scaled back, it will be devastating for these historic buildings, local communities and the heritage construction sector. What a travesty it would be if, for the sake of £30 million to the Exchequer, the Government exacerbated the decay of our historical, spiritual and social heritage, with no upside.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am very pleased my hon. Friend has secured this debate. He mentions the trifling sum the tax could bring to the Exchequer, but does he recognise the enormous, quantifiable economic value—billions of pounds—that church buildings bring to our communities? I particularly reference the work that Bishop Andrew Rumsey, the Bishop of Ramsbury in my constituency, is leading for the Church of England on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the economic value outweighs the receipts that the Treasury would get?

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly that this is not just about the social value. There is a profound economic value that goes beyond the £30 million I referenced.

The Church of England alone has a backlog of repairs to parish churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with the annual need estimated at £150 million per year. Large-scale closures are also sweeping across Scotland and Wales. There are 969 places of worship on Historic England’s 2024 heritage at risk register, and more than 60% of MPs in England have a church, chapel, meeting house or cathedral in their constituency that is on the register.

The listed places of worship grant scheme is the only regular financial support the Government provide to help those looking after these buildings. By “financial support”, I mean simply a refund of the tax already paid to the Exchequer.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Christchurch priory is on the list of churches at risk. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could be saved any costs if my private Member’s Bill—the Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill—which is due for a hearing in the House on Friday 28 March, were passed? It would exempt listed places of worship repairs from value added tax, which in itself would sort the problem out.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting Christchurch priory. I am certain that he will be the strongest advocate of the proposal he puts forward on that Friday.

Refunding the tax our places of worship have already paid is vital because in the UK, unlike in the rest of Europe, they depend overwhelmingly on local people to raise the funding for their buildings. In France, Belgium, Germany and Italy, by contrast, such buildings are either owned by the state or supported by special taxes.

The scheme was introduced in its current form by the Labour Government in 2001, when the right hon. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognised the harm that changes to VAT could cause these buildings. It was launched in the House of Lords in December 2001 by Baroness Blackstone, who stated:

“This new grant will provide much-needed public support for these historic buildings. The scheme underlines the value this Government place on our important historic environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. WA129.]

I plead with the current Government to recognise that.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The listed places of worship grant scheme is vital for our communities. The previous Conservative Government extended it in 2023, and since 2022 five grants have been awarded in my constituency. I have been contacted by a number of places of worship that are deeply concerned about the future of the scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the sake of worship, outreach, youth work, helping vulnerable people, and community hubs, it is right for the Government to extend the scheme?

[Bradley Thomas]

I wholeheartedly agree that the scheme should be extended, given all the economic and social benefits my hon. Friend touched on and the many others that Members will cite. It is a no-brainer that the Government should pursue this.

Since 2004, the scheme has been renewed by every Government, but now a new commitment must be made, because the current commitment comes to an end in just a few weeks’ time. Since 2001, the scheme has supported 13,000 places of worship, safeguarding the future of some of our most important local heritage. In addition to their architectural significance, cathedrals, churches and chapels form the nation’s largest art collections, including sculpture, stained glass, wall paintings, woodwork, metalwork and vernacular art. Church buildings also form a vital part of the identity of Britain’s landscapes and townscapes. They are the visual centre for tens of thousands of communities.

St John’s in my constituency is a grade II listed church in the centre of the town. The top section of the spire needs replacing to ensure that the church remains structurally safe and continues to be a beacon for Bromsgrove. The parochial church council and the Friends of St John’s are in receipt of nearly £250,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, plus match funding from trusts, foundations and local fundraising, to meet a total project cost in the region of £430,000. If a VAT bill in excess of £80,000 becomes unclaimable, there is a risk that the project could become untenable.

Members from across the House will have stories from their own constituencies. Residents raise money to repair their local place of worship and keep it as a community asset to pass down to the next generation. We are merely custodians of these assets. St John’s is just one example, but there are more than 20 listed places of worship in my constituency that benefit from the scheme, and I want to highlight a few of them. They include Christ Church in Catshill, Holy Trinity and St Mary’s church at Dodford, St Leonard’s church at Frankley, St John the Baptist church at Hagley, St Kenelm’s church at Romsley, St Bartholomew’s church at Tardebigge, St Michael and All Angels at Stoke Prior, St Laurence church at Alvechurch, the church of St John the Baptist on St John Street, the church of All Saints on Birmingham Road, St Leonard’s in Clent, St Leonard’s in Beoley, the Roman Catholic church in Bromsgrove, St Catherine’s church in Lickey and Blackwell, St Mary’s church at Wythall, Holy Trinity in Belbroughton, St Michael and All Angels in Cofton Hackett, the church of St Wulstan and St Oswald in Clent, St Godwald’s church, and St Andrew’s church in Barnt Green.

We all have at least a dozen, 20 or maybe more churches or listed places of worship that are under threat because the Government have not committed to £30 million.

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

The grant scheme we are debating enabled St Paul’s in my constituency to undergo some radical improvements to accessibility and its community spaces. Without the community spaces that operate out of churches and cathedrals, the homes for charities no longer exist. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given that every £1 spent in churches gives a £16 return to the community, this scheme is an investment in the future of community groups and charities?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Lady has summed it up perfectly, and I thank her for highlighting the example of St Paul’s in Chichester. That is a perfect segue into the point I was just about to make: it is not just heritage and religion that are at risk if the scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are hubs of their local communities. Church of England churches alone support over 35,000 social action projects, including food banks, community larders, and debt, drug and alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups. In recent years, during which we have seen energy prices rise, churches have acted as warm spaces, and at times of extreme weather events they have been gathering points, providing the safety and hospitality required by communities seeking refuge from flooding and other weather events. Churches, chapels and meeting houses in the UK host and run vital support services—everything from Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to mental health support and parent and toddler groups. The saving to the NHS from delivering this kind of facility to communities is estimated as £8.4 billion a year.

The contribution that churches and cathedrals make to our creative industries and to tourism is also very significant. Some 9.3 million people visited English cathedrals in 2023—a staggering 17% increase on the year before—with many of those visitors coming from overseas. In that sense, churches, cathedrals and places of worship are a UK export.

Churches are also by far the largest base for amateur music-making by choirs and orchestras, as well as housing thousands of professional performances each year, ranging from pop to classical music. They foster talent, and musicians including singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran and leading violinist Tasmin Little began their musical careers by taking part in church music.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will obviously want to recognise the centrality to the country of Salisbury cathedral’s contribution in terms of music and architectural elegance. He will also want to recognise the fact that every church takes on great responsibility for raising funds itself before it looks to the Government. The Churches Conservation Trust and the National Churches Trust do a great deal to support churches that are trying to help themselves, but the continuity of VAT support from Government is a crucial additional element that goes alongside that private endeavour.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and for highlighting the significant cultural importance of Salisbury cathedral. He is spot on: volunteers across our communities sweat everything they possibly can out of fundraising endeavours. This is not a case of going to the Government in the first instance; this is people simply asking for support that ultimately enables churches to be net economic contributors to the communities in which they operate.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Mr Western, I probably ought to indicate that I have proudly served in the past as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, although I do not regard this as just an Anglican issue at all. Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the support for these buildings—for our churches—comes from generous donations by members of the public, which are given for a very specific purpose. Does my hon. Friend agree that this money is freely given, but that it is not freely given to be taxed? I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that later.

[Bradley Thomas]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are so many generous benefactors across the country who are giving their funds—which, in most cases, they have paid income tax on—to support churches and places that provide spiritual and social wellbeing. Government should recognise that, and I certainly hope the Minister will reference that point in his remarks.

These buildings are loved by their communities, and in most cases they are also cared for by volunteers. Particularly in rural communities, the care of these magnificent buildings is in the hands of a few committed people, many of whom are later in their years. They diligently raise funds for the repair of the church building that has shaped the life of their village and community for centuries. Although I raised major projects earlier, the potential loss of the listed places of worship grant scheme in the places I have just mentioned—which may claim only a few thousand pounds per year—will determine how much maintenance and repair can take place. At worst, it could be the difference between being solvent or not, and determine the long-term survival and preservation of those buildings.

Places of worship are the very essence of place-making and community. They provide enormous value to society—value that our country would be immeasurably poorer without. The National Churches Trust’s “House of Good” report calculated that the total UK-wide economic and social value of places of worship had a market value and replacement cost of £2.4 billion per year. I hope that that puts into perspective what excellent value the listed places of worship grant scheme is for the long-term preservation of those assets. That is £2.4 billion of value for a scheme that costs just £29 million a year. Clearly, that amount of money makes no material difference to the country’s £1 trillion expenditure, so I simply cannot understand what is under threat. If the Government were not to renew the listed places of worship grant scheme, the task of keeping church buildings in good repair and open for people to use would be made much harder. More money would need to be raised by local people to pay VAT to the Government, on top of money for skilled labour, materials and other project costs.

The damage done to parish churches across England will come at a difficult time, when our communities are becoming less united than ever. The past 50 years have seen unprecedented change, with mass immigration, enhanced social mobility and evolving social attitudes. All of those factors have changed and pushed our communities in different directions and made society less cohesive. Instead of attacking one of the last few community spaces left, I ask the Government to continue funding the scheme.

I urge the Government to look now at making the scheme permanent, and not just at giving it a temporary reprieve. A permanent scheme would enable the larger places of worship, such as cathedrals that plan their repair work over five to 20 years, to commit to long-term projects with certainty that VAT costs will be covered by the scheme.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Given that so many are standing, we will start with a time limit of three minutes. I ask that any interventions be kept to a minimum.

09:46

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important and timely debate.

The strength of feeling on this issue is clear. An answer to my recent written question revealed that between early September and mid-December 2024, the Department received 323 items of correspondence on this topic. [Interruption.] Yes, I understand that. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this important subject.

Faith and charity sector partners are deeply concerned that the listed places of worship grants scheme may not be extended beyond its current end date of 31 March this year. The grants scheme not only helps to sustain treasured local buildings that hold the story of our nation and, through their work, contribute every day to the common good; by enabling repairs to historic religious buildings, it also directly impacts communities across the UK, benefiting people of all faiths and none, from all walks of life.

The Church in Wales operates 1,221 places of worship—cathedrals, churches and chapels—across Wales, and 73% of them are listed buildings. These treasured buildings play a central role in communities and form a remarkable treasury of significant architecture, art, history, local memory and culture.

As I outlined in my question to the Church Commissioners last week, over the past two years alone St Woolos’ cathedral in Newport has reclaimed more than £87,000 through the scheme. Further projects are in the wings and, if VAT cannot be reclaimed, it will lead to delays. The cathedral leaders are wondering whether to include in the repairs the upgrade and development of facilities that the cathedral offers for the benefit of the community. That would cost between £3 million and £4 million; adding VAT to that would make the project unachievable and it would have to end.

Given that repairs and developments are possible only through fundraising, as has been outlined, to find an additional 20% will mean that some projects will simply not take place.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The hon. Lady talks about some projects that will not be able to continue; St Martin’s Low Marple Heritage Trust in my constituency is in exactly that position. It is a treasury of the arts and crafts movement in England. I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that the scheme should continue, or clarity on its future should be encouraged from the Minister.

[Ruth Jones]

The hon. Lady is right. It would be good to have clarity today. I appreciate that a statement is coming, but it would be good to have clarity from the Minister this morning.

Places of worship contribute immensely to social and economic value, health and wellbeing. The cathedral’s weekly food collections enable 500 children in one school to be given breakfast for two weeks. The cathedral supports other schools, refugees, the homeless and other local food projects, and provides a place for the charity Mind to meet free of charge. Over the recent Christmas period alone, some 1,000 people passed through the cathedral doors for services—up 20% on last year. The cathedral is open every day and people regularly call in for quiet reflection and for assistance in distress.

Crucially, all that is possible only because the building is in good repair. I have given just one example of how places of worship in Newport West and Islwyn have used the moneys from the scheme wisely over the years. I strongly encourage the Government to extend the scheme, for all the economic and social benefits it provides, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call the Father of the House.

09:50

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on his speech. As the Government are making a written statement today, this might be one of the shortest and most successful campaigns ever.

Churches are one of the great glories of Lincolnshire. We have 124 listed churches in my constituency alone, and I have visited them all—often when I have had a rest from canvassing in the 11 general election campaigns I have fought. The later editions of the Pevsner guides describe Lincolnshire as

“incredibly rich in medieval churches from Saxon times onwards, many of them still little known”.

In villages and towns up and down the county, there are small churches, often medieval, that are precious works of art. They are also focal points for the community. As pubs, shops and post offices shut, the churches in our villages remain, whether or not services are held regularly. Lincolnshire is not unique in this regard, as colleagues from all over the country know.

I want to quote a worshipper and member of the parochial church council at St Chad’s church in Dunholme:

“We are all deeply concerned that the above scheme is due to expire in March 2025 and fearful that it may not be extended for another term.

I am sure you are well aware of the plight of fund-raising in rural areas in order to maintain and improve Grade I listed buildings plus the absolute need to, to ensure they are there for future generations.

We are constantly fund-raising to ensure that our beautiful rural church is fit for purpose to meet the needs of both the community and worshippers”.

She obviously speaks very much from the heart.

We have some glorious countryside in Lincolnshire. I spent many years as president of the Lincolnshire Ramblers, and one of the great joys of being the MP for Gainsborough is walking in the wolds. The old church at Walesby, which is known as the ramblers’ church, is open to one and all to come and spend a moment of quiet contemplation. Thanks to the efforts of many volunteers, we also have the West Lindsey churches festival every year. Across two weekends this May, 88 churches will be open to the public, completely free of charge, and church volunteers will be present to explain.

Public places of Catholic worship were not allowed until 1791, so our medieval churches today are only slightly more than a handful. None the less, there has been a growth in appreciation of the architecture of 18th, 19th and 20th-century churches. Indeed, Augustus Pugin, the architect responsible for much of what we see around us, designed many Catholic churches that are now listed. Of the 3,000 Catholic churches in England and Wales, 750 are listed, and many have had their listings upgraded to grade I.

I urge the Minister to listen to the debate, concede, and carry on with this wonderful scheme.

09:53

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Western.

Let me set the scene. There are around 80 places of worship in York, from York Minster through to a small Orthodox congregation who wrote to me this week and are seeking a new place—buildings young and old, including well-established places. The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential to their upkeep.

I want to raise two matters that have not been mentioned yet. First, the Belfrey, which is adjacent to York Minster, is currently under tarpaulin. The windows have been removed, the walls have been stripped back to the stone, the roof is about to come off and scaffolding is holding everything together. The grant is central to the £8.5 million project continuing; I hope the Minister will explain what will happen to this gutted church and its community of 600 worshippers without it. The grant is worth £1.5 million to them. After a tumultuous fundraising effort by the church, they need the scheme to continue, and urge the Minister to at least confirm that existing projects will continue until their completion.

This is about not just the church but the social infrastructure. Some £1.5 million is being invested in mental health support and children and youth services, as well as in making York a poverty-free city. The Belfrey is crucial for my community, as well as for the local economy, tourism and our fabulous heritage sector. It sits in the new cathedral precinct, which is part of the local neighbourhood plan. We must have the spec at the required standard, as 9 million visitors come to York, which is the second-most visited place in the UK, and to York Minster, which is the most visited place in the city. When it opens, it will be a place that not only explains the heritage but enables people to explore their faith. A 15% hole in the budget would stop the scheme.

Secondly, York has developed its new international centre of excellence for heritage craft. From stonemasons to glaziers, it will preserve the traditions that many people in this debate will benefit from. In fact, people around the world are looking to the centre. It is unique in the crafts that it will maintain, and it will ensure that the traditions are preserved. Much of the centre’s demand will come from different projects funded by the listed places of worship grant scheme. I hope the Minister will help the centre to greater success as it embarks on this new journey by ensuring that the grant enables demand to be placed at the centre’s door. So many churches and other organisations have written to me saying that the scheme must continue.

09:56

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western.

For more than 23 years, the listed places of worship grant scheme has been a lifeline for communities in South Cambridgeshire, enabling congregations to afford vital repairs to their historical buildings, which are quite often the beating heart of our communities. They provide youth groups, vaccine centres, and warm places in which to gather and bring people together. The loss of the scheme would put a lot of that in jeopardy.

Places in South Cambridgeshire where there are listed places of worship include Cherry Hinton, Coton, Stapleford, Gamlingay, Bassingbourn, Hinxton, Ickleford, Harston, Duxford, Thriplow and Great Shelford. The scheme is set to expire in March 2025, which would place all that progress and the vital roles played by these buildings in our communities in jeopardy.

Without a renewed commitment from the Government, congregations will struggle to afford the repairs needed to keep their places of worship open and functioning. The much-respected Reverend Karin Voth Harman of St Andrew’s church in Cherry Hinton explained to me that it will also impact on the congregation’s ability to access other grant funds. For example, they received a £250,000 grant from the heritage lottery fund, but they were able to receive and use those funds only because they had the exemption from the VAT scheme. If the scheme was taken away, they would not be able to do that, and that would affect many others.

The list of affected communities is long, as it is in many other communities. Let me mention the plans that people have in place that would be put at risk, which they have come to tell me about. The restoration plans to move away from fossil fuel reliance at St Peter & St Paul Bassingbourn parish church would be put at risk. The steep costs of the restoration of the three medieval churches in Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Teversham mean that essential repairs would be put at risk. The community spaces in All Saints’ church at Harston, which were used during lockdown and which the church wants to keep expanding, would be put at risk. The small village church of St Mary and St John in Hinxton relies heavily on the exemption.

St Peter’s church in Horningsea is being saved from disrepair with significant help from the VAT funds. The grade I listed parish church of St Mary the Virgin in Great Shelford relies on the VAT to afford essential repairs; without it, the church will not be able to maintain the structure and the historical Doom painting, which would be terrible. The 12th-century St George’s church in Thriplow wants, with the community, to level the nave floor, but it will not to be able to do that. Grade I listed St Mary’s in Whaddon would also be at risk.

The scheme is critical. Please continue it and ensure that we can keep these congregations and their listed places of worship at the centre of our communities.

10:00

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this debate. My constituency of South West Norfolk is home to 138 places of worship, all unique in character and valued by the local community. That includes Wiggenhall St Germans church just outside King’s Lynn, a 13th-century grade I listed church, which wrote to me just recently about the very topic being debated.

I am a proud Norfolk boy, and I am reminded of what the English poet and writer John Betjeman said:

“Norfolk would not be Norfolk without a church tower on the horizon, or round a corner up a lane. We cannot spare a single Norfolk church. When a church has been pulled down, the country seems empty or is like a necklace with a jewel missing.”

I cannot come up with words quite as poetic as John Betjeman’s, but I can tell Members that the churches in my constituency are treasured. In many cases, they are of an historic nature. We must make sure that we preserve them for generations to come, as previous generations have done for us.

Nearly half of all grade I listed buildings in England are churches. These buildings are largely run by volunteers who have to raise the funds needed for repairs. The ability to reclaim the VAT on these works makes an enormous difference, as we have heard from others, particularly at a time when costs for building works are substantially increasing. In South West Norfolk, like many rural constituencies, these buildings are so often more than a place of worship; they can be the very lifeblood of the local community, providing services to people who otherwise may miss out.

One church in South West Norfolk that exemplifies this is St Mary’s in Feltwell. I was fortunate enough to visit the church in 2024, and I was deeply impressed by the work it does to support the local community in Feltwell. That includes the food pantry, which sees a group of local volunteers set up a small shop with essentials at greatly reduced prices to help villagers. They also provide crisis packs free of charge to those in need. That initiative is run alongside the church’s regular coffee mornings and community group, which provides free access to computers and the internet—a provision that too many in rural communities sadly do not have.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that the listed places of worship scheme, or a replacement, is put in place in short order? This is not just about buildings; it is about supporting communities such as Horwich. Many worshippers from Horwich parish church have contacted me about making sure that places of worship are retained for future generations and to provide important spiritual and community support for people in my Bolton West constituency.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. Can interventions be brief, please?

[Terry Jermy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it has been wonderful today to hear so many examples of community services run through churches. We all have examples in our constituencies.

When I went to Feltwell, I was so impressed by the work of Sue Garland and the other volunteers. It was a joy to see that they are preserving the building, but importantly giving it life and purpose. These provisions are crucial and highlight what our local places of worship provide in their communities. That is why it is vital that we do all we can to support their maintenance. I would welcome the Minister clarifying whether the grant scheme can be renewed for another year.

St Mary’s is just one of 20 churches in South West Norfolk that has benefited from the listed places of worship grant scheme in the last financial year, but it remains on the heritage at risk register and is in desperate need of repair. I urge the Minister to consider what can be done to protect our most precious historic places of worship.

10:04

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

It would be an act of cultural, social and spiritual mutilation not to continue with this scheme, which is why I do not think that the Minister will announce later that it will not be continued. My concern is that, although we are here debating this very important but limited scheme, there is on the horizon an even bigger problem with which the Government may have to grapple.

My concern, if I may say so, is not for the great cathedrals of this country that will always attract their supporters—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) represents one of the greatest cathedrals—but for the small parish churches. They are small arks that have existed down the centuries as a repositories of the spiritual aspiration, the emotions, and the cultural and historical identities, of rural communities—ancestors have been buried there and pilgrimages paid to their gravesides. One by one, these churches are clinging on only by the efforts of half a dozen or so elderly volunteers, giving up time in the last years of their lives to preserve what has mattered so much to them. What happens when those volunteers go? We are seeing it already in Torridge and Tavistock. Churches are closing—I saw the Bishop of Exeter the other day to discuss it.

This scheme alone will not cause the survival of those extraordinary buildings so precious to our culture, our history and our nation. I implore the Minister to give thought to what should happen when these places of worship close. Are they to be converted into housing, often surrounded by open burial grounds? Not likely. We need to give thought to what will happen to these wonderful places, though not now sacred perhaps in some cases when they are closed, but still precious to the community’s identity and to our national inheritance. I know that the Minister will not discontinue the scheme; I would be astonished if he committed such an act of philistine vandalism, putting at risk all these extraordinary buildings for the sake of a few million pounds.

I ask the Minister to consider, “What next?” Let us not stop just at this. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has a private Member’s Bill, the Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill, on repair VAT. It is time that we considered what more can be done for these buildings and not only for the buildings—which are simply bricks and mortar, stone, with wonderful cultural artefacts within them—but for what they represent: the many hopes and aspirations of so many thousands of people, even if they do not now because

“The Sea of Faith

Was once, too, at the full,”

but now is suffering from that

“melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”.

I know the Minister knows exactly that to which I refer. I have complete confidence in him and I look forward to his statement this afternoon.

10:07

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important and timely debate.

Religious buildings are a vital part of our country’s heritage and architectural history, but of course they also play a central role in our communities. These spaces often serve has hubs, as we have heard, where volunteers come together to help the most vulnerable. Many of the churches and parishes across Suffolk Coastal host food banks and community larders, providing vital support to so many. These places of worship rely on the listed places of worship grant, and many parish churches receive no regular financial support and often rely on their local communities to dig deep. My main message to the Minister is that in rural constituencies, where we have small parishes and small communities, there is already a huge burden on fundraising, whereas, as we have just heard, the larger and more well-known cathedrals might attract fundraising more easily.

The 15th-century tower that is part of St Ethelbert’s church in Falkenham is a really good example of a rural church that provides so much for so few. Falkenham is a small village with a population of less than 200 and the church has an average attendance on a Sunday of about 15 people, but it plays a much bigger role in our community. There is nowhere in the village other than this church for residents to meet, so it is often used for coffee mornings, concerts and social gatherings, with up to 100 people attending those events. The same is true in Sibton—a parish whose only public building is the church, St Peter’s. The number of permanent homes is just 80 and the community rely on that church, which dates back to the 12th-century as a public building, but with a village population that could probably fit in this room, it is hard to fundraise the money that is needed. As hon. Members can imagine, the VAT refund is vital.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Shankill parish church in Lurgan in my constituency is iconic within the town. It has been part of the fabric of the town since 1725, and was rebuilt in 1863 following the Ulster revival in 1859. Shankill is a listed building; it is being refurbished at the moment, but the fact that the grant has been stalled means that that project is no longer able to continue—unless the grant is reinstated. That means that the preaching of the gospel is impacted, and the great spiritual and practical support that the church gives to the community is in jeopardy. The church will survive and continue, but the grant is a key part of that overall project.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I hope the clarity that we will receive shortly will provide reassurance to the hon. Member.

I would like to draw attention to two more churches in my constituency. St Edmund’s church in Bromeswell is a grade I listed building that has been serving the community for about 1,000 years. Although the community has raised the funds necessary for repair and improvement works, the task becomes all the harder and steeper if VAT is not refundable. In Blythburgh, the Holy Trinity church serves a parish of just 300 people, so it is an uphill task to fundraise and keep the grade I listed church in good repair and open to all.

The grant scheme has allowed the necessary works to be carried out for so many of the churches we have talked about today and many more besides. The changes and repair work done in places like Blythburgh have made massive improvements, with improved toilets and a new kitchen, enabling the people there to extend the use of the building for wider community purposes. These are important improvements that will help churches to continue to serve rural and remote communities. The same is true for St Mary’s church in Walton—a beautiful grade II listed church that has recently required works in excess of £35,000.

Those are just a few of the many fantastic churches in Suffolk Coastal that are doing so much for so many, and working hard to raise the funds that they need to ensure that they can survive and adapt to meet the needs of their community. I, along with many colleagues from across the House, urge the Government to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme beyond March.

10:12

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on bringing this important debate to the attention of the House. The stakes are high if the scheme is discontinued, and it will put immense pressure on a small number of volunteers to keep those precious places of worship in good order.

Churches are not just places of worship. In my constituency, Holy Trinity church in Prestwood hosts a monthly breakfast between services, as well as toddlers’ activity groups and regular clubbercise sessions. St Mary’s in Long Crendon hosts choral evenings, mother and baby groups, orchestral events and—very importantly—a beer festival. Without critical restoration work, and the grant scheme making it possible, churches risk losing their vital place in the wider community.

At the 800-year-old St Mary Magdalene church in Great Hampden, fundraising started in 2018 for £300,000—excluding VAT—with restorative paintworks alone costing £50,000. The VAT relief afforded through the grant scheme was so critical to the project that, in its absence, fundraising would continue to this day; work would not even have started. The rector and her team have even arranged a loan facility to cover the time it might take to claim the VAT refund because they could not raise the funds to cover that element of the cost. In the rector’s words,

“The project would not have been possible without the grant scheme.”

I have also heard from St Mary’s church in Princes Risborough, which alongside St Peter’s church in Ilmer, has benefited hugely from the grant scheme, allowing both improvements and the maintenance of the building. In the coming months and years, substantial building works will be required that will benefit both the church and the community. Without the grant scheme, those simply will not happen.

In Great Missenden, the church of St Peter and St Paul provides a valuable service by providing a community space in the adjacent Oldham hall for activities supporting the village’s Church of England school as well as for the church itself. The treasurer has made it clear to me that the enhanced efficiency in planning for major works that the grant scheme allows for has been a great help to the church and the wider community in recent years.

I have given just a snapshot of how critical the scheme is to my constituents. When the Conservatives were in government, the scheme was renewed every year. We see and appreciate the value to communities of the vital and multifaceted roles that churches have, both in bringing people together and symbolising the proud history and traditions of our rural towns and villages. I hope that is foremost in the Minister’s mind when he, hopefully, delivers good news in his winding-up speech or in his written ministerial statement later today.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Due to the constraints of time and the number of interventions, after the next speaker we will reduce the time to two minutes each.

10:15

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this debate.

In Taunton and Wellington, we are fortunate to have stunning examples of historic places of worship, from St Peter’s church in Staple Fitzpaine to what Simon Jenkins—someone I do not always agree with—called

“the noblest parish tower in England”,

St Mary Magdalene, the Minster in Taunton. These buildings are not just part of our history; they are living, breathing providers of community services. Almost half of all grade I listed buildings in England are historic churches and maintaining them, of course, comes at considerable cost. Churches and their congregations provide our country with a considerable public benefit by preserving these historic structures—a benefit that many of my constituents from such congregations worry that they will not be able to continue to provide if this scheme comes to an end.

Continuation of the scheme is simply a fair acknowledgment of that massive voluntary contribution. In fact, it is not just a fair deal for the Government, but a bargain; the value gained from this scheme goes way beyond the heritage and cultural value. It enables churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to deliver essential community and voluntary services, and we have heard examples from across the country. I know from my constituents how crucial they find St Gregory’s mother and toddler group, and how important they find Staple Fitzpaine’s weekly café and music events. These are also important places for the lonely to meet, enjoy a hot drink and access expert advice, which is provided at St John the Baptist, All Saints in Norton Fitzwarren, St John’s in Staplegrove, St Peter and St Paul’s in North Curry, St John’s in Wellington, All Saints in Trull and St Augustine’s in West Monkton, to name just a few.

The sheer scale and quantity of community services provided by those places of worship impossible to list—I would be here all day if I tried. They are not just buildings; they are community hubs of our towns and villages. It is right that we continue to recognise that fact and to support them. Let us protect not only our heritage, but the lifelines that these places of worship provide to the communities that they serve.

10:17

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. I have been contacted by so many pillars of the community in my constituency who are deeply concerned about what this might mean for their places of worship. This is about the preservation of heritage, ensuring that our future generations can enjoy places of beauty and history central to our heritage and culture.

In Great Staughton, St Andrew’s church has stood for 800 years. The chair of their renovation project, Anthony Withers, wrote to me at the end of last year, deeply concerned that their aim of building a community space might be affected or even rendered unfeasible if they are unable to claim back the VAT. Anthony expressed how this project was not aimed at conventional churchgoers, but rather a space for musical, theatrical and other community events. He would dearly like to hear assurances that 800 years of history will be able to carry on, with St Andrew’s remaining at the centre of their community.

I also received a moving email from a constituent who was deeply concerned about the future of the medieval All Saints church in Hamerton. The church was where she was married, where her children were christened and, she hopes, where future family marriages and christenings will happen too. However, with work needed to keep the church building safe, she is worried that the future of All Saints may now be at risk.

From Hamerton to Hertford, where the treasurer of All Saints parish church explained to me that in the last six years alone they have been able to claim back £50,000 for various projects, including repairs to the church tower, refurbishment of the bells, a new gas boiler, restoration and rebuild of the church organ, installation of a new lighting system and the limewash on the internal walls—all work that must be done to keep that church going. The site has had a church standing on it for nearly 1,000 years.

Our churches and places of worship are resorting to ever more inventive and ingenious ways to raise funds for the upkeep of their ageing buildings. All Saints Parish church in St Ives runs a popular event twice a year called “Booze in the Pews”. I attended the last two events and spoke with the vicar, Mark Amey. The funds raised go towards the upkeep of the church and, for anybody passing through my constituency in a fortnight’s time, the next event will be from 6 to 8 February—but I digress.

I know that all Members see on a daily basis the importance of these places and the people who selflessly devote their lives to serving those whom we represent. In summing up, on behalf of all the constituents represented by the Members present, I ask the Minister to outline what steps the Government will be taking in order to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme.

10:19

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for (Bradley Thomas) for bringing us this debate. All Saints parish church in South Antrim is one of the finest Elizabethan Gothic ecclesiastic buildings open for worship in the whole island of Ireland. Originally built in 1596, it is currently embarking on a repair project for its bell tower, which will cost just over a quarter of a million pounds. The church has applied for significant funding, but the £45,000 that it hopes to claim from the scheme is crucial to budgeting for that work.

That church is of specific interest because unfortunately, following this year’s Christmas morning service, there was a fire in the church causing significant internal smoke damage. The church is now looking to repair the smoke damage while continuing with the original repair work, so its small congregation is now required to undertake two significant fundraising efforts. It is willing to do that, but the continuation of the listed places of worship grant scheme is crucial to its budgeting.

In regards to other churches in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, representatives of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland who I spoke to talked about the essential services in other churches and church buildings that now may come under pressure, as all Members have raised. I have one word for the Minister, Proverbs 11:14, and I know he will listen to it:

“Without wise leadership, a nation falls; there is safety in having many advisers.”

The Minister has many advisers in this place who are advising him to keep this scheme open. I would encourage him to listen to those words.

10:21

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this debate. I am time constrained, but I want to mention St Mary’s in Stanwell, a grade I listed 12th-century Norman church. An overseas visitor remarked to me recently how odd it was that the Normans chose to build such a beautiful church right by Heathrow airport—I think they slightly missed the point. We also have St Peter’s in Staines, St Nicholas’s in Shepperton and All Saints in Laleham, all of which have benefited from the listed places of worship scheme.

When churches fall into disrepair, our generation lets our communities down, and when churches crumble, the fabric of society itself crumbles. The Minister is clearly not motivated by self-interest, so I point out that my own church, St Mary’s in Sunbury, a beautiful grade II listed church built in 1752 down by the River Thames, is due to be visited by Mr Speaker on 4 March, where he will conduct a conversation with the congregation. Should the Minister wish to make himself a hero and ensure that the Speaker gets a warm welcome from the people of St Mary’s in Sunbury, I am sure he will see sense, listen to the mood of this Chamber—indeed, the mood of the country—and extend this scheme.

10:23

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on bringing us this important debate. Ely and East Cambridgeshire has many beautiful listed places of worship. They form part of the fabric of our villages and towns, and of course Ely cathedral watches over Ely and the fens and villages for miles around. Their congregations work really hard to maintain these buildings, not just for their own place of worship, but for the benefit of all of us, whether regular congregants, people who go just for special occasions or, as we have heard, people who use them as hubs and for events—or just because they are absolutely stunning buildings, part of the fabric of our heritage.

I used to help to assess a related grant scheme, so I have seen how hard these congregations work to raise money. Obviously, they do cake sales, book sales and all sorts of things, but one of the most inventive ones was guessing where the cow was going to lay her first pat in the field. Asking those people to raise an extra 20% is a significant ask and, as we have heard, it will stop many of these schemes going ahead.

I ask the Minister to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme and to consider, preferably, making it permanent—or, if not, extending it for a significant period of time. That is because these are capital projects that take a lot of planning, and it takes years to raise the money required. People need to know that this scheme will be there into the future to help them to make vital repairs.

10:25

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Our churches are listed places of worship; they are treasured assets that really must be preserved.

During my degree, I loved studying the role of our church; I even read Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History”, which dates back to 731 AD. As the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), has noted, our medieval parish churches contain the vast majority of surviving medieval artwork in this country, so they really must be preserved.

For example, St Peter’s church in Brackley, which is in my constituency, is grade I listed. It is believed that the site the church is built on has been a place of worship since the 7th century AD. The oldest parts of the church itself are Norman, from around 1100 AD, and they play an important role in the charitable organisation—for example, hosting the Mother’s Union, which meets monthly on a Thursday afternoon in the church hall.

Talking about charity and voluntary activity, I am very proud of the support that the Tove Benefice in Towcester, which can be accessed via the grade I listed St Lawrence’s church, has provided to Ukraine. That charitable work has been led by Steve, the husband of the Reverend Paula Challen. They have collected in the church literally tonnes of aid and transported it to Ukraine on numerous journeys. I have so much respect for their support and continued dedication.

Finally, another example of a treasured asset, which is rather closer to home, is St Peter & St Paul church in Easton Maudit. It is home to the exquisite memorial to Sir Christopher Yelverton, who died in 1612. Sir Christopher was returned as the MP for Brackley in 1563, was then the MP for Northampton and, on 24 October 1597, he was elected as Speaker of the House of Commons. The church is also home to captivating architecture, glorious furnishings, other magnificent memorials and stained glass. We would be at a loss if we did not offer all the support needed to allow such buildings, and all the succour that they provide, to continue.

10:27

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Western, to serve under your chairship, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate for his contribution.

We wish to see the heritage and faith that we have in this country continue. The preservation and support of places of worship is not just a matter of heritage or architecture, although such places are a crucial part of the national heritage; they also provide hundreds of millions of pounds to the economy. However, the £30 million allocated for them annually is only a fraction of what is needed.

Strangford, my constituency, is a place steeped in history and tradition, where faith has been central to the community for centuries. It would be a tragedy both spiritually and culturally if places such as St Margaret’s church in Westminster, which is just across the road from Westminster Hall, or the many churches across this land no longer fulfilled their intended purpose, which is to be living places of faith and community.

It is crucial that the Government recognise that these buildings are not simply structures, but are central to the mission of the church, serving as a base for critical community outreach. They are sanctuaries—places where people come together for worship, prayer and fellowship. They are places where the community comes together to support one another—to be the hands and feet of God in this world.

The National Lottery Heritage Fund has been encouraged to support some churches with community projects and parks. St Mark’s church in Newtownards, the parish church in my local community, received money from the fund and is now a community hub, hosting groups representing every age from birth to the twilight years. Indeed, many churches are the driving forces behind volunteer-based care for the elderly, the disabled and marginalised groups.

The Government must acknowledge the vital role that the Church plays in the fabric of our society, not only in maintaining cultural heritage, but in providing essential social services. To that end, the Government should act decisively. By expanding the listed places of worship scheme and encouraging the National Heritage Lottery Fund to allocate more resources, ensuring that funding is available for all necessary repairs, whether they are urgent or preventive, the Government can ensure that churches, cathedrals and abbeys continue to be the heart of British life, preserving our heritage while serving our community, and preaching the gospel and the word of God as it is in the Bible.

10:24

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western, and I thank the Minister—a trained Anglican priest who, I am sure, has our best interests at heart—for tolerating the lamentations of we lay people.

I start by thanking the dozen or so constituents who have written to me about the listed places of worship grant scheme, especially Mark Goodwill-Hodgson, John Edwards, Derek Hollis, Conrad Oatey and Tony Cox, who all shared deeply personal testimonies with me about the importance of their local places of worship in my constituency of Rushcliffe.

What is unique about the listed places of worship grant scheme is its accessibility, paying out approximately 500 grants a month at an average of £4,000 each. We should all be proud of the wider impact that this has had over the last 20 years, and I know that my constituency of Rushcliffe alone has many churches that have benefited from the scheme during that time. You have asked me to be brief, Mr Western, so I simply commend this scheme to all Members. I look forward to the outcome of the forthcoming spending review, as well as the statement later today, which I hope will provide greater clarity and certainty for listed places of worship about their futures under this Government.

10:30

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing the debate. I come from a different angle as I was very much unaware of it, so I thank the Very Reverend Karen Rooms of Leicester cathedral for bringing it to my attention. Leicester cathedral is the cathedral where, when we found King Richard III in a carpark, we reinterred him, and many in our city believe that is what led to Leicester City winning the premiership the season after, so it is absolutely vital to us.

Cathedrals are more than places of beauty, religion and art. I, as a Muslim, volunteer for a Sikh charity serving food in a Christian church for the whole community. Reflecting what has been said, churches and cathedrals are places of community cohesion. I also come from a culture in which we do not own places of worship; we are simply their custodians. We are custodians of our churches and cathedrals.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It has been raised earlier in this debate, and it worried me. Our parish churches are, of course, important, but is it not true that our cathedrals are also monumentally expensive to maintain? Is not the grant every bit as valuable to, for example, Canterbury cathedral in the see of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly. They are our heritage and we must save them for our future generations. The scheme should not just be extended; it should be made permanent and accessible to many places of worship.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I would appreciate it if her speech could be reduced to around nine minutes.

10:32

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on calling this debate and I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on the points they have made.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

In my beautiful constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, I have 25 grade I listed churches. There is hardly a village that does not have a grade I listed church and churches with other statuses. I hope the hon. Member agrees that, without this grant, there are dark days ahead for these communities.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I add Tiverton and Minehead to my list.

First, let me quote one of the people who wrote to me. They said:

“It’s such a great scheme because the volunteers who raise money for church repairs find it such hard work making multiple lengthy applications for grants with usually little to show in return. This VAT relief once you have raised the funds is the one thing that is certain and takes the edge of all the effort”.

I recognise that in 2024 this scheme already gave 5,000 listed places of worship the benefit of returning up to £42 million from the Government to congregations across the country. That £42 million is a fixed annual pot, and there are, I understand, over 7,000 applications.

I will briefly indulge in talking about my own constituency, which I know the Minister has visited on occasion. I have had numerous communications with people, mainly from churches, but also, significantly, from Wells cathedral, where I saw Jethro Tull play a few years ago. The variety of activities is enormous. My partner and I should probably declare an interest; my partner played table tennis in Christ church at Theale last week. Holy Trinity church in Blackford has carols with vast slugs of wine provided to the whole congregation, St Cuthbert’s at Wells has a crib festival and St John the Baptist in Axbridge hosts the annual community awards presentation. There are others such as the Holy Trinity church in Burrington and St Mary Magdalene church in Wookey Hole. All of those places have Remembrance Sunday services where we recall the duty that people have paid to this country. My local church, St Mary’s in Wedmore, runs “The Clash of the Choirs”, which is now world famous, I have to say, and sounds sedate, but is actually a joyous celebration of all sorts of singing, school choirs, folk, handbells and a unique clap-o-meter. There are also the city of Wells almshouses, which are home to some of our more vulnerable elderly citizens. The chapel of St Saviour is benefiting at this moment from works that are being carried out under this scheme.

One of the things I would like the Minister to consider is the conditions that are required for people to claim under this scheme, in which the VAT refund is dependent on having work commissioned, carried out and paid for against a VAT invoice of £1,000 or more—as I understand it—and only then can the church submit a claim. One of my concerns is that if this scheme is to be reduced, or stopped and wound up, then I ask the Minister for great understanding and for transition arrangements for those churches and chapels that already have works in train. It is quite difficult for people to get that work done, particularly when a number of my communities have been suffering from flooding and various other things, meaning that the number of available contractors has also been reduced.

I will not carry on in too much detail, but I was very pleased to receive a letter from the Secretary of State that recognised that,

“Listed places of worship hold great cultural and historical significance, representing some of the nation’s finest heritage.”

I am grateful that the Minister and Secretary of State recognise that, and I would ask for some tolerance and kindness in continuing this scheme, which is so important to our various communities.

10:37

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

I start by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this vital debate. As we can see, it is incredibly important to many hon. Members, and I want to acknowledge contributions from a number of them, but given the time, I cannot acknowledge everybody. I thought my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) all made wonderful contributions, as did the other Members I have not been able to mention. They have all made their faith communities incredibly proud. I take your steer, Mr Western, and will try and give the Minister as much time as possible to satisfy the Members in this House, because this is an important debate.

Britian is defined by its history: up and down the country, people are fiercely proud of their heritage. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, it is therefore right that we hold the Government to account as we try and stand up for our history and protect our heritage. In Opposition, we have campaigned on this issue very vehemently and I know there is a written ministerial statement on the way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said this might be the shortest campaign ever.

[Chris Bryant]

The shortest WMS.

[Saqib Bhatti]

It might the shortest WMS, which I hope tells us how the Minister is extending the scheme. I want to thank all the people from across the country who have written to us on this issue—their voice matters. I thank all the volunteers who protect our most beautiful heritage sites.

The Conservatives are very clear that Britian’s rich history, deep sense of tradition and incredible national story is something we should always protect, and there is no doubt that our churches, and other places of worship that have been announced, are fundamental to that. These cherished buildings play key roles in their local communities, serving both as a window into our past and as active centres of support and sanctuary for people of all faiths and none.

The people who look after them, as custodians of our future generations, are volunteers who give their time and energy generously with very little external help, but many of them are reliant on the vital lifeline that is the listed places of worship grant scheme. Introduced in 2001, the scheme provides essential grants covering the VAT charge and repairs to listed buildings used as places of worship. I am proud that the Conservative Government had a very strong record of supporting that important scheme. Under the previous Government, the listed places of worship grant scheme was extended, providing funding to cover VAT on essential repairs, which meant thousands of churches were protected for generations to come.

However—this may change—Labour is yet to announce whether it will fund the scheme past its expiry in March this year. The Budget came and went without an answer. This uncertainty is making the task of those who look after these precious buildings more precarious and stressful. Many are understandably delaying their plans until the Government make up their mind, meaning more leaky roofs, more draughty windows and more cold churches during the vital Christmas period. With the WMS on the way, I am hopeful that the Minister will announce something meaningful that goes beyond one year. I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for the permanency of this grant, so I hope the Minister will address that point.

According to Historic England, 969 places of worship are under threat, including churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. When questioned about the scheme at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister quoted a hymn, but the custodians of our historic churches need more than a hymn and a prayer. They deserve clarity and support from the Government, which I hope the Minister can give us today. That is important because Historic England’s informative heritage at risk register paints a harrowing picture for England’s historic sites. For places of worship in particular, the possibility of roofs collapsing or a lack of maintenance on stonework would be catastrophic.

Numerous constituents in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East have written to me about their concerns for some of our most beloved local churches. They told me that discontinuing the scheme would

“be a disaster for listed places of worship”,

and that the ability to reclaim VAT

“makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.”

There is great frustration about the Government’s failure to confirm the extension of this vital scheme. It is not just felt by constituents; it has an impact on all our communities and on the rest of society.

The chair of the National Churches Trust, Sir Philip Rutnam, has called on the Government to renew the listed places of worship fund. Sir Philip states that the crisis affecting church heritage could get worse in the coming months if this vital “financial lifeline” is scrapped. The Bishop of Dudley, Bishop Martin Gorrick, also paints a bleak picture, saying,

“It is not just heritage that is at risk if the Scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are home to so much social enterprise and action: Church of England churches support over 35,000 social action projects such as foodbanks, community larders and debt, drug, alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups.”

The director of the Friends of Friendless Churches, Rachel Morley, wrote to the Secretary of State saying,

“The impact of this cut at a parish level would be devastating”

and that,

“We place the burden of caring for thousands of the nation’s most important buildings—undoubtedly the nation’s greatest free heritage resources—on a tiny proportion of the public who are, for the most part, volunteers.”

That view was eloquently shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox).

I hope the Government will confirm the continuation of the scheme as soon as possible or, better still, an expanded scheme that helps the custodians of listed places of worship to carry out vital repair works in the first place. One challenge I would put to the Minister is that the funding has been a rebate for many years. Let us make it into a grant and let us make it permanent. Will he also consider the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which raises quite a vital point? I hope he addresses that.

I cannot speak about this issue without addressing the broader economic picture. If the Government were to neglect these cherished buildings, it would be an act of vandalism, but it would come as no surprise to many of our constituents if the Labour Government did turn a blind eye to this threat to our heritage, given where we are economically. We have seen the calamitous impact of the Chancellor’s callous Budget on our great houses already, including on our historic houses, and I have already written and made comments about the impact. Independent analysis has shown that the dramatic increase in inheritance tax could spell an end for many of our historic heritage sites and estates across the country. This would cost jobs and mean that some of the UK’s most popular stately homes would be closed.

I have very little confidence in the long-term faith that the Government would put in our heritage. Of course, the dire economic circumstances make a big difference. I have already raised the matter on the Floor of the House, because it is becoming ever clearer that the Chancellor will have to cut budgets. Although many of our voters, including many of my constituents, do not believe that they can afford a Labour Government, what they certainly cannot afford is the Minister abandoning our most vital sector, so I encourage him to stand up to the Chancellor and try to protect those vital budgets. As the cost of debt goes up and the economic situation becomes more dire, the Chancellor will have even less headroom to spend on schemes such as the listed places of worship grant.

Mr Western, in deference to your timing request, I will conclude. I share the concerns of many beyond this House that the Government are yet to protect our heritage. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, hundreds of churches have been left with a deep sense of uncertainty for months. The Government’s failure to commit to that funding risks imperilling centuries of British history and heritage, all while leaving gaping holes in our local communities and depriving our constituents of spaces to accommodate celebration, grief, art, music, sculpture, political hustings—of course—wellbeing groups, childcare, addiction support sessions and so much more. The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential, and I urge the Minister to make the strongest possible case for its renewal to the Treasury; otherwise, many of our constituents will ask, “Is nothing sacred any more?”

10:45

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

I feel as if I have been beaten up for the last hour and a quarter in the most genteel way, with a maniple rather than a boxing glove. [Interruption.] I see that most people do not know what a maniple is; perhaps I am the only former priest in the room.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), excoriates me for citing a hymn. It was:

“nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be,

when the earth shall be filled with the glory of God,”

and the Department will announce its decisions. The hon. Gentleman says that the Church cannot rely on a hymn and a prayer. Actually, if I might gently correct his theology, that is literally what the Church does rely on. He needs to go back to the 39 articles; I am quite happy to provide tutorials.

We have had Bede—not in Latin, I note. We have had Jethro Tull; I think that that was Jethro Tull the band, rather than the 18th-century agronomist. We have had Matthew Arnold, to whom I will return a little later, and of course Betjeman. We have also had Proverbs; I think 11:14 was quoted, very sensibly, but if we go up to 11:13, in the King James version, which is always my preferred one—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thought that that might carry at least half the House. It reads:

“A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter”,

or in a more modern translation,

“A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret.”

That is what we have been doing in the Department for a while now.

I warmly commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who put his case extremely well. I think that I agreed with nearly everything he said, as I will come to in a moment. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—one of my favourite Conservative Members—quoted Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, and he knew that I would know it:

“The Sea of Faith

Was once, too, at the full…

But now I only hear

Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Part of the problem is dwindling congregations, which are sometimes fewer than a dozen. I know that the Bible says

“where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I”,

but when we are down to two or three, it is difficult to raise the funds for a beautiful, ancient building that is very expensive to maintain or even keep warm. Those are significant challenges, on which I want to work with all hon. Members.

We have focused mostly on Anglican churches—there are obviously not many medieval Catholic churches around—but of course this issue relates to all listed places of worship in the country and to many different congregations, denominations and religions. There is a specific issue for many of our very historic churches, which are beautiful and need our help as a nation.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove is right that churches are community hubs as much as anything else. They host youth groups, such as the one I used to run at All Saints, High Wycombe; I think I was a bit of a trendy vicar back then—that is all gone now. He referred to food banks, which are also run in many churches. In fact, the old Conservative Association in one of my valleys closed and became a food bank, which is run by a new church that has been set up there. That has managed to save an old historic building, which is great.

Choirs and orchestras often perform in churches, and churches are often warm spaces for people in winter. Although my memory of most churches is that they are rarely warm, the fund has been able to help to make segments of churches into warm places. Churches are also refuges for lots of people. The bit that we have not mentioned very much is that they are a place of worship, which is an important part of the spiritual life of this nation. Births, deaths, baptisms, funerals and weddings are a very important part of community life and a commitment to God.

Churches are also of phenomenal artistic and architectural importance. Some of the most beautiful buildings in this country are historic churches. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned Salisbury cathedral. There is the famous painting, of course; it is a very beautiful cathedral. I cannot now think of it without remembering the horrific, horrible Russians who claimed that they had come to Salisbury to visit the tourist site there when we know that they came with murderous intent.

Many of those places are a vital part of our country’s tourism. They are also often a living archive. Whether it is the memorials on the wall or on the floor, the brass rubbings that people look at, or the churchyards themselves, genealogy is still a very big business around the world, including for thousands of Americans. I think Walt Disney at one point came to Northamptonshire or somewhere where there is a d’Isney who may or may not be related. Many Americans come to British churches to see where their forebears came from.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will the Minister accept that the volume of tourists that he has just referred to is essential to many listed buildings, particularly places such as Canterbury cathedral? That volume of tourism also, of course, adds to the cost of maintenance.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, it does. For many cathedrals, deciding whether to charge is a difficult balancing act. It is a complicated decision, but the passage of millions of people through a building does wear it down. Toilets have to be renewed, places have to be kept warm, and the electrics have to be repaired and kept safe; we have heard a couple of references to fires in churches over the years.

I fully accept that volume of tourists is a massive challenge for us. We have a different settlement in this country compared with other countries. In the Church of England, when I was in the diocese of Oxford, we had what we used to refer to as “dead men’s money”, which is the Church’s historic endowment, but it is often stretched very thin.

Hon. Members have talked about funding. The churches themselves do a lot of fundraising, and I put on record my tribute to the widow’s mite and to those who have contributed significant sums over the years to keep churches open. I think Andrew Lloyd Webber has played a significant role in that, as have many others who have given tens of thousands of pounds or have left money to their local church. When I was a curate in High Wycombe we had to raise thousands of pounds for the spire. I think I sat for 24 hours outside the church reading poems, including Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, to help to raise money, and then they threw me out of an aeroplane as well—with a parachute.

The single biggest chunk of money that goes to churches, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove knows, comes from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Between 2017 and 2023, the amount of money given to smaller churches came to £165,188,049. That far eclipses the amount of money that comes through the scheme that we are talking about today. Even Bromsgrove has received £1.2 million from that fund since 1994, including for St Laurence, Alvechurch, which got £189,000 for repairs to its tower last year.

In addition, there is the Churches Conservation Trust, which is governed by the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969. We will be laying a statutory instrument fairly soon to enable that to continue with something in the region of £3 million, and it is responsible for a specific number of churches. The Church of England has also set aside £11 million for its Buildings for Mission fund. All that funding is excellent.

I have to say that, as a Minister of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the financial situation in our Department is very tough. Many hon. Members who have spoken could equally have come along and asked about the museums or libraries in their constituency, which have struggled because of local authority funding cuts over the last 14 years; or they might have said to me, “What about the local theatre or the local arts venue, which are struggling for finances? Or the music venues that have been closing, two a week, for the last few years?”; or they might point to other forms of heritage at risk. I note that the shadow Minister made several spending commitments for the next general election campaign, including significant extra funding for a whole series of different heritage bodies. There are a significant number of churches on the heritage at risk register. It is good that 23 places of worship have been removed from that since 2023, but obviously we want to go further if we can.

I tried to come to the House as soon as I could after we came to a decision. Going through the process in the Department has been difficult because the funding is so tight and we have a lot of competing demands. In addition, we have a series of arm’s length bodies, such as the national galleries and museums that are Government-owned and under Government responsibility, which we cannot leave out of the equation. I note the Father of the House’s comments earlier—I am sure he is not accusing me of using some kind of hidden tactic—but I wanted to come as soon as I could to respond to the debate, which we knew was going to be today. I have officials and everybody lined up so that I can make the proper announcements to the House as fast as we possibly can, because I think Parliament should hear them first.

Members will be aware from the Order Paper that an announcement on the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme is due today. The written ministerial statement will not say much more than I am about to say now, so hon. Members should not get too excited. I am pleased to be able to give certainty and announce that the scheme will continue in 2025-26 with a budget of £23 million. We have made this difficult decision against a tough financial background and bearing in mind a wide range of compelling priorities for expenditure within the Department.

In order to meet the budget, we have introduced a cap on the total amount that a listed place of worship can claim per year. We have set that at £25,000, which can still be spread across multiple claims from the same church. In all the years so far, 94% of applications have been under the £25,000 cap, and the vast majority of claims—over 70%—have been for less than £5,000. A written ministerial statement will be made shortly in both Houses to confirm and provide further details of this announcement, but, to be honest, there is not much more detail there.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will, but I need to give enough time for the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.

[Gideon Amos]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said £25 million. Is it correct that there was £42 million of funding in the past? Is this a cut of £20-odd million?

[Chris Bryant]

No, that is not correct. The maximum amount that was spent last year was £29 million—I will be straight with the hon. Member that it is a smaller amount of money this year. An allocation had been made for £42 million but that amount was never spent because there were not sufficient applications.

By tradition, a cathedral is not symmetrical because only God is perfect. I am sure this funding is not perfection in terms of what everybody would want, but I hope it is at least acceptable.

10:59

[Bradley Thomas]

Because I am conscious of time, I will not thank hon. Members individually, but I thank everyone collectively. I am really pleased to see the extent of cross-party support here. We have approached the matter in a non-political spirit, recognising the heritage and identity of churches and listed places of worship and the spiritual contributions they make across the entire country.

I welcome the Minister providing a continuation of the scheme for 2025-26, although the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was spot on when he said that the scheme was a bargain as it was. It would be a false economy to reduce the scheme and not to give it a degree of permanence. I implore the Minister to go back to his Department and consider how the scheme can be extended permanently—

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

Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Marie Tidball to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. There must be urgent reform of the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements, known in law as presumption of contact, on the basis of evidence and principle, and to ensure that children’s voices are at the heart of our family courts.

The de facto common law principle of presumption of contact was legislated for in the Children and Families Act 2014, which inserted sections 1(2A) and (2B) into the Children Act 1989. That legal principle means that parents should always be given contact with their children, even in circumstances where there is a known domestic abuser.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this massive issue—well done for bringing it forward. In the world we live in, it is always the most innocent—the children—who suffer the greatest in a family breakdown. Does she agree that we must do more to ensure that, where there are doubts about safety, we should utilise supervised parental visits? Getting this right is an essential part of the battle against violence against women and children.

[Dr Tidball]

I certainly agree. To illustrate why, I want hon. Members to imagine a school night with a child being repeatedly asked by his father if he had completed his homework. The child replied in an exasperated tone, “Yes.” His dad stepped towards him with his fists ready to punch him. The boy’s mum stepped into the space between the fist and her son, and pushed him out of its way. The full force of that fist hit her so hard that she was spun round and fell down the stairs, bruising her arms, legs and back. From the top of the stairs, the child’s father shouted to his son, “Look what you made me do.” Imagine the same boy being driven to tears after his father made his brother eat peas until he was sick. The boy’s mother left her husband, taking the children with her.

Imagine a scene, six months later, where the father barricaded a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officer in her office for 15 minutes. Social services were aware that that same father had made statements that he was capable of killing. Then imagine that, despite knowing all that, a family court permitted the father of those two boys five hours’ unsupervised contact per week. Claire Throssell, my constituent, does not need to imagine that nightmare. She and her two sons, Jack and Paul Sykes, lived it.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Women’s Aid highlights that the pro-contact culture in family courts can force children into contact with abusive parents, sometimes against their will. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that family justice agencies recognise children as victims in their own right, as outlined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to prioritise their welfare and, most importantly, save lives?

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed, and I will return to that point later, not least because Jack and Paul Sykes told their social workers that they were scared of their dad. The youngest told them that he was “pure nasty”. Their secondary school was so concerned about the domestic abuse at home that it also alerted social services. Yet, on a two-hour contact visit permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by that same CAFCASS officer, Jack and Paul were locked in the attic by their father. Using gasoline, their dad then set multiple fires alight across their home. Paul, aged nine, died at the scene after his elder brother tried to save him. Jack, aged just 12, died later in hospital. The father also killed himself in the blaze.

Jack and Paul Sykes were supposed to return to their mother Claire that night. Instead, the boys died at the hands of a known domestic abuser. Their voices were not heard by social services, nor by the court. CAFCASS never heard their voices either. In fact, the day that Jack was supposed to speak to CAFCASS for a welfare assessment was the same day Claire cradled him in her arms as he died. The only time Jack’s voice was heard was when he was held in the fireman’s arms as he used the last of his strength to say, “My dad did this and he did it on purpose.”

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The hon. Member is making an immensely powerful argument; that is a tragic tale. Does she agree that, as well as domestic abuse being taken into account, perpetrators of child sexual abuse should be taken into account in relation to parental involvement? I support the campaign of my constituent, Bethan Parkinson. Amending Jade’s law to that effect, to include domestic abuse and child sexual abuse, would be a useful step forward.

[Dr Tidball]

I do agree. I will discuss further proposals later in my speech. Jack and Paul would never have been in the reach of a known domestic abuser, were it not for the presumption of contact. Although schools have a statutory responsibility to report suspected incidents of domestic abuse, in contrast the presumption does not put the children of known domestic abusers first.

Ten years on, this place must hear Jack’s and Paul’s voices reverberate loud and clear, because tragically their voices are not alone. Women’s Aid found evidence of 48 child deaths at the hands of a known domestic abuser that took place following a permitted contact visit between 1994 and 2015. The Domestic Abuse Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned, recognises that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right. Child contact is a known risk indicator for domestic homicide, yet we still do not know the true scale of the problem.

The vast majority of court reports are not published, with only 10% of rulings coming to light. Only last month, the sentencing of Sara Sharif’s known domestically abusive father and stepmother for her murder showed all of us that action is urgently needed to change the law. Her life must not be forgotten.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

As the MP for Sara Sharif, I am very thankful that the hon. Lady has raised her case. As she knows, I called for an immediate safeguarding review, to understand the reasoning. However, it appears that the perverse incentive for parental contact, with Sara’s father being given custody, contributed to her death. Does the hon. Lady agree that family courts and that perverse incentive need to be changed?

[Dr Tidball]

I absolutely do agree and will return to my proposals for reform later.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an immensely powerful speech. It was extremely moving yesterday for the Education Committee to hear directly from my hon. Friend’s constituent, Claire Throssell. Claire’s work, in the context of her unbearably painful experience, is deeply inspiring, and I pay tribute to her.

We heard from her how problems in the family courts, including but not limited to the presumption of contact, have knock-on consequences for the wider work of child protection. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Minister to ensure that there is strong, joined-up and effective working between her Department and the Department for Education so that we make sure that everyone who has a role in the protection of children is doing the most effective work possible?

[Dr Tidball]

I agree. We have said that we will take a mission-centred approach in Government, particularly to halve violence against women and girls, and I will return to that point. As a reference for Hansard, I mention that Claire Throssell MBE is with us in this Chamber today.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making the most powerful of speeches. We need joining up with the police service. My constituent fears every day that her children are in contact with their father. It is really important that we look at the thresholds, particularly with the Crown Prosecution Service, for prosecuting cases.

[Dr Tidball]

I agree. As someone who has worked in criminology and criminal justice for over a decade, I think the need for us to move beyond siloed working can be no more important than it is in these sorts of cases.

Just yesterday, we learned that the man Kiena Dawes named as her killer when she committed suicide wants to launch a custody battle over their daughter, saying that

“I’m coming to get you baby girl”.

This man has been jailed for six and a half years for assault of and controlling behaviour towards Kiena. Our current law would allow this person to have unsupervised contact with their child.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate and for making such a powerful speech. Does she agree that the visitation presumption, custody presumption and all these sorts of things that happen in family law courts are a continuing perpetration of the domestic abuse that the women and mothers were fleeing in the first place? I will keep this case anonymous, but in my constituency I was meant to meet a woman on Saturday. The handling of the handover of the children on Friday had been so abusive and painful for her that she had to cancel her appointment with me because she was in hospital with heart palpitations. Can my hon. Friend address how we can ensure in the future that the presumption in the court service takes into account that this is continuing domestic abuse for both the mother and the children?

[Dr Tidball]

Absolutely. I will return to this later, but the harm report makes quite clear the re-traumatisation of both children and parental victims of domestic abuse that comes with repeated attempts at contact and the presumption that is currently in place. The consequence of that is a generation of lost voices like Jack and Paul Sykes and Sara Sharif, but there is no definitive way of knowing how many parents whose partner or spouse is a known domestic abuser have been persuaded into some form of shared care because of the presumption.

The harm report, published in 2020 by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm, found that presumption of contact must be reviewed urgently, because the principle

“put a misplaced emphasis on the child’s right to a relationship with both parents…above the child’s welfare and right to be safe from abuse and its effects”.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the incredible campaigning work of Claire Throssell MBE in the face of unimaginable grief. My hon. Friend mentioned the Ministry of Justice report, which highlighted that the culture of the family courts and professionals involved in cases showed a systematic disbelief of abuse and the acceptance of counter-allegations—for example, parental alienation—without robust scrutiny. Does she agree that the report, which was left to gather dust, must be dusted down and put into immediate effect?

[Dr Tidball]

I absolutely do. Furthermore, in response to my hon. Friend’s important point, the report specifically stated:

“To the extent that the courts’ pro-contact culture operates as a barrier to addressing domestic abuse, it serves to reinforce that culture.”

Indeed, section 6 of the report laid bare that children’s voices are being “muted or unheard” in domestic abuse cases because of the pro-contact culture.

[Jess Asato]

One of my constituents, a domestic abuse survivor, has had all contact with her children removed, as well as her domestic abuse claim rejected without evidence. She has now had to pay not just for contact visits but monthly drug tests, when her drug use was not proven at all, making it completely unaffordable for her to see her children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is past time that we stopped our family courts from being used as a tool of abuse against survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence?

[Dr Tidball]

I do agree. Our court system should be one where justice is achieved for vulnerable victims of abuse, rather than an additional and secondary means of victimising them.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way—she has been very generous in doing so in this short but important debate. A constituent of mine, who will remain anonymous, has undergone domestic abuse that the family courts process not only allowed to continue as economic abuse, but facilitated. With family courts still failing to ensure the safety of child victims, and given that around 60% of cases in the family courts involve domestic abuse, does the hon. Member agree that much more needs to be done to protect families from being re-victimised and traumatised via the very process that should be delivering them justice?

[Dr Tidball]

I agree, and nowhere is that clearer than in the cases of my constituent’s sons, Jack and Paul. Not only was their father known to be abusive, but the boys did not want to see him—all while he was demanding 50:50 contact in the family courts. Claire promised her sons that she would not rest until the law was changed to prevent more children from dying like they did. When I was elected last year, I promised to help her.

Labour’s important mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade will require a national effort, and require us to use every tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence. Last week’s Second Reading of the landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marked a transformative change to child protection in education, and now we need to hold family courts to the same standard by repealing section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this incredibly important debate, and I second many of the comments she has made in her incredible speech. Does she agree that the cases of children with special educational needs who cannot express their feelings and fears must be taken into account, and that the presumption of contact must be stopped in those cases where there is live domestic abuse?

[Dr Tidball]

I do agree, and those factors have a cumulative, additive effect on those young people, silencing their voices even more so than those of other victims. That is one of the reasons why the harm report was clear that

“the presumption should not remain in its present form”

and recommended that it be reviewed

“urgently in order to address its detrimental effects.”

Today we are focusing on presumption of contact, but there is much more that could be done to make the family court system child-centric. We can be bolder by changing the language in the Children Act 1989 to say explicitly that a presumption of contact should not be given to a known domestically abusive parent. Further, protections could be strengthened by incorporating practice direction 12J in primary legislation. We also need to ensure that no interim contact takes place before assessments are fully completed by CAFCASS. Additionally, we must legally recognise children as victims of financial abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Shockingly, there is currently no definition of rape or consent in the family court system.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. Everybody in this room wants children to be born with two loving parents, but that is not possible for everybody, and it is definitely not a luxury that every child enjoys. Currently, when a woman is raped in this country, and she gives birth as a result, the rapist can apply for access to the child throughout their life. A woman in my constituency, and women beyond, talked to me about the trauma inflicted on them not only at the point of the attack but as they raise their child. The law now acknowledges that children born from rape are victims of crime, but it is vital that perpetrators are not given access to those children, continuing their unwanted presence in the victim’s life. The harm that that access can cause must be recognised to protect the young people and their mothers from violent offenders. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a change to the law?

[Dr Tidball]

I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful statement. That is why we must urgently spell this issue out in primary legislation, alongside having a more tightly drawn definition of domestic abuse towards children in section 3 of the 2021 Act.

Over four years have passed since the UK Government launched a review of the presumption, as recommended by the harm report. The Conservative Government made no response, but now there is an opportunity for our new Government to take action, look at what other countries are doing and embed child-centred approaches in the family courts. Australia has repealed a similar piece of legislation, and the US is rolling out a law to incentivise states to ensure that their child custody laws properly protect children.

We must show leadership and be a beacon of light for children’s rights around the world by changing the law so that family courts prioritise children’s welfare and safety over the privilege of parental contact rights. Our Government must do what the previous Conservative Government failed to do, by taking a child-centred approach and changing the law on presumption of contact.

No more towns such as mine should be left to grieve. No more parents should have to make the ultimate sacrifice of the life sentence of losing a child at the hands of an abusive spouse or partner. No more parents should ever have to send their child on a court-ordered visit and hold them tightly in their arms hours later as they die. This Government must now act to save lives for generations to come by ending contact at any cost.

Let us not just imagine a world where the voices of children are put at the heart of our family court system, where children such as Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored, where children have a childhood free of fear and oppression, and where children such as Jack and Paul live the lives they deserved to live. Minister, I urge you to do all you can to make that world a reality.

11:22

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for securing this debate on an incredibly important subject. I am deeply sorry about what her constituent, Claire Throssell, has been through. The loss and trauma that Claire and her family have experienced is unimaginable and, frankly, unspeakable. If I can address you directly, Claire, the resilience you have shown in the face of the devastating loss of Jack and Paul is astounding. Your commitment to campaigning and advocating for children and adults who have experienced domestic abuse is inspirational, and you are shaping the national conversation on this issue. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and to you, Claire, for the time you spent with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), back in November to discuss the presumption and the wider issues surrounding it.

There is no question but that protecting vulnerable children from violence and abuse must always be a first priority for the state, and the family courts have a vital role to play in that mission by protecting children and safeguarding victims of violence against women and girls. What does the statutory presumption we have been discussing do? As currently designed, it has two important aims. The first is to ensure that any parent who poses a risk to their child can be prevented in law from being involved in their child’s life. The second is to ensure that when it is safe, and only when it is safe, to do so, children are able to maintain some form of relationship with their parent after separation.

Under our current law, the child’s welfare is, as it must be, the paramount consideration. This is known as the welfare principle, and it is enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act. The presumption reflects an understanding that, where it is safe, and only where it is safe, to allow it, and where it would be in the best interests of a child’s welfare, both parents being involved in a child’s life is a goal of family justice.

The Children Act sets out this two-stage process, and it is important that we understand what that process is and how it works when family courts come to consider it. First, the court will consider whether a parent can be involved in a child’s life in a way that does not put that child at risk of suffering harm. If it cannot be assured of that, the presumption does not apply. If a parent can be involved in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm, the child will move to the second stage, and the court will consider whether the parent’s involvement would further that child’s welfare. If there is evidence that a parent’s involvement would not further the child’s welfare, the presumption can be rebutted and will not apply to that parent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge set out the history of how that came to be enshrined in our law. In 2014 the Children Act was amended to introduce the presumption of parental involvement, built on well-established case law in our domestic law and in law enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The intention was to recognise the benefits of both parents being involved in a child’s life.

[Emily Darlington]

I appreciate that the Act was amended in 2014, but our understanding of abuse has widened since then to encompass financial, emotional and coercive control—abuse is not limited to just physical violence. In the light of that, is it not time to review the law and change the definition of harm to the child to encompass the wider definition of what we now understand abuse to be?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the broader understanding of what can constitute abuse has to be incorporated in how we reflect on and review the presumption. The point made by a number of Members—that family courts must never be locations where victims can be re-traumatised by the legal process itself—is a vital one. It is also important that, at the centre of our family courts and law, the best interests and safety of the child are always the focus of any decision making. If we were to ask any family court judge, they would reiterate that that is the law they apply.

It is right, however, that a review has taken place. The Government understand the concerns that have been so eloquently raised today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge pointed out, the previous Government and the Ministry of Justice conducted a wide-ranging review of private family law proceedings. A harm panel comprising experts analysed submissions of evidence from victims and families from right across the public, publishing a landmark report on private family law. As I said, family courts must never be a tool for domestic abusers to continue to exert their coercive control and abuse over others.

The panel recommended that we review the presumption of parental involvement, because in some cases it is leading to negative and unintended consequences. That review has been undertaken, and the Government will be publishing the findings. At the moment, we are grappling with what the policy implications of those findings will be. It would not be right for me to pre-empt the publication of the findings, but it is on its way. As soon as we can publish it alongside our policy response, we will.

[Dr Sullivan]

May I ask the Minister for some advice, then? If some of our constituents have found that the family courts process and procedures have led to the re-traumatising of victims, what advice can we offer them? As the Minister eloquently set out, the family courts are not designed to do that, but it does occur.

[Sarah Sackman]

If that is what is being experienced, it needs to be fed back. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has complaints processes and, in my hon. Friend, her constituents have an outstanding advocate to make those points. I will be taking back the lessons that we learn in today’s debate, and it is right that the feedback happens. I will come in a moment to what we are doing, not least through the pathfinder pilot, to reshape and reform our family justice system so that the re-traumatisation does not occur. The progress that we are seeing through the pathfinder pilot, which this Government will extend, is a vital part of that work.

One hears talk about reviews, but it is not enough to simply have a review, and it is important that we act on it. We are not waiting to act. As others have said, this Government have a landmark ambition to halve violence against women and girls within the next 10 years. There is a role for our family courts to play in achieving that wider culture change. Others have made the point that we need joined-up, mission-based Government—

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Education, Health and Care Plans

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

14:30

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for education, health and care plans.

I thank everybody for coming along to this really important Westminster Hall debate on a subject that fills our inboxes. The Government Benches are very full, and some of the Opposition Benches are reasonably full. I will try to keep my speech as short as possible, because so many people want to speak, but there are various points that I want to make.

The debate is about Government support for education, health and care plans. For the benefit of anybody watching the debate who does not understand the system, EHCPs are a fundamental part of the special educational needs system. They are responsible for providing the additional support that children need in school to help them through their educational life and beyond. The big problem is that children and parents do not get the support they need through the EHCP system. Even when EHCPs are granted, schools are sometimes unable to deliver the support set out in them, so parents end up in a ridiculous situation and in many cases have to take their local authority to court. Local authorities lose 99% of cases, but that delays and delays the process and costs parents and local authorities a huge amount of money.

On 3 September 2024, the Government published local authority-level figures on waiting times for a decision following an education, health and care needs assessment. That assessment is the first stage: the parent applies for an EHCNA, and the local authority has six weeks in which to decide whether it will accept it, and 20 weeks in total in which to issue the EHCP. So how long are people actually waiting? Well, there are huge discrepancies across the system. Hampshire county council issues EHCPs within 20 weeks 75% of the time, which does not sound too bad, right? Essex county council, where I am situated, issues EHCPs within 20 weeks 0.9% of the time. Both councils have more than 3,000 requests.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important debate to the Chamber, as she is right to mention the timescales. As she knows, in 2023 only half of EHCPs were issued within the statutory 20 weeks, and whether children receive support depends too much on their postcode and how well their parents can navigate what can only be described as a chaotic system. Does she agree that the special educational needs and disabilities system is failing families? We cannot have a sticking-plaster solution; we need a root-and-branch review.

[Marie Goldman]

I wholeheartedly agree that the system is completely broken and needs complete reform. I gently say to the Minister and anybody listening to the debate that the longer that reform takes, the more harmful it will be for children. Children are suffering right now because they are not getting the support they need. Children keep getting older; they do not wait for Governments to decide what they are going to do or for root-and-branch reforms. Children and their parents need the support right now. Although I would absolutely welcome a wholesale review and change, there are things we can do now to alleviate the problems. If the Minister takes away only one thing from the debate, I hope it is the plea for more to be done now and for the reform and implementation to be sped up. I will come in a bit to the things we can do.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital and important debate. She talks about inequality, and SEND funding is unequal across the country. Somerset council is part of the f40 group, which includes a number of the most poorly funded councils across the country. It received less than £8,000 in gross dedicated grant funding per mainstream pupil in 2024-25, which is more than £5,000 less than the best-funded local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must tackle this postcode lottery and urgently provide better support for some of our nation’s most vulnerable pupils?

[Marie Goldman]

Of course, and my hon. Friend raises an important point. We must tackle that inequality. The Government will say, “We put £1 billion of extra funding into special educational needs.” That is great—it is much better than no extra money for special educational needs—but it will not touch the sides. Local authorities are saying that they have a deficit in the high needs block of £3 billion, and some estimates say that that will go up to £8 billion in the near future. We are looking at a massive funding shortfall.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s important debate. In Slough, attainment outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities were below the national average, and that is precisely why we need more funding and resources for Slough children. As a parent, I can only imagine the anguish of parents who have to navigate the complex and time-consuming process of gaining an EHCP, particularly given that only half of EHCPs are issued within the statutory 20-week limit and 98% of appeals are successful. Does the hon. Lady agree that, to improve EHCPs, we need first to regain the trust and confidence of parents?

[Marie Goldman]

Absolutely. Parents’ trust in the system is important, so we need to show that we are listening to them. We also need to show that we are giving them the information they need to alleviate their stress. Someone who has a child with special educational needs knows that their child needs extra support. This is already a stressful time in their life; they then have to sit and wait for an EHCP to land in their inbox, perhaps in week 19 —it is supposed to be 20 weeks, so of course it should land in week 19—but then it does not turn up, and keeps on not turning up. That is incredibly stressful, and it takes away parents’ trust in the system. We should be more transparent about that.

We talk about an EHCP being issued within 20 weeks, but across England 37.4% of decisions took six months or longer—that is just ridiculous—and 5.7% took a year or longer. That is completely unacceptable, and it leaves parents in a very difficult place. We need to be more honest with parents and to make that information much more available to them. My new clause 3 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would help to make the system much more transparent for parents by making local authorities publish how well they are performing against those statutory deadlines. That would be much better for parents.

What is the impact on children? We must remember that we are not talking about random numbers or about figures on a spreadsheet somewhere; these are real children who have real lives, real parents and real families. They have aspirations in life, and we need to support them. What does all this mean for them? One SEND professional wrote to me about one child’s case:

“This child, who is autistic, non-verbal, and has sensory processing challenges, applied for an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP) in October 2023. It is now January 2025, and they are still waiting for their EHCP to be issued. In the meantime, they are placed in a mainstream school with no tailored support. The result has been incredibly stressful for the child, their family, and the staff working with them. The school has now reached a point where they cannot cope, and the child is being home-schooled, isolated from peers and without access to the specialized education they need and deserve.”

One SEND co-ordinator, who is also a teacher, wrote to me:

“It is very frustrating with the length of time it is taking for EHCPs to be finalised. Although they are back-dating the funding (which is great), by the time the EHCP actually is agreed, it is often too late for parents to request school placements ready for a transition at the start of the school year, which is often what we need it for.”

There is a preference for mainstream, and I hear the Government say that we should educate as many children as possible in mainstream. I do not fundamentally disagree, but mainstream is not suitable for all children, and certainly not when mainstream schools do not have the resources they need to provide education and support.

Mainstream sounds good in principle. However, Contact—a charity for families with disabled children—wrote to me, saying, “Local Authorities like Essex”—again, that is where I am—

“are reducing the provision in section F for a child with an EHCP as they believe that a lot of the provision in section F comes under ordinarily available provision, which they say the school can provide as standard. All the special educational provision that a child with an EHCP needs is legally required to be stated in section F of an EHCP. It is through section F that there is a legal duty for Local Authorities to make this provision. Parents have been told by schools that there is no funding for SEN provision or ordinarily available support. How can children be reliant on SEN support when there is no funding for it?”

Schools are really struggling to deal with the situation. The idea of mainstream and of “ordinarily available” provision is great, but not if schools are not provided with the funding they need. I know that the Government can say, “Well, we have increased the funding for schools,” and they have also increased teacher pay, which is great— teachers absolutely should be paid more—but they have also told schools that teacher pay needs to be funded out of their budgets, which makes the situation very difficult.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I must congratulate my hon. Friend on her preparation for this debate, which has attracted so many people to Westminster Hall today—except, of course, from the party that created a lot of the problems we now face. On her point about mainstreaming and special school education, does she agree not only that many rural areas are underfunded but that people in those areas face the additional challenge of expensive home-to-school transport to access specialist provision, because there is insufficient budget for that transport? That issue needs to be addressed if we are to have an even playing field across the country.

[Marie Goldman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. I do not live in a rural area, so it is easy for me to overlook issues such as this. However, I do know that many councils have raised it; indeed, to be fair to Essex county council, it has raised it with me. When we talk about root-and-branch reform of the system, we need to make sure that we address the whole system and everything that goes with it, including transport. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I thank him very much for that.

What is the impact on the school budget? One primary school is funding 90 hours of learning support assistant time a week because there is no EHCP, and it is having to find that funding out of its own budget. That is not through lack of trying to get EHCPs. The school said that it had applied for an ECHP for one child in January 2024, but that child has not even seen an educational psychologist yet.

Schools tell me that they do not have the buildings and the other resources to be able to safely look after these children using ordinarily available provision.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. Even when plans are eventually put in place, children and young people struggle to get suitable school places. They face hours of travel each day, especially in rural areas, or they are left at home without appropriate education. Does my hon. Friend agree that funding needs to ensure that provision is local, meets needs and is well resourced?

[Marie Goldman]

Yes, and it is very hard to disagree with that point. Of course provision needs to recognise what the local challenges are, and those differ in different localities. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.

Let me return to LSAs and the support they provide in schools. Often, there are several children with EHCPs in a class, so it is sometimes necessary to have more than one LSA to support them. However, it is hard to recruit LSAs, because, as schools have told me, the salaries do not match the skills that LSAs require. Also, LSAs are not suitable in all cases, because young people with severe special educational needs can—through no fault of their own; I want to make that very clear—be very disruptive and, unfortunately, endanger other children if they are not properly supervised. That is why it is really important that we have LSAs, teaching assistants and all the support staff necessary to support these children. One special educational needs co-ordinator told me:

“As much as the LSA children don’t need 1:1 support full-time, there are some children that really do require 1, or sometimes 2, adults with them throughout the day if everyone is to be kept safe and for the child to have their self-care needs met in a mainstream environment.”

We talk a lot about schools, but this issue also affects further education—for example, sixth-form colleges. They tell me that the annual reviews that are done as part of the EHCP process focus too much on educational attainment and on academic achievement and progress, when colleges in fact need to understand what special measures they need to put in place to best meet the needs of the children who are coming in. That is not necessarily about academic achievement; it is about how colleges can best manage the behaviour that pupils exhibit and keep them safe. Colleges say that, unfortunately, EHCPs do not place enough emphasis on behaviour, and their plea—I hope the Minister is listening—is that if we look at the EHCP process, we should encourage it to focus on that issue and not just on educational attainment. Colleges also say that some information in the annual review of behaviour is historical, and might put sixth-form colleges off accepting pupils, even though it would be perfectly appropriate to accept them because their behaviour had changed and they could be supported in different ways.

I also want to emphasise the importance of early intervention, because addressing issues early is key. Some children will not need support throughout their entire life or even their entire school life, but getting in early, especially with speech and language issues, can help children to progress just as well as children who did not need additional support. It is not necessarily always about long-term support; sometimes it is about early intervention, and then we can save money later.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

It was good to hear yesterday from the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities about the importance of early intervention. We heard from the Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board, which showcased its really interesting work. On the back of that, I reached out to my ICB in Suffolk and North East Essex and I understand that the health response there on early interventions is quite good. Bearing in mind that the hon. Lady and I both represent Essex constituencies, it would be worth her looking at the ICB connected to her area. Perhaps we could work together on improving outcomes for parents and kids in Colchester and Chelmsford.

[Marie Goldman]

Of course, I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady on that sort of issue. I was also at that APPG on SEND meeting, although I could not stay for the whole thing. I am glad she raised it, because at that APPG meeting, an example was given to us of a child who had situational mutism. The intervention they received early on meant that they were able to progress and achieve their full potential, which I thought was fabulous. Unfortunately, I have an example of exactly the opposite in my constituency, where a child with selective mutism did not receive that support and is now not in school at all. The importance of that support cannot be overstated.

We could talk a lot about why there has been an increase in EHCP applications, about covid and its impact, about the lack of socialisation and what that has led to and about the lack of early intervention. Maybe some parents are asking for EHCPs because it is the only way to get the support that might ordinarily have been available if schools were not feeling the pressure so much. Ultimately, this is a systemic failure, and I want to move on to some solutions.

We need to do this quickly—remember, every single day that children grow up without that support is another day they are suffering. Other than root and branch reform, we need better communication between schools and colleges, between local authorities and parents, and between schools and parents. The list could go on, but I remind everybody that communication is two-way. It is not just the local authority sending out a briefing pack—that is not good enough. We need them to listen, and we need the Government to listen.

We need more training. We need qualified and experienced people working with children. A qualified and experienced SEND professional told me:

“People like me, who are trained to work with SEND children and adults, often find there is no structured role for us within councils or government systems to support schools, families, or nurseries effectively.”

We need to do more about that. There are people who are willing to work and have amazing experience in the system, so let us help them get the qualifications to be able to help parents and young people. One SENCO said that SENCOS need more career path options. Could we have an option, for example, to fast-track some training? Could there be some kind of associate ed psych qualification? I do not know, but maybe that could be looked at. We need to make it easier for parents to understand what is going on.

Returning to the issue of tribunals, when local authorities are losing 99% of cases, something is seriously wrong. I wonder whether some of those delays, where the local authorities are deciding to take parents all the way through to tribunal, are—to be very cynical—a way to avoid having to pay the costs of providing the support to the children during that time.

I welcome the Education Committee’s inquiry on solving the SEND crisis and advertise to everybody that the deadline to contribute is 30 January. I say to the Minister that, at the risk of repeating myself, we really do need some action now. I urge the Government to work on what steps they can take now to make children’s lives better because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting children’s futures. I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House and thank them for taking part in this incredibly important debate.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We are going to work out the time limit for everyone, because 34 names were submitted to speak, but I think there may be even more Members in this room now. The Clerk has done the calculation and it is 75 seconds each—one minute 15 seconds. We will start, as a model of brevity, with the Chair of the Education Committee.

14:51

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Huq. With such limited time, I simply reiterate that we have a SEND system in crisis. It is letting down children and their families. It is a contested and embattled system and is no way to decide and deliver on what is in the best interest of children. As Chair of the Committee, I welcome some of the measures that the Government are bringing forward, but I also believe that there is further to go. That is why, as the Committee, we have prioritised SEND as our first substantial new inquiry of this Parliament. I have good news for Members with constituents who are interested in and concerned about this subject: today we have extended the deadline for the submission of written evidence to 6 February.

We are serious about looking at the evidence of what is happening across the country, but also at where there is good practice, both in this country and overseas. We will do our best to assist the Government to set out a programme of reform that delivers for children and their families. I urge all Members who have an interest in this topic to encourage their constituents to submit evidence to our inquiry.

14:52

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on calling this vital debate.

EHCP provision is a national crisis, but how it plays out locally varies enormously. In East Sussex, 87% of EHCPs are issued within the 20-week target, but hop across the border to my area of West Sussex and it is just 3.6%—I thought that was the worst statistic out there, until I heard what is going on in Essex.

This crisis is destroying people’s lives. Take the example of Sarah—not her real name—from my Horsham constituency. Sarah’s son was offered a place at Crawley college, where it was claimed the post-16 SEND provision would be just right for him. Within weeks, the college said that they did not have the resources to support him and that he did not meet the minimum grades. He was excluded. Desperate to rescue his future, Sarah is now paying almost £500 a month for private tuition, and that is not the only cost; her son’s removal from full-time education means she no longer qualifies for the child element of universal credit, despite being his main care provider. Sarah is a single parent on a low, part-time income, and these are almost impossible obstacles to overcome. I recognise that this was not the present Government’s fault, but it is now their responsibility.

14:54

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am limited by time, so I will congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate, and thank all the teachers, parents and pupils who are struggling with this system, and in particular the Brinnington SEND group in my constituency, who I have met on a couple of occasions.

Unfortunately, Stockport is one of the lowest-funded school systems in England. Stockport has a higher proportion of EHCPs than the national average, and that is causing a lot of issues in our constituency. I receive regular correspondence on that. The number of EHC plans in Stockport has increased by 60.4% since 2019, and Stockport is part of the f40 group, which represents the 40 local authorities with the lowest level of school funding. I highlight that, currently, the lowest-funded authority for SEND receives £950 per pupil, while the highest-funded receives £3,250 per pupil. Stockport receives around £1,100 per pupil for SEND—among the lowest funding nationally. The £1 billion of extra funding announced by the Chancellor in the Budget is very welcome, and we should reflect on the 14 harsh years of the previous Administration and the coalition Government. However, that extra funding must not be distributed according to existing criteria; the funding distribution is unfair, and we need to address that. I thank the Minister in advance for her contribution.

14:55

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

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. With limited time, I would like to raise a very specific issue. My constituency of Frome and East Somerset falls under both Bath and North East Somerset council and Somerset council, and there have been instances in which children’s specific cases, claims or tribunals have fallen between two different systems.

One of my constituents wrote to me about their child, who is 14 and has central nervous system lupus, epilepsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and visual and sensory processing disorder. All the child’s needs were documented by an educational psychologist, who recommended an EHCP. Despite the medical recognition of the need for an EHCP and despite the diagnoses, Bath and North East Somerset council and Somerset council went back and forth for over a year about which local authority should take responsibility for the EHCP, because the child’s parents were separated, with one living in each authority, and the child’s time was split evenly between the two. That cannot be an uncommon occurrence, yet there were delays and stress for the family while they waited for their case to come to tribunal. The child’s mother estimates that he has missed 1,100 lessons in the 15 months that it has taken to resolve this issue.

Many local authorities are, of course, under immense financial strain and I cannot see how this situation can be resolved until the Government relieve councils by providing extra funding and by making EHCP applications as simple and straightforward as possible. We are better than ever at diagnosing additional needs, but the system is woefully under-resourced to support children to thrive.

14:56

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.

When a child lacks, for a single day, the support that they need to thrive at school, that is a day’s potential that will forever be wasted. The sad reality for too many children in my constituency is that too many days’ potential is being wasted. This Government recognise the need to move urgently on this issue, and the investment of £1 billion into the high-needs block in the Budget and the £750 million for school adaptations must be welcomed, but it is clear, looking at ECHP performance, that specific and focused work is needed. Across the country, just 50% of ECHPs were delivered within the statutory timeframe last year, so this is far from an isolated problem. We need to ensure that we have robust improvement plans for local authorities so that all are achieving the best outcomes and not allowing that national challenge to be an excuse to tolerate failure.

We also need to build out the workforce strategy; I welcome the recent news from the Minister of research commissioned to make sure that we have a good understanding of the drivers of the problem, and of investment in more educational psychologists. We need to make sure that we are thinking through the workforce requirements for EHCPs. It is not always apparent where an educational psychologist is needed and that can delay delivery in those cases where they are not. We need to also ensure that health partners are fully prioritised here; health partners have not always played their part, and that must end. Fundamentally, we need to make sure that we are meeting needs much earlier, so that fewer children need these assessments in the first place. I know that the Minister shares that ambition and I look forward to working with her to make it a reality.

14:58

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Since I was elected as the Member for Tunbridge Wells, my inbox has been inundated with cases of children who are not having their needs met because Kent county council is failing in almost every regard. In 2020, 33% of EHCPs made the deadline; in 2023, only 13% did. I wanted to go through some examples, but we do not have time.

In September 2022, Kent county council was put into special measures because of significant weaknesses in its SEND services. Those measures were lifted in September 2024, but the Minister for School Standards told me that KCC needs to make further progress and that the Department for Education must still keep a close watch on the council. The next formal review of KCC and its SEND services will happen at the end of this month. I remind the Minister that KCC breaches time limits in 87% of cases, misses out key pieces of information, arranges SEND transport too late and refuses to communicate effectively with parents. In November, I called for KCC to be put back in special measures and I reiterate that call today, not only for the children of Tunbridge Wells, but for all our children across the land.

14:59

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a corporate parent in Lancashire.

In the past six months, I have had to intervene in dozens of EHCP cases. Children in Morecambe and Lunesdale are being held back by the abject failures of the system. We know we cannot fix this in six months—it is a problem that has been building for 14 years—but it is fair to say what the Labour Government are doing, because we are taking action. Stable, longer term funding for local government is absolutely vital to making sure that systems work and changes can be implemented properly.

We are changing the Education Department so that SEND sits with the Schools Ministers, increasing education spending and earmarking £1 billion specifically for SEND and working on public health, including on early intervention and the wider determinants of health and poverty. All these things together will help the SEND ecosystem. I hope to goodness we can get it done quickly enough for my constituents because they are suffering right now.

15:00

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate. Parents in my constituency of Surrey Heath will know all too well the failures of Surrey county council to deliver an effective SEND system. In 2023, only 16.2% of EHCPs were issued in the statutory 22-week period. Even though Surrey county council now celebrates a frankly miraculous rise to 70% issuance of EHCPs in the statutory 22 weeks in the latter half of 2024, parents tell me that those EHCPs are coming back with the wrong name or date of birth, describing the wrong conditions and offering inappropriate packages of support. It is, of course, parents, families and children who suffer the consequences of that.

My constituents tell me that some of their children have attempted to take their own lives. Other parents have had to leave full-time employment in order to become permanent carers for their children, which is bad for them, their family, their family finances and the economy. Timeliness and quality are not mutually exclusive, and they are essential components of good EHCPs. Our children deserve better, as do the families, the educators and the professionals who are becoming permanent advocates on their behalf.

15:02

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

In the interests of time, I will just endorse so many of the comments made today. It is fantastic to see the passion and commitment of so many Members here, as well as the passion and commitment that the Government have shown since day one of our coming into office.

In the interests of time, I will focus down on just one issue. My constituency of Rossendale and Darwen spans two local authority areas: one is the small unitary authority of Blackburn with Darwen, and the other is the shire county of Lancashire. One hundred per cent of my EHCP cases are in Lancashire, which demonstrates a stark and completely unacceptable postcode lottery.

There is no doubt that money is a fundamental issue, but we also have to raise a question about to what extent culture, attitudes and systems matter. Time and time again I hear from families who feel that the whole system is set up to fail and to stop them from getting these plans. As well as addressing those fundamental funding issues, I hope that, as a Government, we will address the cultural, systemic issues by giving our families, in Rossendale and Darwen and in all of our constituencies, the support they desperately need.

15:03

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate. Every time I talk to a parent whose child has special educational needs in my constituency of Eastleigh, they tell me that they spend a huge amount of time fighting for the support their child needs, including EHCPs. One mum told me about the difficulties she was experiencing trying to get an EHCP for her nine-year-old son. She said she felt powerless battling a system that was slow, unresponsive and incredibly difficult to navigate.

In the end, after doing everything she could to get her son back in school, she had to take her case to a tribunal, adding to the stress on her family. Thankfully, her son was granted an EHCP, but it should not be the case that parents have to fight a broken system and go through a tribunal just to get their children the education that they deserve. EHCPs were designed to provide tailored support, but they can only succeed if there is an end to the postcode lottery and the system is properly funded, staffed and focused on the needs of children and their families.

15:04

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. From visiting schools across my Bolton West constituency, I know how much concerns around special educational needs and disabilities play on the minds of teachers, teaching assistants, parents and school governors. Only last week I was with Chris Howarth, the head at Washacre primary academy in Westhoughton, and Phil Orth, the chair of governors. They took me through a tour of their school and outlined the work they are doing to support children with special educational needs, and the challenges that staff manage in the classroom. I want to put on the record my thanks to Chris and Phil, plus all the staff and governors at Washacre primary, for their hard work.

Bolton has 8,961 children and young people diagnosed with SEND, which is a 20% increase over the past seven years. The number of ECHPs has nearly doubled since 2018 to nearly 3,645 across the borough. The council’s compliance in issuing EHCPs within 20 weeks has increased from 38% in 2023 to 71% in 2024. Although the direction of travel is positive, that means one third of parents and children are being still being let down. With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s new investment in family hubs and early years, with the Chancellor’s autumn Budget in October setting aside £1 billion in additional funding for SEND support, and I thank the Minister for her continued endeavours in this regard.

15:05

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

Only 49% of children in Buckinghamshire receive their EHCP plan within the statutory limit, which means that more than half are waiting way beyond that time frame. There are hidden impacts to those delays: one family in my constituency faces a three-year waitlist for autism spectrum disorder and ADHD assessments. They have serious concerns about their current accommodation, but the lack of diagnosis for their son is delaying their eligibility for suitable housing. That is three years in unsuitable housing with no additional support.

I have spoken to schools in my area that say they have children with EHCPs who would be better served in a specialist setting. The demand for places means that they remain in mainstream education, where, in the words of one local headteacher, that the SENCO workload is unsustainable for staff.

The Department for Education’s own survey showed that only 63% of classroom teachers felt able to meet the needs of pupils with SEND. I am keen to hear from the Minister on what work is ongoing to help give the current teaching workforce the training and confidence they need to meet the demand in our mainstream schools.

15:07

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The last Conservative Education Secretary described SEND as a “lose, lose, lose” situation and, under the previous Government, she was right. I have a case in Stafford, now my constituency, where two parents are moving house to a different area with their two children who have additional needs. One child has an EHCP and the other is in a mainstream school. For their child with an EHCP, they are being told that, although they are moving from Stafford to Cheshire, they will have to retain a place in their current school, which is around an hours’ drive each way. The other child, who attends a mainstream school, has had her pick of schools, has chosen where she would like to go, and is looking forward to her future. The child with an EHCP has been left in limbo.

The difference in experience for those children is night and day and the stress it has caused their parents is completely unnecessary. That is precisely why we need to change the way that EHCPs are handled. This Government cannot undo the last 14 years of disruption to our SEND system in six months, but the investment we have seen recently is incredibly welcome, and I look forward to the Minister telling us more about that.

15:07

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate. I will not repeat what colleagues have said about the impact on children, but will instead talk about the impact on teachers.

The current EHCP system is grossly unfair to teachers who are expected to cope. I recently visited the Gattons infant school in Burgess Hill. As an infant school, it has only three school years. Four-year-olds arrive there with clearly unmet needs, and they quite often leave the school before the EHCP has been processed by West Sussex county council. That is clearly unfair on those children, and it is clearly unfair on the children who do not have special educational needs or are not yet diagnosed. It is unfair to expect teachers to be able to cope with a classroom of 30 children, a significant number of whom have needs that are not being met. In conclusion, it is absolutely essential that is this is turned around with urgency, and I thank the Government for all that they are doing.

15:09

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate today.

To be frank, SEND support in Hillingdon is poor and getting worse. In Hillingdon, there has been a 40% drop in the number of families getting their determination for an ECHP within the 20-week statutory limit since 2015. The situation is worsening. Conservative funding cuts locally, a lack of planning for specialist school places, rising demand and a shortage of specialists have all contributed to increasing waiting times and poor provision. Unfortunately, the situation is only going to get worse. Hillingdon council is proposing a £7 million cut to local schools this year and potentially next year, which goes against the principles of mainstream inclusion and collaboration in the education system. It will undoubtedly make the deficit worse. I hope Hillingdon council thinks again and that the Department holds it to account to do so.

I want to raise the issue of homeless and displaced families. I have been contacted recently by a number of families fleeing domestic violence or experiencing homelessness who have moved with an EHCP into the borough, but the borough not taking up its duty of care and providing support. It is simply unfair for families to have to go back to the start of the EHCP process.

We have heard compelling evidence from a number of places. I ask the Minister what support is in place to ensure system improvement and to hold local leaders to account, so that children in Hillingdon will no longer be failed.

15:10

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate.

My surgeries are full of distraught parents of SEND children. In Surrey, 1,800 children are missing education because they cannot get provision. Children are waiting an average of two years for an ADHD diagnosis. Surrey is at the bottom for getting EHCPs in on time and near the top for the number of parents going to a tribunal. Educational psychologists are assessing children by Zoom, sometimes not even meeting the child. Children are in the wrong tier and in tribunals possibly because it costs less in the short term. There is a lack of places in both specialist and mainstream environments. Money is diverted from schools’ budgets, and therefore from all children. So, yes to root and branch reform, and proper funding. Surely there must be Government accountability for local authority provision when we are so poorly served in Surrey.

15:11

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate.

In my constituency, more than 100 children and young people classified as in elective home education, which includes 30 with EHCPs. We know there are many more who are unaccounted for. There must be a question mark as to whether home education is a genuine choice, or is due to the child not getting the support they need. One family in Scarborough reluctantly withdrew their child from a mainstream school as their needs were not being met, despite their having an EHCP. The child’s mother had to give up work to home school, which took a toll on her health and the family finances.

I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to address the SEND crisis, but I would like to encourage the Minister to use the register of children and young people not in school, proposed in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, to gather the evidence we need to understand why those children and young people are not in school.

15:12

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for bringing this important debate.

Like many, I have spent considerable time with leaders of local schools and parents who have told frankly harrowing stories about children’s needs not met and resources at breaking point. In my constituency, 23% of children have special educational needs. Although the council has made great strides to get children on to the EHCPs they need, at one stage 88% were waiting more than 20 weeks.

I want to bring up two things that parents have brought to me. Even once they get the EHCPs in place, they are poorly constructed. One parent said that they are not worth the paper they are written on. Parents are told that there are no resources to deliver the support that their children need. One parent was told she needed £25,000 a year of one-to-one support for her child but was offered only £6,000 a year by the council. They lack planning and the follow-up that parents need to deliver the support in their local schools. A second significant feature is the impact on the educational outcomes and mental health of the children who are not receiving the support that they need.

As we have heard from other hon. Members, several have attempted suicide. In almost every case we have had, the children have ended up referred to child and adolescent mental health services, with serious mental health issues. School absenteeism is increasing, with long-term knock-on effects. As a result, parents feel punished for a system, when they really just want the best for their children and feel they have to fight all the time. I welcome the Government’s focus—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Charlotte Cane.

15:14

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate.

Like many others, I am horrified by the amount of correspondence I get about this issue. Just this month I was contacted by a constituent with a child who was well supported in school and was looking to do well in their GCSEs, but the school can no longer provide for them and they now get only 11 hours of tuition. The school asked three times for them to get an EHCP assessment, and they were always refused. My constituent went to a tribunal, at which point the council finally said it would do the assessment. That was last September, and it has still not been done. That child is now unable to access the education they need to achieve their full potential.

Parents and other responsible adults spend time, energy and even money trying to get the support that their child needs. Local authorities deliver what they can, building up vast debts that are currently hidden from their accounts, and their staff feel under siege. The correspondence often lacks clarity and transparency, let alone empathy. Most importantly, children and young people are let down day in, day out by the very structures that are supposed to help them to achieve their potential.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to speak so that I can work out exactly how long they have.

15:16

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

In the seconds available to me, I cannot do justice to the cases I have heard of pupils and parents who are stuck in the system.

Ten years on from the passing of the Children and Families Act 2014, it is time to look at where the current system is failing. Local authorities had additional responsibilities loaded on to them, and at the same time they had powers and resources taken away. It has become harder for them to plan shared resources, and that is a major cause of delays and cost increases in the system.

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB. We cannot lose sight of the role of school support staff in this equation. I appeal to the shadow Minister to please rethink the opposition to reinstating the school support staff negotiating body. Classroom-based school support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. We cannot resolve the SEND crisis without resolving the workforce problems.

I am proud to have been a SEND pupil. I am open about my differences as an MP. I hope that, on a cross-party basis, we can look back at the end of this Parliament and say, “We found a system in crisis, and we changed it.”

15:17

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

This crisis is failing children, exhausting parents and overwhelming schools, not least in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell. Over the past six years, Surrey county council’s timeliness in issuing EHCPs within 20 weeks has plummeted from 57% in 2017 to 16.2% in 2023.

An excessive focus on meeting deadlines appears also to have undermined the quality of the EHCPs. Decisions are increasingly being appealed, and parents in Surrey won 98.3% of appeals last year. Local headteachers have highlighted to me that EHCPs often do not accurately reflect the children’s needs, leading to inappropriate placements. The children often become dysregulated and disruptive, which affects staff wellbeing and the learning environment for other pupils. The headteachers also reported that some assessments are being conducted remotely; how can a child’s needs be accurately captured through an online assessment?

Parents are increasingly asking headteachers to exclude their children, believing that that might be the only way to secure appropriate care. That is a devastating indictment of the system. The system is failing at every single stage, leaving children and families in absolute crisis. Without urgent reform, we risk failing a generation of children. Every child deserves a chance to succeed, and it is our responsibility to ensure that no child is left behind.

15:18

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate. As she said, Essex county council is one of the worst-performing local authorities in the country for delivering on EHCPs. It is vital that we hear from the frontline—from parents, teachers, educators and assessors. I recently held a roundtable on these issues in Colchester with those groups, and I am delighted to say that the participants are now sharing their experiences through an Education Committee inquiry. I urge the Minister to pay close attention to that evidence and those voices, and to make the change that we so badly need.

15:19

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate.

The cost of SEND provision for Wokingham borough council is incredibly high. This has a huge impact on our council’s budget and frequently contributes to parents’ expectations and, sometimes, elements of the EHCP not being met, with all the consequences that come with that. Despite costs rising, Wokingham borough council is set to lose another £1 million of funding under the current draft local government settlement scheme, when Wokingham is already the lowest-funded unitary authority in England. What are Ministers’ thoughts on how the Government can help councils like Wokingham? Will the Minister meet with me and representatives from Wokingham borough council to discuss the challenges we face locally when it comes to funding SEND provision? Are there any plans to review the process of producing EHCPs to make them more user-friendly, thereby leading to greater efficiency and effectiveness?

15:20

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate. It is very encouraging to see so many parliamentary colleagues present, although I must comment on the notable absence of those who should be here and be held accountable.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently published a report on support for children with educational needs. I observed the process closely and was deeply saddened by what we found over the course of that inquiry. I represent a constituency that is 69% Somerset and 31% Devon. The Somerset side, with a Liberal Democrat-controlled council, issues 42.1% of EHCPs within the 20-week requirement. The Devon side, which has a Conservative-controlled council, only manages less than 5%. The Government, in consultation with local authorities and those who use and rely on the system, need to urgently review the infrastructure to support EHCPs, the systems available to assess and issue them, and what future provision in the system will look like, so that we can start to get this right on a regional and national level.

15:22

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) and refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Conservative-controlled Norfolk county council is failing too many SEND children—moreover, the Conservative Government failed SEND children—but the system is also failing children and families, and Norfolk wants to be part of the solution. There are many settings that are worthy of national best practice exemplification for the way they support a high incidence of SEND without needing to refer to EHCPs. The council is keen for the Department for Education to use Norfolk as a test bed for innovative solutions to the crisis in SEND, and our county is keen and eager to be a big player in the national conversation about the important transformation that must come to the way in which these services currently function.

I would be incredibly grateful if the Minister took the time to meet with me, Norfolk county council and others to discuss the challenges we face and, more importantly, how we can help. I have pledged to those who have got in touch to tell me their stories and challenges in the SEND system that I will keep fighting for them.

15:23

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate.

I welcome the drive for diversity in our mainstream schools, but we also need to make sure that we provide specialist provision for our children. I draw the Minister’s attention to a primary school in my North Cornwall constituency that has had to repurpose its staff room for two year 7 SEND students who currently do not have a school place. I do have some good news, though: we have a new SEND school coming to Bodmin, which will hold between 60 and 70 students. But with hundreds on the wait list that will barely touch the sides.

Briefly, I want to mention one student on that list, James. He has endured delay after delay, with no clear answers, no certainty and very little support. His mother got in touch with me in a desperate plea for help, saying:

“The system is utterly devasting for young people”,

adding that her son

“has been completely let down.”

James’s parents are now looking to see whether they will have to sell their house to pay for private schooling provision. Funding is key to this. Cornwall ranks 142 out of 151 in per pupil funding, and Cornwall council currently has a £41 million deficit for SEND.

15:24

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

The current system is creating a horrendous conflict environment and a depressing, stressful professional working experience for teachers and support staff. Parents are spending their lives fighting, costing their own mental health and livelihoods, and councils are on the brink of resisting because they simply cannot cope with more. Far from early diagnosis adding to the strain, we believe that more investment can save money, reassure parents and ensure that schools and councils understand better the needs of the children who come through the system.

I have been contacted by so many parents, but I want to share what Rachel from Wimborne told me. She said:

“As a preschooler, there is a chance to give my daughter a full education, but the Dorset Child Development Centre is drowning in referrals, with a two-year wait for speech and language referrals.”

Her mum is a teacher, and she said:

“The red tape around autism and other neurodivergent conditions is ridiculous. Why do they have to go to the CDC when their needs are so severe that it is obvious to other educational and health professionals?”

I have sent the Minister details of an exciting pilot scheme at Broadstone middle school, and I look forward to hearing about a meeting soon. Does she agree that SEND children are entitled to the same quality of life and happy childhood as everybody else?

15:25

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I join my colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing a debate on this important topic. I agree that it is good to see so many people here from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches but, as they say on Radio 4, it creates a challenge of delivering my remarks in just a minute.

According to Oxfordshire county council, in the last 10 years in the county of my constituency the number of EHCPs has doubled from 3,000 to 7,000. The deficit of high-needs funding in Oxfordshire is estimated at £21.3 million, but that is in the wider national context of an estimated £3.16 billion deficit in England. Although the £1 billion extra allocated by the Chancellor in the Budget is welcome, it clearly does not go far enough.

I will use the example of St Blaise primary school in Milton to show the wider context of some of these problems. The school was bitterly disappointed to hear that it could not access mental health support teams, but, in an example of the postcode lottery, children just a few minutes up the A34 are able to access that support. The child and adult mental health waiting list is ever growing and feels out of reach, making it difficult to provide wider support for children.

I join my colleagues in calling on the Government to tackle the crisis in SEND funding by giving local authorities extra funding. Please do that to support our children, our parents, our teachers and their assistants.

15:27

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, I have heard from numerous parents and carers how they are constantly battling to get their children assessed for EHCPs. Some are waiting years. That leaves families in limbo, often forcing them into lengthy and stressful tribunal processes. With schools unable to meet the needs of children, they are left without educational support while they wait for their assessment.

We urgently need a long-term funding plan for the whole SEND process from early years to post-16 education. We need robust accountability for local authorities and sufficient school places supported by well-trained staff to ensure that all children, no matter where they live, can access the education they deserve.

15:27

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Thank you for accommodating me, Dr Huq.

Education should not be this devastating or exhausting, but that is what all our constituents feel when it comes to finding adequate provision for their children with specialist needs. I will talk about one specific aspect. It is not about the exhaustion of actually getting an EHCP, although that is devastating for families. When armed with an EHCP, as in the case of one of my constituents, the exhaustion began in trying to get the school where their child was enrolled to agree to the one-day-a-week provision they had identified as being suitable for their child. It was the first step in getting their child back into that school, yet the school could not or would not agree to allow that provision to be paid for under the EHCP.

This is about not just fixing the bureaucracy around EHCPs, but ensuring that the support and encouragement are there for our schools to meet the educational needs that parents know are right for their children.

15:25

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Dr Huq, for your excellent chairship, which has allowed everybody to contribute.

This is a national issue, but SEND services in Ipswich and Suffolk have been in a desperate state for more than a decade. Like everywhere else, we need specialist places and specialist professionals. We welcome the massive boost in funding provided by the Government.

However, as hon. Members from across the room have said, culture and accountability are crucial. One way in which we can start to inject a bit more accountability and scrutiny into the system is to hold a review of the ombudsman process, which Members have described today as combative, complex and exhausting for so many families. In particular, tribunal hearings are held in public only in exceptional circumstances. Given that around 95% of tribunal hearings, if not more, find in favour of the families, all cases should now be heard in public. I urge the Minister to look not only at the ombudsman process, but at those tribunal hearings.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:30

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.

Parliament has had a number of debates on SEND since the general election, and every one I have attended has been a blockbuster—an absolute sell-out, with people struggling to get in. I say to the Minister that that is a testament to the fact that pretty much every Member—this is why I am so shocked that there are no Conservative Back Benchers present—has an inbox full of heartbreaking stories of families up and down the country who are trying to access the support that they deserve and need. These are some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that they get the support they need.

Today’s debate is specifically about education, health and care plans, which were introduced in 2014. The vision behind them was to bring health and care together into one plan that would follow the child up to the age of 25, while being regularly renewed and updated. It would set out the support needed and provide assurances to the parents and the pupil involved. However, as we know far too well—we have heard the stats today—the system has become overwhelmed, demand has soared and resourcing has not kept up with that demand. The whole system is creaking at the seams.

For too many children with SEND, as well as their parents and carers, just managing to get an EHCP will feel like a significant victory. Their families fight their corner, knowing that without an EHCP, the support their child needs will not materialise. However, even when an EHCP is granted, it is not always a guarantee of support. Certainly in my casework, the issue is less about the waiting times and much more about the delivery of what is laid out in the plans. That is partly because of the severe shortage of special school places across the country. The previous Conservative Government promised a number of additional special schools, but they were very slow to deliver them. I welcome the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open special schools where there is need. A number of local authority applications have been rejected in recent years.

In the meantime, without specialist provision, the cost of transporting children well out of area to appropriate provision, or sending children to independent special schools, some of which are private equity run and profiteering at local authorities’ expense, is shocking. A number of children with special needs are missing from school because their needs are not being met.

We have heard so much today about the delays, fights and conflict. Parents should not have to go through that process and the stress and strain that it causes them. It is unacceptable that almost every EHCP appeal that goes to tribunal is decided in favour of the appellant. Parents are carrying the cost and stress of that battle and local authorities are spending further millions losing those cases.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) talked about the impact of delays on school staff, as well as on parents. When I speak to school governors, headteachers and teachers in my constituency, I hear time and again that while children who perhaps should be in a different setting are waiting for an EHCP in a mainstream setting, sometimes their behaviour causes safeguarding issues for other children. Sometimes teachers, teaching assistants or learning support assistants are injured in the process, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Learning support assistants are paid a very low salary, and they are often driven out of the profession.

Some of the delays, as a number of hon. Members have commented, are caused by a shortage of educational psychologists. Talking to my local authority, I also hear that sometimes the delays from its side are because of a lack of co-operation from NHS partners. I support new clause 3 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford tabled to ensure transparency on local authorities’ timeliness with EHCPs. I urge the Government to go one step further and say that, where there are breaches, we need an explanation; we need transparency on where delays are being caused, because we know that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We must put pressure on all partners in the system to keep to their responsibilities and ensure that every child gets an EHCP in a timely manner.

We have heard in this debate that this waiting game is a real postcode lottery. Some local authorities perform reasonably well against the 20-week limit, but we have heard that in Surrey, just 16% of EHCPs were issued on time in 2023, and that in Essex it is less than 1%. That is shocking. We have heard time and again that the system is failing and needs urgent whole-system reform. That reform must include addressing the financial barriers and disincentives that prevent children from being identified, included and supported without having to fight for it.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for increased funding for local authorities to reduce the notional amount that schools are expected to pay towards supporting a child with special needs before applying for an EHCP. That would be an important step, because too often I hear from headteachers in my constituency who are trying to do the right thing that parents have come to them because someone from a school down the road has whispered in their ear, “Well actually, if you go to that school, they are much better at delivering for SEND children.” That comes down to the fact that so much of the support needs to be delivered out of schools’ budgets, because we know that the £6,000 threshold is only notional. We need to address that disincentive in the system.

The Minister was disagreeing when my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that school budgets are being strained further still by teacher pay rises having to be found out of efficiencies. The Secretary of State has written to the School Teachers Review Body saying that pay rises will need to be found out of school efficiencies. I can tell the Minister—she has met some of the school governors in my constituency—that our schools do not have any efficiencies left. Our schools are asking parents to buy glue sticks, they are cutting teaching assistant posts, which is affecting special needs provision, and they are cutting school trips. They have cut, cut, cut, so there is no fat in the system. If her vision is to make our mainstream schools more inclusive, that has to come with the financial support to deliver it, and delivering teacher pay rises out of those budgets is just not possible. I hope she will address that point.

I urge the Government to consider establishing a national body for children with very high needs, so that we do not have a postcode lottery in which, if there is a particularly high needs child in one local authority, their budget is put under significant strain. We need a dedicated national body for those children. We also need to improve early identification through better training of staff. Early identification needs to start right down at the early years, not late in primary school or even secondary school, as we often find.

I have one last point to make to the Minister: we must provide clarity to local authorities. We know from the National Audit Office report that the finances of 43% of them are on the brink. A £3.3 billion deficit is projected. The £1 billion announced in the Budget is welcome. We have still not heard how that will be allocated. It will not even touch the sides of the black hole I have just mentioned. We know that the statutory override—an accounting trick that allows local authorities to keep their SEND deficits off the balance sheet—is due to end in 2026, but we do not know what will happen after that. Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarity on that.

As I said, the Minister met some of my school governors, and we are very grateful to her for that time. We discussed mainly the SEND issues that they are experiencing. I know that this is high on her list of issues to tackle, but I say to her again that this issue is urgent. There is nothing really in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to tackle this issue. We need whole-system reform. Our children cannot afford to wait.

15:40

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as ever, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech.

It is obvious from everybody who has spoken how much distress the delay in EHCPs is causing across the system. What is equally striking is the postcode lottery. We know that 15 local authorities completed less than 10% of their new EHCPs within the 20-week time limit, while 27 local authorities completed over 90% within 20 weeks. That is a stark difference, which I have not seen properly explained anywhere. I hope that as part of the work the Minister is doing in the Department there is some analysis of why the differences are so big. They cannot be explained away just by volume.

Obviously covid has had a huge influence, but the problems we are discussing are not new. In 2009, in the final report of his inquiry, Brian Lamb called for a “radical overhaul” of the SEND system. He cited a culture of low expectation and a system that failed to deliver what children needed.

The coalition Government, who have been referred to by a couple of Members, brought forward the Children and Families Act in 2014, which tried to address some of the shortcomings. It included changes that I think most Members would agree with, such as bringing together the education and health system, trying to make it more child-focused and getting parents to have more of a role in decision making. It was intended that needs would be identified earlier, but Ofsted’s SEND inspection found that many local authorities struggled to implement the changes properly, which led to the huge postcode lottery we have seen. Layered on that has been the explosion of numbers post covid. Many children with complex needs did not attend school during covid and missed the support at school, Ofsted found, which has led to some of the distressing cases we have heard about today.

In government we increased the high needs budget by more than 60% from 2019 to 2024, but we are still seeing these huge issues. There is something that I would be interested to know from the Minister. The previous Government pledged the improvement plan for SEND. I completely understand that the Minister has delayed this to have a look at it further, but can I ask about the timetable for bringing forward an alternative and what she plans to do with that?

The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) talked about the school support staff pay negotiating body. One of the concerns I have about its reinstatement, and the reason we have opposed it, is that it will affect SEND provision. The Confederation of School Trusts said:

“School trusts do not all operate in the same way, and we must ensure that schools”

of

“all types…can benefit from the flexibility to deploy support staff…that most benefits pupils. The reforms so desperately needed to our special educational needs system rely on this, for example.”

[Laurence Turner]

Will the hon. Member acknowledge that the CST said it is the right time to take school support staff pay out from under the local authority umbrella, and that its concern was that a ceiling would be set on school support staff pay? It has been clarified in the Employment Rights Bill Committee that that is not the case; the policy is about establishing a floor, not a ceiling.

[Laura Trott]

I acknowledge absolutely that pay was part of that, but it was also about terms and conditions and flexibility, which I do not think we have seen adequately addressed to date. I am grateful for the engagement on these issues from the hon. Member and the Minister. It is really important that we get this right, because we will need extra flexibility as we go through with the reforms that the Government will, I hope, be bringing forward.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford discussed the Minister’s approach to mainstream education and the recognition that mainstream education is not right for every child. While it is always right and proper, if parents want to send their child to a mainstream school, to give them the opportunity to do that and there should be the facilities there for that to take place, parents should also have the option of a special school if that is what they prefer. We have heard a lot about mainstream schooling; I completely understand that and I support it where it is the parents’ wish. But can the Minister confirm that the Government support special school places and will increase their number if that is the parents’ wish? Some groups are concerned about being forced in one direction rather than the other, but I think choice needs to be at the heart of this system, so I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that today.

I have questions about the statutory override, which were raised by the Lib Dem Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that as well. I am conscious of time—

[Helen Hayes]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Laura Trott]

I was about to wrap up because I am conscious of time and I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has time to speak at the end of the debate, so I will close my remarks there.

15:45

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate and commend all hon. Members for their powerful contributions. They are great in number and their time was short, but their voices were very much heard, and they have been listened to. They have done their constituents, who I know are facing significant challenges on this issue, justice today.

Improving the special educational needs and disabilities system across the country is a priority for this Government. That includes improving the experience of the education, health and care plan process for children and young people and their families. We are clear that the SEND system requires reform, and we are working with families, schools, local authorities and partners to deliver improvements so that children and their families can access the support they need. There are no quick fixes; some of the issues are very deep-rooted in our system, but we absolutely agree that change is needed urgently. As a Government who are absolutely committed to breaking down barriers to opportunities for all children and young people—indeed, all people—we believe the way to achieve that is by ensuring that children and young people get the right support to succeed in their education. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked whether I agreed that these children and young people should lead happy, fulfilling lives. Absolutely I do.

More than 1.6 million pupils in England have special educational needs, and as one report after another tells us, the SEND system is not providing the support that they and their families need. Although high needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities continues to rise, confidence in the SEND system remains very low. Tribunal rates are increasing, as are waiting times for the support that children and young people desperately need and deserve. Worst of all, outcomes for children with special educational needs are suffering. Just one in four pupils achieve expected standards at the end of primary school—that is out of all children—and children who have special educational needs are falling behind their peers, struggling to reach expected levels in fundamental reading, writing and maths skills.

We are committed to changing the system. Families are, we know, battling against it at the moment to get support for their children. We are determined to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support they need to thrive and flourish. regardless of their additional needs or disabilities. We—the Government and I—understand this cannot wait. We will act urgently to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, while also—to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—ensuring that special schools can cater to those with the most complex needs.

Effective early identification and intervention are, I absolutely agree, key to reducing the impact that a special educational need or disability may have in the long term. This Government know that, and it is why last July we announced the extension of funded support for 11,100 schools registered on the Nuffield early language intervention programme, helping pupils who need extra support with their speech and language development to find their voice. We are also investing in the system—£1 billion in the special educational needs and disabilities system, and £740 million for councils to create more specialist places in mainstream schools—and our curriculum and assessment review is looking at the barriers that hold children back from having the best chance in life.

We cannot do this alone, though. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered together with parents, schools, councils and the expert staff who we know go above and beyond to support children. I repeat, there are no quick fixes here, but we are getting on with the job and remain committed and determined to deliver the change that children, young people and their families are crying out for.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to address this issue and that there are no quick fixes, but given the terrible cases we have heard today—I have constituent who had to wait two years for an assessment, which spanned the whole length of their GCSE courses—does she agree with those who point out that the funding allocated so far will, given council debts, hardly touch the sides in terms of the SEND capacity that is needed?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will talk about how we are seeking to address this. I appreciate the extent of the challenge that the hon. Gentleman raises. The fundamental point here is that the additional funding being spent is not actually achieving the outcomes that children deserve. That is why we need to reform the system fundamentally, to improve both the process for families and children and the outcomes for children.

The number of education health and care plans has increased year on year since their introduction in 2014. As of January last year, nearly 600,000 children and young people had an EHCP. The plans were introduced as a way of minimising the bureaucracy and time-consuming nature of accessing vital support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, to allow them the opportunities they deserve to achieve and thrive.

Over time, however, flaws and lack of capacity in the system to meet lower level needs has added to the strain on specialist services and had a detrimental impact on those who are trying to access support through the EHCP process. As many hon. Members described, that has led to late identification of need and intervention, low parental confidence in the ability of mainstream settings to meet need, inefficient allocation of resources in the system, and inconsistency in practice and provision based on geographical location. All of those problems have contributed to pushing up costs and creating an increasingly unsustainable system.

The latest data we hold shows that in 2023 just 50.3% of new EHCPs were issued within the 20-week statutory timeframe. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford set out, this problem is much worse in some areas, leaving children, young people and their families for weeks, months, and in some cases years, without appropriate and adequate support.

The Government want to ensure that EHC needs assessments are progressed promptly and plans issued quickly to provide children and young people with the support that they need so they can achieve positive outcomes. We are aware that local authorities have felt this increased demand for EHCPs and the subsequent demand for workforce capacity increases, and we recognise that more efficient and effective service delivery and communication with schools and families is pivotal to both rebuilding and reforming the system. Department officials are continuously monitoring and working alongside local authorities to support those who are having difficulty with timely processing of EHCPs. For those who struggle to process and issue EHCPs within the 20-week statutory timeframe and face challenges in making the improvements required to do so, the Department continues to put in place recovery plans with the aid of specialist SEND advisers where necessary.

The Government are absolutely aware of the challenges that families are facing in accessing support for children and young people through this long, difficult and adversarial EHCP process. Independently commissioned insights that we published last year show that extensive improvements to the system and using early intervention, which the hon. Member for Chelmsford mentioned, as well as better resourcing of mainstream schools would have a significant impact on children and young people with SEND who are in need of support. The insights showed that those changes could see more children and young people having their needs met without the need for an EHCP, and within a mainstream setting rather than a specialist placement. As well as that, we have listened to parents, local authority colleagues and partners across education and health and social care. We are considering carefully how to address and improve the experience of the EHCP process and reflecting on what could or should be done to make it more consistent nationally.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford rightly says that early intervention is a priority, and we absolutely agree. Children’s earliest years make the biggest difference to their life chances. We recognise the importance of high-quality early years education and care, which can lead to much better outcomes for all children. Having access to a formal childcare setting allows these needs to be identified at the earliest opportunity. It means that appropriate support and intervention can be put in place so that children with special educational needs and disabilities can thrive.

We have introduced additional resources for early years educators to support children with SEND, including a free online training module and SEND assessment guidance and resources, and we are reviewing the SEND funding arrangements to make sure that they are suitable for supporting children with SEND. This week we published the updated operational guidance alongside detailed case studies of good local practice to provide more detail to support local authorities and promote greater consistency.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford highlighted the broad specialist workforce that is needed across education, health and care. We know that far too many children have been waiting for speech and language therapy. To support the demand, we are working in partnership with NHS England and funding the early language and support for every child programme, trialling new and better ways to identify and support children with speech and language and communication needs. The programme is being delivered through nine regional pathfinder partnerships through our SEND and AP change programme. We know that continuing to build the pipeline of language and speech therapists is essential, so we have introduced a speech and language degree apprenticeship. It is now in its third year of delivery and offers alternative pathways to the traditional route.

Finally, although most education, health and care plans are concluded within a tribunal hearing, I have heard concerns from hon. Members about the process. We want all children and young people with SEND or an AP to get the support they need when they need it, which is why we are strengthening the accountability in mainstream settings to make sure they are inclusive. We are working with Ofsted and supporting the mainstream workforce to increase their expertise. We will also increase mainstream capacity by encouraging schools to set up their own SEND provision units, and we are supporting teachers with training so that every teacher is a special educational needs and disabilities teacher. Again, there are no quick fixes, but we are getting on with the job on multiple fronts.

I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford again for securing this important debate, and I thank all who contributed today. Reforming the system and supporting children and young people with special educational needs to achieve and thrive and regain the confidence and trust of families are the goals we all share. My final word goes to all those working across education, health and care. In the interests of our children and young people with special educational needs, I thank them for all they do. Together we can deliver for our children and young people, including those with SEND.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call Marie Goldman to respond briefly to this epic debate.

15:57

[Marie Goldman]

Thank you, Dr Huq. I am not sure I thanked you for your chairmanship earlier, so I thank you now. I also thank all hon. Members who took part in this important debate and contributed, in some circumstances, harrowing stories. I do not have time to go through them all. I will simply say this.

I first heard about this subject and the terrible state that special educational needs provision was in at around this time last year. A parent raised it with me and told me what was going on. When I started digging into it, I learned that parents just did not feel heard; they felt that nobody was listening to them. Any parent and anybody involved in education who has been battling this issue can see in the debate here today that we are listening now. We will keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire and making sure that they make progress. I very much hope they do—indeed, I have faith that they do indeed want to make progress. I thank Members again for taking part. I hope we make progress very soon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for education, health and care plans.

New Hospital Programme

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Kieran Mullan to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. As is the convention with these 30-minute wonders, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the New Hospital Programme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, for a debate that is very timely in the light of the statement of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care this week. My remarks will focus on three hospitals that serve my constituency as part of the East Sussex healthcare NHS trust: Eastbourne district general hospital and Conquest hospital, which are situated outside my constituency but are major secondary care providers for my constituents, and Bexhill community hospital.

As part of the new hospital programme announced by the previous Government, Eastbourne district general hospital is due to be entirely rebuilt, and Conquest hospital is set to be reorganised and the structure improved to ensure that it is fit for the future. Alongside creating additional in-patient wards and improved parking facilities, the plans include expanding the emergency departments at Eastbourne and Conquest, improving access to cardiology and ophthalmology services, and redeveloping out-patient theatres, endoscopy and diagnostic services.

Plans to upgrade Bexhill community hospital are also included in the programme, equipping it to deliver more services locally. Currently, only 53% of space in the hospital is allocated to clinical space. Once that work is complete, that will increase to 70%. To reflect increasing demand for care, the plans will also increase the number of hospital beds by 13%, the number of single rooms as a proportion of hospital space from 18% to 70%, and the number of out-patient consulting rooms by 28%.

Having worked in the NHS as a doctor in A&E for a number of years before becoming an MP, I know the difficulties that can arise from working in buildings that are in need of improvement. The physical infrastructure of the building is outside the control of frontline staff, so they often have to do whatever it takes to make it work, but it would be better if they did not have to. I think the Minister would agree that despite those circumstances, our healthcare staff work tirelessly, and we owe it to them to deliver better infrastructure.

Whatever the new Government may say, progress on the new hospital programme was being made under the previous Government, despite the challenges presented by the pandemic and the inflationary pressures on construction costs as a result of the war in Ukraine. The programme was incredibly ambitious but remained a significant commitment to investment in hospital infrastructure.

During the 2024 general election, the Labour party committed to delivering the new hospital programme. Candidates up and down the country made pledges to deliver on the programme, but this week, the Health Secretary broke that pledge at the Dispatch Box by moving the goalposts, as a result of which many constituents in Bexhill and Battle will not see the benefits of the programme until 2039 at the earliest.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and that a family member has shares in a medical company. My constituents are heartbroken by the Government’s decision to push the start date of the Royal Berks’s construction to 2037, which will disappoint patients and staff. The hon. Member must recognise the role that his party played in creating that situation, so does he agree that his party needs to reflect on its part in the delayed new hospital programme, and will he apologise for it?

[Dr Mullan]

It is a 30-minute debate, and I want to be generous in letting hon. Members make short points in support of their hospitals, but I do not want to allow it to degenerate into a highly political back and forth. As I was saying, the Government pledged to do it and they did not.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

In a moment.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I will.

[Mr Mohindra]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. As he will know, Dean Russell, the former Member of Parliament for Watford, was a keen advocate for Watford general hospital. He continued to make sure that we progressed the project for that hospital, which has a real impact on my constituency of South West Hertfordshire. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that Watford general is now not likely to get spades in the ground until 2032 at the earliest? Furthermore, some of the figures being bandied about are concerning. I know that the Minister has uploaded draft costs, but £1.5 billion to £2 billion seems a bit high for what was initially proposed.

[Dr Mullan]

I share that disappointment, which relates to some of the remarks that I will go on to make about how those costs will go up with the delays, because of the inflationary pressures globally.

To address the concerns about our role in the process, I remind the Minister that the Chancellor was specifically asked during the election campaign about commitments that were being made on tax and spend. She was also asked whether those commitments would have to change when Labour was in government, because of the fiscal challenges that she had not known about—

[Helena Dollimore]

rose—

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

rose—

[Dr Mullan]

I will not give way yet.

Yet that is exactly what the Government have done again and again, breaking not only that pledge but a series of pledges they made during the election—that they would not say in government that they had been forced into a particular situation. That was the Chancellor’s specific pledge. It was clear from the Secretary of State’s statement this week that the Government intend to continue making the issue a political football.

I will reiterate the important context behind the challenges that we are seeing in NHS capital backlogs. When we came into Government in 2010, £1 in every £4 being spent by the Government was borrowed, which was clearly unsustainable. If the Labour party thinks that its current economic inheritance presents challenges for public spending, let me remind it of what we inherited. Unemployment was higher; inflation was higher; the deficit, or the black hole as Labour Members like to call it, was higher; and economic growth was lower. Even in that context, however, we prioritised NHS spending.

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. We both care deeply about our three local hospitals and I, too, pay tribute to the work of our amazing NHS staff. Recently, I was at one of those local hospitals with a family member and I will be there again next week.

Does the hon. Member agree, however, that when Labour came into office, it was confronted with the fact that the Conservative Government had not budgeted for the new hospital that they had promised for our community, and that the money for it had run out in April? If the Conservative Government had been serious about committing to the new hospital programme, they should have budgeted for it. The new Labour Government have provided that funding and put in place a realistic and honest framework for our communities that sets out when we will get that work done.

[Dr Mullan]

Governments make choices. I have just laid out the economic situation that we inherited, which was worse than the one Labour has inherited, and yet we prioritised NHS spending. Nobody forced Labour to give above-inflation pay increases to a number of public sector workers and enormous pay increases to train drivers, or to make a significant but unwise investment in the green investment plan.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I do not have to let anybody intervene, but I will let you intervene to make a point about your hospitals. If there continues to be a back-and-forth, I will not let anybody intervene—this is my speech and I will make my points.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. We have had the word “you” a few times, which refers to me as the Chair.

[Dr Mullan]

There is not time for a continual back-and-forth in a 30-minute debate, so I will make some more progress.

When it comes to comparing the record of the NHS, the performance of the NHS under Labour in Wales, across many of the metrics that Labour Members have criticised us for, is actually worse than the record of the NHS elsewhere. That is because across England, Scotland and Wales—this is why I hope we can come to some agreement—we not only had the pandemic but face an increasing demographic challenge.

The SNP, Labour and the Conservatives, in the three areas in which we respectively have responsibility for health, are seeing considerable challenges that all of us are struggling to manage, as the Labour party will now struggle to manage them. As was the case when Labour was last in office, capital spending is often deprioritised when budgets are challenged, and decisions are made that might make sense in the short term but that also create long-term pressures.

The issue that we are debating is nothing new. Members from both sides of the House agree that our hospitals need modernisation, with 42% of the NHS estate having been built before 1985 and 14% of the estate pre-dating the NHS.

[Perran Moon]

rose—

[Chris Vince]

rose—

[Dr Mullan]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who stood up first.

[Perran Moon]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I appreciate that he does not want this debate to be political, but so far it has been all about politics. If we want to have a debate about the state of the NHS and how we transform it, it must be a level debate.

In Cornwall, we have one general hospital, but we are very fortunate that it is in the first phase of the programme because it is a women and children’s unit, which we have a desperate need for. It was originally promised by the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, more than 10 years ago, but nothing came to fruition. We have been waiting a long, long time for it.

I fully accept that government is about choices. We have had to deal with—whatever we want to say; however we want to position it—a number of different challenges since we came into government—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk is frowning at me, because this is a bit long for an intervention.

[Perran Moon]

Does the hon. Member agree that we now have a coherent programme—however long it is for—to implement those changes?

[Dr Mullan]

That remains to be seen; we will have to see what the Office for Budget Responsibility says in March about the planned public expenditure limits.

To be clear about taking interventions, I am very happy to debate things, but this is a 30-minute debate in which the primary focus is on the person who secured the debate. The Minister will get a chance to make those repeated points, so I will not let anyone else make another intervention. I was happy to let people make interventions, because I am keen for you all to champion your local hospitals, but if you are not willing to play ball with me—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. Avoid the word “you”—that is one to steer clear of.

[Dr Mullan]

I apologise. If Members are not willing to go along with that courtesy, I am afraid that I will not continue to take interventions. I have tried to be fair and decent.

I hope that the Minister will at least be shorter on rhetoric and longer on the details of what will actually happen than the Secretary of State was. That brings me back to my local hospital and what happens next. Shortly after the election, I attended a briefing with East Sussex healthcare trust, which I am proud to say has made incredible improvements over the past 10 years. Despite being in what it described as a challenging financial position, it has reversed its special measures and improved standards across the board.

The hospitals under the trust are crucial parts of our local healthcare services in East Sussex and have served the community for decades. Each year, they carry out over 160,000 emergency attendances, 56,000 planned surgeries and 438,000 out-patient appointments. It is also important to remember that those hospitals are not just healthcare providers but job creators, employing around 8,700 people locally.

However, East Sussex healthcare trust was clear that the remedial works due under the new hospital programme could not be delivered soon enough. When the programme was announced in 2019, the trust estimated that the total backlog rectification cost throughout all its hospitals was over £300 million. Its critical infrastructure risk was the 10th highest in England, and was estimated to represent around £64 million of the £300 million total required to resolve the backlog. If left untouched, it is estimated that that figure will rise to £220 million over 10 years.

Given the disappointing decision to delay the major infrastructure investment that would have addressed the situation, what is the plan now? How will the Government now ensure that those sites can continue to function effectively? I am grateful to the Minister for her time in our previous interactions, but I ask her to explain in detail how the Government are going to manage those issues. The trust is now working at pace to try to develop a better understanding of the impact of the decision and the possible mitigations. What support is being put in place by the Department and NHS England to assist hospitals in that work?

Tackling the colossal backlog of repairs is not enough to equip such hospitals for the 21st century. The way that we deliver care has drastically changed since they were built. A new hospital is not just a new building; it is more than just bricks and mortar. It is about rethinking traditional and outdated models of care to reflect the changing needs of patients. Hospitals in East Sussex have been assessed as having a digital maturity level of zero. That must be addressed if the Government’s ambition of a digital revolution is to be realised. The layout of the hospitals is simply not designed for modern healthcare, with far too few single rooms to meet demand, which leaves hospitals poorly equipped to effectively control infection and unable to offer patients privacy and dignity when they need it most.

Those issues are more pronounced when we enter the winter months, with the UK Health Security Agency reporting a sharp increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital for flu and other respiratory diseases. As the Health Secretary mentioned last week, there are 5,100 people in hospital with flu, which is more than three times the number at this point last year. That is only compounded by the UK’s ageing population, which is often described correctly as a demographic time bomb, as in the next 25 years the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million. In East Sussex alone, the population is expected to increase by 14%, with significant growth in the over-70s demographic. As that comes to pass, healthcare needs will become more complex and the demand for services will continue to grow.

I have been working with a number of GP practices in my constituency to help bring to fruition their plans to move to larger, more modern premises. As such, I am encouraged by the Government’s £889 million of extra funding for general practice. From that work, I know that a significant barrier to those projects being delivered is the rising cost of construction. I was informed by Rother district council that construction costs on its joint projects have increased by approximately 40% since 2020.

Those issues underscore how critical the rebuilds are to East Sussex healthcare trust, as well as others across the country, to deliver the best healthcare outcomes for patients and future-proof our NHS. Although financial prudence is essential, the Health Secretary’s delays only escalate construction costs and deepen the strain on our healthcare system. Investment now will save money and lives in the long term. Instead, the Labour Government have delayed plans—admittedly ambitious plans—and kicked the can down the road. The decision to delay schemes in East Sussex will have consequences for patient care, NHS staff and public trust.

Without urgent interim funding to address those issues, patient safety and care standards will be at risk. I call on the Minister to secure dedicated resources to tackle the new challenges in maintenance and capital spending created by the Government’s decision, and ensure that hospitals can continue to serve the community safely and effectively while we wait for the new promised facilities to materialise. Delay must not mean deterioration, and I urge the Government to act now to protect both patients and NHS staff.

16:14

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) on securing a debate on this important matter. I commend his timing in getting this debate two days after an announcement that nobody else knew about. If he were a Labour MP, there would be howls of “Fix!”

There has been a lot of back and forth, but I want to confirm that we pledged to support this programme, and we are supporting it. That is what Monday was about—let us be in no doubt about that. I was part of the largest capital programme in the NHS when I served as a non-executive director under the last Labour Government; this will be the next largest capital programme, delivered under this Labour Government.

As Lord Darzi noted in his investigation, the hospitals that we rely on are deteriorating after the NHS suffered years of under-investment. This Government inherited a programme to deliver new hospitals that was unfunded beyond March 2025 and was repeatedly delayed, with no credible delivery plan.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday, in which £1.5 billion of Government funding was dedicated to Princess Alexandra hospital. At my local hospital in Harlow, it is not just an issue of funding: in fact, the land was not purchased and the business plan was not completed. The idea that the hospital would be completed by 2030 was a pipe dream, was it not?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend; I am happy to take interventions, but I need to finish by half-past 4, so I am conscious of time. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to his point.

We need to be very clear and honest with people about what was ready and about the different stages of these programmes, which we are very keen to do. Staff and patients deserve better. That is why the Secretary of State asked officials to review the programme and put it on a firm footing with sustainable funding so that all the projects can be delivered.

I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for his service to the NHS and his experience. I agree that it is appalling for staff. We all understand that he and I disagree in our political analysis, but he made some really well-informed points about models of care and future models of care, all of which we need to take into account in the delivery of this programme and other parts of the capital programme—and we will.

As the Secretary of State announced to the House on Monday, we now have a realistic plan to deliver the programme. I am pleased that we can be honest with people as we start a new chapter setting out a new commitment to deliver these hospitals, which are so important to all our constituents, that is realistic and backed with funding. We have worked closely with the Treasury to secure five-year waves of investment, backed by £15 billion of investment over consecutive waves, averaging £3 billion a year. This will ensure a balanced portfolio of schemes at different development stages being delivered now and into the future.

The new delivery plan sets out the order and the waves of investment in which each new hospital will be constructed. Hospitals included in a wave will begin construction, while forthcoming schemes will be undertaking pre-construction work to prepare planning permission and secure business cases. With this approach, we can ensure that schemes are ready to be built as soon as possible. A list of the schemes in each wave has been published on gov.uk and in the plan for implementation.

For reference, I will briefly outline the timeline for delivery. [Interruption.] Actually, I think we have seen all the waves, and the hon. Gentleman wants us to move on to Bexhill and East Sussex.

[Mr Mohindra]

For Watford general hospital, we have a window between 2032 and 2034. Given the certainty that the Minister is trying to give to the programme and to the rest of the country, what assurances and assumptions has she made for that two-year window? How can she assure me and my constituents that there will be no further delays?

[Karin Smyth]

I will pick up that point. Wave 3, which is what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has secured this debate on, includes schemes that were always part of a post-2030 plan. We now have the confirmed dates. The East Sussex new hospital scheme for East Sussex healthcare trust includes, as the hon. Gentleman says, new buildings and refurbishments at Eastbourne district general hospital, Conquest hospital and Bexhill community hospital. The scheme is in wave 3 of the delivery plan, and construction will commence between 2037 and 2039. We understand that this is disappointing news to some people who were expecting and were told that their hospital would be built earlier, but we can assure them that there is now a credible and funded plan for delivery—no more false promises. Our priority now is to get on and deliver these new hospitals for the benefit of the staff and patients who so vitally need them.

We understand the importance of these schemes to local communities and the need to invest in health infrastructure. We will continue to engage with trusts—including Watford, which the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned—over the next few years to establish whether there are any other activities that can be progressed during the spending review. We will be in discussions with all those trusts to understand mitigations in the meantime. That was the source of many questions that came up in the many meetings that I held with hon. Members yesterday. I understand that all these hospitals are critical—they would not be on the list if there were not a major problem with them—so we need to talk to the trusts about how we manage the process in the meantime.

I acknowledge that this will be a difficult time for the core teams and all the people who have been working on these schemes, many of which will be stood down. Their expertise and knowledge is extraordinarily valuable. I know that the programme teams will make efforts to ensure that expertise is retained where possible and used to develop the wider programme.

The trust is currently developing its strategic outline case, as per the business case process set out in His Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book. Following the review and approval of the SOC, the next step will be the development, review and agreement of the outline and full business case. I understand that many areas, including Bexhill, have plans for housing to accommodate a growing population. My Department will work closely with integrated care boards and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those communities have the health provision that they need.

Beyond establishing a credible programme, we are taking steps to restore people’s trust through honesty and transparency. We will be setting out further information for each scheme shortly, to ensure a more open way of working and collaborative programme delivery.

Yesterday, I held meetings with Members of Parliament from all waves of the process to give them the opportunity to ask more detailed questions about their individual schemes, and to give them the clarity that their constituents deserve. Letters have also been issued to the trusts. That was a very successful way of working; I certainly learned a lot about the individual schemes. Members of Parliament of all parties came to talk about their schemes. I gave a commitment that I would continue to talk to colleagues about them. I absolutely offer the same to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I will work with Members’ trusts to understand the detail on the ground.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the news, on which I congratulate the Minister, that the women and children’s hospital at Treliske and the emergency care hospital at Derriford are in wave 1. However, some of my North Cornwall constituents rely on the crumbling North Devon district hospital, which is potentially 15 years from a rebuild. We are talking about mitigations, so please will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can expand care at the community hospitals in Bodmin, Launceston and Bude, which are all at least one hour from their closest district hospitals?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We had a good discussion yesterday about North Devon; I understand the rurality of that location, as it is fairly close to my Bristol constituency. Obviously, however we manage it, there are a lot of schemes represented by a lot of MPs. I am open to suggestions about how we go forward. I hope hon. Members feel that we have tried to give as much information as we can to them and the trusts in the announcement and the meetings yesterday. That is the spirit in which we will continue.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I welcome the spirit of openness and transparency that the new leadership of the programme has demonstrated. Previously, and frustratingly, residents in Hillingdon were—to be frank—led up the garden path. We were left with all but an IOU note for £750 million for a new hospital. The revenue funding for the new hospital ran out this year. We were pleased to see it renewed, and to be in wave 1; a significant capital investment of more than £1 billion has been committed to.

This is complicated: it is hard to deliver projects at this scale. With the best will in the world, if another £20 billion were to appear, despite the Conservative party opposing any methods that would raise money, the construction sector would struggle to build all these hospitals at once. Is it not the case that it is challenging to deliver this project at scale? Will the spirit of openness and transparency continue?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued campaigning on behalf of the residents of Hillingdon; I used to be one of them. Talking to people is really important, and we have learned a lot from it. In case I have not outlined this enough, let me be clear that all our constituents who are on the programme are in severe need. The programme has looked at clinical need and deliverability. We understand how difficult these choices are, so I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Helena Dollimore]

I welcome the Labour Government’s confirmation of funding, which will help the Conquest hospital in Hastings, part of the East Sussex Healthcare trust, and other hospitals that my constituents use. It comes alongside the Chancellor’s announcement of a big package of support in the Budget, with record investment in our NHS to provide more appointments to clear the backlog left by the Conservatives.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which highlights the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised about other capital plans and programmes to help his constituents and others over the coming years.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue.

[Clive Jones]

rose—

[Dr Mullan]

rose—

[Karin Smyth]

If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, whose timing is superb, wants to make an extra point, I will give him the courtesy of a chance to come back in.

[Dr Mullan]

In the last hour, I have had a communication from the trust explaining that, with the delay, the extra cost may be in the hundreds of millions. I would be grateful to take up the Minister’s offer of some time, as well as to talk to MPs who use those services, to see how we can help the trust to access that funding.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We learned a lot yesterday from the expert team from the new hospital programme; I thank them for their incredible work in getting to this point. Those colleagues who could make the meetings yesterday found that the team’s knowledge about every single programme was phenomenal. I have yet to ask the team a question about any scheme to which they do not know the answer—I give hon. Members that confident assurance. The team includes colleagues from both NHS England and the Department.

When I went to an assurance meeting a few weeks ago, I learned that the relationship between the central control of the programme and the trusts, how we get the schemes delivered for everyone’s constituents, and the value of parliamentarians talking to me—everyone has stopped me in the corridors to raise these issues—are all very valuable. That is a good function of parliamentarians. That is the spirit in which we want to continue.

Our commitment is to deliver these hospitals, including the Eastbourne district general, Conquest hospital and Bexhill community hospital schemes, and I am pleased to say that we have an affordable, deliverable plan to do so. It will be difficult, but I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and other colleagues.

[Mr Mohindra]

It is very gracious of the Minister to allow me to intervene again. In the interests of full transparency, can she assure us that if the development of the new hospitals gets delayed, all MPs will be informed, not just those in the relevant constituency? Work on Watford general is meant to begin between 2032 and 2034. Will the Government communicate any further delays as quickly as possible? That will certainly be critical to our constituents.

[Karin Smyth]

We absolutely will. This is one of the advantages of the waves: we recognise, and everybody knows, that there are sometimes unavoidable delays to schemes, perhaps to do with the sites, but the advantage of the pre-construction work and our knowledge of the sites is that most of that should be built into the programme and the timing. But life happens.

One of the central issues for the programme is capacity in the construction arena, as well as across the country, in terms of developing primary estate to get these things done. The advantage of the waves is that they give us flexibility if things move, as they inevitably will—that is life. We very much want to keep up relationships with local trusts and inform them. That will be difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) says, but that is the spirit in which we want to continue. I give him and other colleagues that absolute commitment.

Question put and agreed to.

Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Before I start, I pay tribute to Unison South West, which has been at the forefront of this campaign. It has a number of care workers and members in the Gallery to listen to the debate.

The stark reality for migrant workers in the UK is that they are under-protected by our employment rights framework and victimised by our immigration rules. Migrant social care workers are particularly vulnerable to this kind of ill treatment because of the hostile environment in which they find themselves. Any worker who challenges bad practices by their employer puts their ability to live and work in the UK at great risk. This is a real danger in a sector with high levels of staff turnover. It is fragmented and privatised, characterised by many small employers running on tight profit margins—some of the profits are extracted from the companies for shareholder dividends. This important debate therefore draws attention to the power that employers are given by our visa system.

As the visa sponsor, employers have ultimate power over the lives of workers. Unscrupulous employers have greater powers over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status. If they lose their job, they will lose the right to work and live in the UK. The only way to avoid that currently is if they can find another job with an eligible social care employer within 60 days. As migrant workers, they are not eligible for any kind of support if they are dismissed. Many employers are well aware of the fear and vulnerability that these workers experience and do not hesitate to use threats to secure their compliance.

The sponsorship relationship with the employer is particularly harmful in the social care sector. As many Members will know, the care sector is one of the most precarious sectors in the UK. Firms regularly go under or lose their council contracts. The consequence is that staff find themselves without work and in financial hardship. For migrant care workers, the situation is even worse. Workers are fearful of raising concerns about employment practices, because they know that the same employers can remove their visa sponsorship. Unscrupulous employers can use the threat of removal to a care worker’s home country to victimise migrant workers who whistleblow or complain about their treatment.

Workers do not only risk deportation by speaking up or challenging an employer. Many face total financial ruin in their home country, because they have sold all that they have to come here, and illegal recruitment fees demanded by predatory recruitment agencies are rife in the sector. According to the Work Rights Centre, one in three people on the health and care worker visa said that they had to pay a large recruitment fee to secure their sponsorship. The value of fees averaged £11,000. The latest report from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority indicates that the care sector is the most reported sector for labour exploitation, making up 60% of all reports. The most common vulnerability to exploitation indicated by potential victims of forced labour is being tied to a visa under the existing sponsorship system.

The Care Quality Commission has noted that workers are being exploited through the immigration system. Research last year by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre found that the current visa system creates hyper-insecurity, which increases workers’ vulnerability to exploitation. Workers routinely suffer low wages, high recruitment fees, inappropriate salary deductions and the threat of deportation.

One care worker, who wishes to remain nameless, said:

“We are not treated with dignity at all. Last month I was paid just £1,300 with no explanation as to why my wages had been reduced. Most carers are scared to take their leave for fear of losing shifts and when you get sick, the company deducts money from your salary”.

One of my constituents in Poole, Nicola, explained that many sponsors have failed to meet their promises of providing adequate hours, which leaves workers in precarious situations. This not only undermines their rights, but often subjects them to poor working conditions and substandard housing.

Some of the stories these workers tell are truly heartbreaking and highlight clear violations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. For example, many migrant healthcare workers are expected to sign contracts containing draconian clauses which often include a requirement to pay back recruitment and training costs if they leave their posts within a few years. Workers have effectively been blackmailed into staying because their employers have threatened them with a large debt should they leave. Migrant care staff have also been invoiced for administration costs. One employer billed staff £65 an hour for meeting and greeting a new employee at the airport when they arrived in the UK. Another worrying trend is workers being charged fees that the Home Office explicitly forbid employers to pass on. These include the immigration skills charge that the Government require employers to pay when they agree to sponsor a worker from overseas.

Government interventions to address these issues have failed thus far. In 2023, the then Government announced that care providers could only sponsor migrant workers if they were undertaking activities regulated by the CQC, but this failed to recognise that many registered companies were already exploiting their workers. In 2024, a rematching programme to help workers find another sponsored role when things went wrong was symbolic of acting after the problem had arisen, rather than seeking to change the structure of the system.

Although welcome, stricter licensing requirements and greater sanctions do not address the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of the employee sponsorship system. That is why I hope the Government will agree to a review of immigration policies that increase the vulnerability of migrant workers to exploitation and modern slavery. Vital to that is a re-examination of the visa sponsorship relationship with the employer in the social care sector, moving towards a sector-wide sponsorship scheme run by an independent body with a health and social care focus. That would enable overseas staff to leave bad employers and find work with better ones.

Sector-wide sponsorship would also mean that workers and employers did not incur new costs every time a worker moved jobs. That would alleviate the pressure on the worker and reduce the impetus from some employers to enforce repayment clauses. Any visa scheme reform will stand or fall on whether it enables overseas workers to live their lives free of exploitation. This requires a fundamental shift in our immigration rules, so that the hostile environment is replaced with a rights-based framework and migrant workers are treated with dignity and respect.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling situations faced by migrant labour in the social care system, as highlighted by UNISON, emphasise the need for urgent structural reform of the system, to create a national care service that resolves workforce insecurity, alongside the many other problems arising from our social care crisis?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The need for urgent social care reform—and to bring it back into public ownership—is vital, and I will continue to press the Government on this.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I can see that the hon. Member is on his last paragraph. I apologise to him, and to you, Dr Huq—I am chairing a meeting next door, so I will have to leave. I intervene because he mentioned companies going out of business. In my constituency, when Southern Cross went out of business, a range of Filipino workers were left bereft, isolated, and with no income, and had to return home because of the visa situation. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which is coming before the House, proposes a fair pay agreement in the social care sector—which will be the first element of the reintroduction of sectoral collective pay bargaining—and proposes a fair work agency. That agency could take on the role of monitoring this sector and administer an overall sectoral visa process that could be fairer and regulated.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. We need to consider how to address this problem in a practical way, and that might be one option.

Introducing a common certificate of sponsorship is not only the right thing to do; it is absolutely crucial to raising standards in the care sector. Overseas workers play a vital role in keeping the sector running. They deserve better protections and treatment, and I hope that the Government will therefore see the merit of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to stand. We will then work out how much time each Member gets.

16:41

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate.

Two sets of people are being abused and exploited. The first set are workers in the care sector. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about the extent of abuse in the sector, and I have seen it myself in my employment law practice. However, I have also always been aware that there was a need for more advice in the sector than we could ever provide, for exactly the reason that he raised: people are too scared to come forward.

The other set of people for whom this situation is deeply unjust are my constituents who receive care, who are spending their life savings on care, and who would be absolutely horrified to discover the circumstances in which many of the people who give that care are living. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has talked about this as a massive growth area of concern—I have spoken to the Minister about that previously, in this exact room, so I will not go into precisely the same points again.

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could potentially have a licensing scheme for care workers but, bluntly, it licensing schemes in other sectors do not seem to be eliminating abuse, so a certificate of common sponsorship is the way to get better rights and behaviours within the sector.

At the moment, some councils are putting out tenders for care at payment rates of around £17 an hour. Care representative organisations tell me that the actual cost of providing care with staff paid in a legally compliant way is £22 an hour. That does not include any management costs whatsoever; it is just the cost of the member of staff being provided. We have, at minimum, a £5 an hour gap between legally compliant care workers and what local councils are offering, although the gap is more than that because companies will, of course, want to make some degree of profit—that is not, per se, illegitimate—and will naturally need to charge for some management costs. A gap that big is enriching non-compliant employers in the sector. Compliant employers are withdrawing from the market because they cannot manage to compete, or provide services, for the amounts of money available.

There is an urgent need for a wider reform of the care sector, and pay within the sector. We are, of course, all looking forward to sectoral bargaining, to better protect workers and make it clearer to people what their rights are. However, unless workers have the capacity to enforce those rights, and unless they can move between employers as the rest of us can, they will continue to be exploited.

We already have a significant problem in the sector. The problem is getting worse and will continue to get worse but this is, I hope, one of a number of measures that could really improve working conditions for people in this country.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We said five minutes each.

16:45

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. Having worked with him on the issue, I know we share a commitment to securing a fair solution for the workers affected by these rules.

As the hon. Member outlined, the situation for people on health and care worker visas is uniquely difficult. The way that visa works puts employees into an incredibly and intolerably vulnerable position. If they lose their job, they lose their right to live and work in the UK, unless they find an eligible alternative employer within 60 days. A survey conducted by the Work Rights Centre found that only 5% of those who tried were successful within that timeframe.

The situation can be even more difficult when, as Unison reports, employers withhold references for employees trying to change jobs. We can see it is really difficult for those workers to change employers. What does that mean? It means that employers hold significant power over their employees’ right to live and work here. Their lives are effectively under the control of the employers. That can be disastrous, as it has been found that many employers wield that power to make unfair demands on their workers.

There have been reports of unreasonable demands made under the either implicit or sometimes explicit threat of revoking sponsorship. Employers do not have the right to deport people, yet that is what they are threatening to do. The Royal College of Nursing told us about a member who was asked to work on days she was not contracted to, tried to refuse and was told in reply by the employer, “We sponsor you.” That was a clear threat intended to intimidate her into compliance with work outside the contract. That is echoed by a domiciliary care worker from India who told Unison that every conversation they had with managers felt threatening and often ended with the word “visa”.

The RCN has also reported threatening tactics being used to get employees to sign new more restrictive contracts, including—shockingly—being given just 30 minutes to sign before having their sponsorship revoked. Care worker Divya told Citizens Advice that she had not been paid in two months, while her British colleagues had been paid as normal. She was falling behind on bills. Having contacted her employer once about it, she was understandably scared to follow up, in fear she would be dismissed. She said:

“I feel like we’re being treated as slaves.”

There are other horrific examples, such as being given unsuitable and overpriced housing, or finding out that they do not even have the work that was promised when they arrived. Citizens Advice reports that a quarter of the migrant care workers it spoke to were given no work when they arrived in the UK. One in eight contracts were changed on arrival. It is blatantly clear that that is completely unacceptable.

The Government have acknowledged the harm of those rogue employers, and have taken action around increasing sanctions for the breach of rules. However, as the hon. Member for Poole pointed out, those measures do not do enough to address the toxic power imbalance that arises when so much of an employee’s life is in the hands of a single employer. In short, they do not prevent this injustice. That is the crux of the issue and must be addressed.

A certificate of common sponsorship would change that. It would mean that an employee’s sponsorship would not be chained to a single employer and it would break that exclusive link that is so often exploited. I strongly urge the Government to consider that as a solution. We have already had helpful suggestions for how it might work. Then we can empower migrant care workers to demand the fair conditions they rightly deserve.

16:49

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing this crucial debate. Migrant workers are vital to the UK’s economy and society. They make up over a fifth of our workforce and support essential industries such as hospitality and social care. Just last week, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from Focus on Labour Exploitation, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, the Southeast and East Asian Women’s Association and the Refugee Workers Cultural Association. They voiced serious concerns about the current visa rules that tie many migrant workers to a single employer, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.

The existing legislation not only creates grey areas that allow employers to pay unliveable wages, deny sick pay and encourage abuse in the workplace, but it also strips employees of the agency to challenge those conditions. Many are trapped in a vicious cycle; they are scared to speak out due to fear of arrest, immigration detention or deportation, with no means to move to a safer employer. I fully support our Government’s commitment to reducing visa and immigration abuse, and empowering workers to report exploitation safely plays a crucial role in that.

The introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship would enable migrant workers to change employers freely without facing the burden of additional immigration fees, the risk of being unemployed within the 60-day period or jeopardising their visa status. That would empower workers, increase accountability and raise standards for migrant workers, as employers would risk losing their workforce if they failed to treat workers fairly. Such measures will redress the power imbalance between workers and sponsors, giving workers the flexibility to escape exploitative situations and access their rights without fear.

What conversations have Home Office officials had with those at the Department for Work and Pensions on the effects of data sharing and protections against employers using workers’ insecure immigration status to threaten and silence them in exploitative situations? The UK’s reliance on migrant workers cannot be overstated and all workers’ contributions must be valued and protected.

16:52

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for setting the scene so very well. The No. 1 reason why I am here is to support him, and the No. 2 reason is that I want to consider the benefits of the legislative change that he has proposed. Through the Minister, we will see whether that legislative change can be achieved. If we can do that, we can move this forward.

Many firms in my constituency of Strangford have seasonal workers and must complete much paperwork. They go through various loopholes to secure their workers when they simply cannot source labour at home. There is a very clear purpose to that, which can be beneficial for us all. Firms cannot apply for these certificates annually in advance and rather have to wait three months, which is difficult logistically; I believe that an extension to the certificate of sponsorship could and should be considered. I look forward wishfully to the Minister’s consideration of what the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and I think this has been a very positive debate.

Seasonal workers are needed quickly, and there should be an easier and more streamlined way for them to access sponsorship, to be gainfully employed and to be able to move through employment. That is why I supported the hon. Member in his call for reform of the tier 2 visa system and the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship. That is needed greatly within my constituency of Strangford and other rural constituencies. We need seasonal help and an easier and more cost-effective system to navigate. For many, it is bureaucratic—red taped—and we must ensure that that is not the case.

The proposed change would allow migrant healthcare workers, for example, to switch employers within the sector without putting their visa status at risk. That would provide greater job security and better protection from exploitation, which all Members who have spoken have referred to. I am sure that the Minister truly desires that, and I await with great interest the Minister’s comments on how we can improve and streamline this process for even more people. I also look forward to the contributions of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart).

The fact is that these people are not coming to claim benefits but to work. Sometimes we should focus on the clear and positive contributions that they can make, often in industries where we cannot find and supply our own workers. I know a number of agrifood businesses that spend a great deal of their resources on filling out the applications.

To be clear, I believe in the visa system—I understand it, I know why it is there and I support it as it is—but I also believe in checks and balances. There should be the ability to offer protection to workers in sectors that are crying out for help. That is why I am happy to support the hon. Member for Poole. It would be a simple and direct change, and one that could make all the difference. I highlight the fact, and make a plea to the Minister, that we still have to get the fishing crew visa situation sorted out. That, too, must be done.

Specifically, I have a plea for the Minister. Over the years, in all my time here—I have been 14 years here as an MP—I have supported our visa system, which has worked. Unfortunately, the previous Government—I am not being disrespectful, just honest—put the threshold up to such a level that those who applied for visas, and the fishing boats who would employ those people, were unable to meet it. If the Minister is happy to do this, and I hope she will be, will she would meet me and some of the fishing organisations to discuss how we can better have a threshold that the fishing boat owners can meet and that gives a living and good wage to the people who come across? The Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation is keen to find a way forward. Will the Minister agree to a meeting with the fishing sector and me to discuss such matters?

To close, I know that the Minister has a desire to facilitate those who wish to come to work and to add to our economy and community—they do so, and they are positive in their contribution. I believe that this suggestion is one that could safely be taken up to allow sponsors and indeed workers a cost-effective and streamlined approach.

16:57

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing a debate on this issue. We both attended Unison’s lobby of Parliament last year, and met migrant health and social care workers on tier 2 visas. Some of the employment practices they had been subjected to were appalling. I completely understand their push for a certificate of common sponsorship.

As highlighted by other Members, existing rules that tie a worker to a single employer create a relationship of dependency and a highly unequal power dynamic. Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to express concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship and being returned to their home country. Often, such workers are in a financially precarious situation, which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by their employer for their job induction, travel or training costs; some have their families with them, too, and in some cases workers receive a salary below the minimum wage to make up the cost of their flights or their training.

A concern repeatedly raised with me by healthcare workers on sponsorship visas in my constituency relates to shift patterns and hours. One constituent described starting work at 5 am and returning home at 10 pm, only to have worked for less than five hours due to the nature of his shifts, which he found financially and emotionally draining. Women might be sitting all day at bus stops and on benches in Cornish villages between their shifts, because their shift pattern has been so difficult to accommodate. Another constituent described employers threatening their staff about taking days off, and the expectation that migrant workers would always have to work bank holidays such as Christmas day. Unison has reported workers doing 19-hour shifts with no breaks, and the council in my area has revoked contracts with some providers for those reasons.

Even in circumstances where workers are not facing poor employment or living conditions, care is still one of the most precarious sectors in the UK, including in Cornwall, where firms regularly go under or have their licences revoked. Healthcare workers who came to the UK on sponsorship visas then only have 60 days to find another job with an eligible social care employer, or they have to leave the country. That short timescale creates stress, uncertainty and financial hardship, which one of my constituents experienced when their sponsoring company’s licence was revoked. Some workers in my constituency have gone on to work for the NHS, but having the visas transferred has been incredibly difficult and stressful, even with such a big employer.

A certificate of common sponsorship that is sector-wide, perhaps including health and social care and the NHS, rather than being linked to a single employer, would go a long way to addressing the issues we have all mentioned. It would prevent employers using the threat to withdraw sponsorship as a means of keeping migrant workers in poor living and working conditions, and it would improve job security and financial stability for those workers. That would help retain the desperately needed skilled professionals in the care sector.

17:00

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate and for laying out some of the problems with the current system very clearly.

The Liberal Democrats are clear in our commitment to reforming the UK’s work visa system. We believe in creating a system that supports our country and economy while ensuring that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. The system should be fairer and more humane, and it should allow us to attract and retain the workers we need.

A critical problem with the current system is the exploitation of migrant workers, who are often trapped in vulnerable working conditions that are particularly prevalent in the social care sector. The Liberal Democrats have a comprehensive plan to address that exploitation. We would establish a single enforcement body to combat modern slavery and worker exploitation, a measure the previous Government long promised, but failed to deliver. The body would ensure that all workers, regardless of their terms of employment, are protected from abuse and are treated fairly.

Undoubtedly, the problem has been exacerbated by policies such as the ban on bringing dependants for people who come here on health and care worker visas. This is a cruel measure placed on those working to save lives, and it should be reversed.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I was slightly surprised by what the hon. Lady just said. Can she just repeat, so I understand correctly, that the Liberal Democrat policy is to reinstate the ability for people coming on the health and social care visa to bring dependants, knowing that that on average each person on that visa brought more than one dependant and the ratio was more than 1:1 throughout its operation?

[Lisa Smart]

It is a delight to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on such an important issue. We would not continue with the current visa structure and I will go on to explain what we would do. We believe, as a number of people do, that the system put in place by the previous Government is cruel. It is cruel for workers to allegedly be welcomed here, but not with their dependants, whether those are children or other dependants. We feel that we should be welcoming to families who want to play an important role in our society, such as by doing the job of a health and care worker—so yes, we would change the policy fundamentally: for a thriving, integrated society we should welcome families, not just workers, on these visas.

We should not forget the extraordinary sacrifices that NHS nurses, doctors and care staff have made and continue to make. I see it for myself at Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove, at our nursing homes and care homes, such as Cherry Tree House in Romiley, and with those domiciliary care workers who go into the homes of our most vulnerable neighbours to give them the care that they need. Those workers face immense pressure in the face of record waiting times and difficult, draining roles. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for better support for those vital workers, including those who come from overseas.

We would exempt NHS and care staff from the annual £1,000 immigration skills charge to recognise the invaluable contributions they bring. We should be valuing and cherishing our health and care workers. The Government should, as I have said, reverse the ban on visa holders bringing dependants with them. The policy needlessly separates families and discourages talented individuals from coming to the UK.

If the previous Government had valued care workers as the skilled professionals that they are, they would not have needed to rely so heavily on overseas recruitment. That is why the Lib Dems propose the introduction of a carer’s minimum wage, which would make it easier to recruit and retain domestic workers in this vital sector.

While the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship may address some issues, we believe the root of the problem lies in our flawed visa system. We Lib Dems are clear: we can and we should have a fair and compassionate visa system that protects workers from overseas—but that cannot be achieved by tinkering around the edges.

Ultimately, the UK needs a flexible, merit-based system for work visas, allowing the Government to work closely with each sector to ensure that those skilled workers will fill the skills gaps in the UK economy. That includes abandoning the arbitrary salary threshold for skilled worker visas dreamed up by the previous Government, which not only drives skilled workers away, but deepens existing workforce shortages, especially in the health and social care sectors. A merit-based system would recognise the unique needs of different industries and the vital contributions made by workers at all levels of the economy. For example, many roles in social care and the NHS are essential, but do not meet the current salary thresholds, leaving critical positions unfilled.

By focusing on skills rather than arbitrary financial benchmarks, we can build a system that not only attracts talent, but encourages long-term retention, allowing workers to build lives and contribute meaningfully to our, and their, local communities. The Liberal Democrats share the goal of creating a visa system that prevents exploitation and fills workforce gaps, but that needs to be done through comprehensive reforms rather than simple, limited measures. A truly effective system must be compassionate, adaptable and designed to meet the needs of workers as well as of our economy. By focusing on systematic change, we can build a visa system that not only protects workers from exploitation, but ensures that critical workforce gaps are filled in a sustainable way.

17:06

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate.

We are all deeply grateful to our doctors, nurses and care workers. They do rewarding jobs, but their roles can be difficult and gruelling, too. It is true that many people in that workforce are not British but have come to this country to do that work. We must thank them for helping to keep us and our families healthy and cared for. However, it is our role in Westminster to look at the whole picture, informed—but not led—by individual cases, and there is a wider question to address.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration and successive Governments did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for decades, and remains so. That is relevant today, because the volumes of people on the health and social care visa are eye-watering. Since 2021, more people have come to this country under the health and social care route than live in the city of Manchester. Why is that? Because those jobs are tough, yes—but fundamentally because those jobs are underpaid.

The Migration Advisory Committee says,

“the underlying cause of these workforce difficulties is due to the underfunding of the social care sector…immigration could not solve these workforce issues alone.”

This situation is economically self-defeating. There is no question that money the Government save in the short term by underpaying salaries in health and social care is dwarfed in the medium and long term by the costs to the state. After five years, a person who has come here on a health and social care visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they will qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care, everything. All that costs money, far more money than those on these sorts of salaries will ever pay in tax and or than they will save the state with their artificially low wages. This cannot go on.

As the hon. Members for Poole, for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have noted, those individuals are at risk of exploitation. That is a result of the poor pay and conditions across the sector, which have been allowed to endure through bringing in workers from abroad who are willing to accept them as the price of coming here. A certificate of common sponsorship will simply not solve this fundamental problem.

The next related issue with the visa is the degree to which it is abused. The MAC describes “misuse” of the visa as

“a significant problem and greater than in other immigration routes”.

All these issues raise massive concerns about the safety of patients and vulnerable people that the system is charged with caring for. It is awful that that system built up under a Conservative Government.

The change of rules to limit dependants is insufficient to fix the whole problem, but was a substantial step in the right direction. Numbers in the most recent year fell by two thirds. The rules around the health and social care visa need to be tightened further, not loosened through a certificate of common sponsorship, and actually enforced. That is for the good of not only those healthcare workers themselves, but—as should be the primary concern of hon. Members here—for the good of their patients and of this country.

Can the Minister please confirm that that reform is not under consideration? Can she please set out the discussions she is having with her Treasury and Health Department counterparts about the problem of underpaid jobs in health and social care? Can she please tell us how many migrants on care worker visas the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? Can she tell us, based on demographic level of income and number of dependants, what the Government expect this to cost?

17:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this very important debate and thank those who have spoken from the Back Benches, including my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). Before I make any further comments, I assure the hon. Member for Strangford that I am very happy to meet him, as always, and indeed I will be visiting Scotland to talk about a number of the issues he has raised today.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), made very similar comments to her speech in the last debate that we were in. I think we can all agree that the immigration system needs to be fair, controlled and managed—much better managed that the chaos that we inherited. Many issues in the design of the health and care visa system contribute to the problems we see today. It is important that that is understood and acknowledged in this debate.

I want to make a broad point: although I will hopefully address a number of the issues raised today, perhaps with some more positive input than may have been understood from some of the recent changes we have made, we understand that our net migration does need to come down from the record highs that we saw under the last Government. We have supported some of the rule changes brought in, including the stopping of dependants, which hon. Members will know.

In that spirit, it is important to say that the Government recognise the vital contribution that care professionals from overseas make to our social care sector. We do share my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s concerns about the treatment of international workers in the care sector. A number of the issues they face are also faced by others from within the UK who are working in the same sector, and I will highlight some of the work we are doing to enact reforms that will be in the interests of all in this very important sector for our country.

My hon. Friend secured this debate in support of a proposal by Unison, as he outlined. I thank Unison for the considerable research and work it does in this area. I look forward to meeting the organisation to discuss not just these issues and its proposal, but its wider insights on issues facing workers. I hope that in this debate I can address some of the concerns raised and set out both what we are already doing, which I think goes quite a long way to addressing those concerns, and why addressing those concerns continues to be a high priority for this Government.

Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care visa, which recognises the crucial contribution made by our international health and care workers. Those visas involve significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a quicker processing time and a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Since February 2020, UK employers have been able to use this route to recruit people from overseas to work as carers. Under the previous Government, the number of carers recruited grew beyond expectations, and it is for that reason as well that this Government have maintained the measures the previous Government introduced in the spring of 2024.

The changes brought in by these new visas were stood up at pace by the previous Government to address what had become acute shortages in the adult social care sector. The issues the sector was facing had not been addressed and became a crisis—not unlike other workforce challenges—and they were then worsened by the covid-19 pandemic. The safeguards that should have been put in place when setting up these visas were not as effective as they could have been, and we have seen a range of abusive and exploitative practices in the sector. These have ranged from employers not having the work to fulfil workers’ contracts to abhorrent practices such as the housing issues that have been talked about, unfair shifts, pay and documents being withheld, and modern slavery. Hon. Members have also spoken about a lack of dignity, and a fear of taking holiday or sick leave or of speaking up when issues are faced. These are serious concerns and must be addressed.

That is why, in the autumn, I met colleagues in the Department of Health. At that meeting, I discussed these issues and the progress of actions that have already been taken, looking at where we might see longer-term plans for the care sector. As has been referenced in today’s debate, the recently introduced Employment Rights Bill establishes a framework for fair pay agreements, through which an agreement for the adult social care sector can be negotiated and reached in partnership by employers, worker representatives and others. That is yet another example of the Government taking steps and actions to address the serious issues that have been outlined. The Minister for Care and I will be discussing these issues further with our counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, recognising local government’s stake in these issues, to understand how our Departments can come together and work more collaboratively.

Although the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole focuses on health and care workers, it is worth mentioning that these issues seem to be particularly prevalent in lower-paying sectors such as care. In other areas of the health sector, the sponsorship system seems to be working well, with little need for significant Home Office intervention. However, I want to set out the steps we are taking to assist affected workers and the action that is already being implemented to tackle rogue employers.

First, we have seen that jobs in the care sector often do not have enough hours to support the workers who have been recruited to come to the UK. It is in no one’s interest to grant care worker visas when there is no guaranteed care work for visa holders to come to; that does not support care needs or our constituents, and it can also leave visa holders unable to support themselves in the UK without access to public funds. UK Visas and Immigration is applying the genuine vacancy test with a clearer understanding of the care sector’s recruitment processes and practices, to make sure that sponsors prove that the job is required and that they have enough work to ensure that the person will be doing the proposed job and paid the required salary. That is vital, given that international recruits on those contracts do not have recourse to public funds.

In the case of care workers who have come to this country in good faith to support these sectors and our constituents, but who have been left without a licensed sponsor, the Department for Health and Social Care has been working closely with the Home Office to design a process that will support those displaced care workers into new roles within the adult social care sector. Government officials, alongside 15 regional hubs in England made up of local authorities and directors of adult social services, are working together to support displaced workers into new roles. These regional partnerships have received £16 million this financial year to support them to prevent and respond to unethical practices in the sector. That includes providing funding support to help international recruits understand their rights. It also includes establishing operational processes with regional partnerships to support individuals to switch employers and remain working in the care sector in which they have been impacted when, for example, their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. We need to build on the progress that has already been made.

It is important to note that, as part of that process, workers in adult social care roles receive a bespoke letter direct from the Home Office that notifies them if their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. It also gives them the directions and contacts, so that they can get in contact with their regional partnership hub if they want to secure new employment and new sponsorship. The letter is sent before the visa cancellation process starts and is designed to give workers in adult social care the time to access assistance. I am keen to see the process made quicker, and I will work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that that is the case and that the process is as effective as it can be.

Where a worker believes that they are being exploited, but their sponsor is not yet subject to Home Office compliance action, the Government encourage them to come forward to regional hubs. Although the service is primarily for care workers whose employer’s sponsor licence has been revoked, we would expect support to be offered to other care workers who approach those hubs. I understand that some workers will be fearful, but I would encourage them and send them this message: they should come forward to report their experiences and secure help. For care workers specifically, the Home Office will waive priority service fees for applications supported by regional hubs.

Those who have come to the UK legitimately to support our care sector should be given the best opportunity to do so and be treated with fairness and respect. That is why the Government are also stepping up action against rogue employers. The Government have made clear our intention to crack down on those employers who are abusing the immigration system, and we will prevent them from sponsoring overseas workers. That will benefit all workers across our points-based system.

Let me turn specifically to the issue of employers passing on sponsorship costs to their workers, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members and is an outrageous practice. It has always been the intention that those benefiting from the recruitment of overseas workers should bear the costs of that sponsorship, and the Government believe that to be typical of most good employers. However, there are a small number of employers who have sought to load their sponsorship costs on to lower-paid international workers, and that must be stopped.

I am pleased to confirm that the Home Office has implemented policy changes to address that practice by skilled worker sponsors, including in the health and care sector. Those sponsors are now prevented from passing on the costs of acquiring a sponsor licence or of assigning the certificate of sponsorship, as well as any administrative and legal costs associated with having and using a licence. It is our intention to go further and implement that more broadly across all sponsored work routes.

As we set out before Christmas, the Government intend to go further and ban any employer who flouts employment laws from engaging with the immigration system. Visa and employment laws will be brought into closer alignment. Our sponsorship system will also reflect measures being driven and delivered by our Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. The Home Office will ensure that new protections set out in the Bill and the work of the flagship fair work agency are integrated into the sponsorship framework, strengthening the existing measures designed to prevent the mistreatment and exploitation of sponsored workers.

Although a key objective of the sponsorship system is to ensure that international workers are protected against modern slavery and other labour abuses, the Government recognise that the requirement to be sponsored and the worker’s reliance on their sponsor can, in some circumstances, make it more difficult for sponsored workers to change their employer. Those who wish to seek alternative employment can do so if they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor and make a new application. They are able to do that at any time, and do not need to wait until their sponsor is no longer able to employ them. Individuals have different options, depending on their circumstances, and can seek advice from an accredited immigration adviser.

If a sponsored care worker has lost their job because the sponsor’s licence has been revoked, they should, again, contact their regional support hub for assistance, as people who have been the victim of exploitation. The most important thing is that these individuals are supported to use the process and are able to make an application, which will enable them to regularise their stay. Anything short of that risks leaving them in a more vulnerable position, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that that is prevented.

Finally, we are deeply concerned by reports of unethical practices relating to international recruits in the care sector. That is why we are taking decisive steps to address the issue, and why UK Visas and Immigration continues to investigate and take action alongside partners where evidence of abuse is found. It is engaging with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and other relevant agencies to hold employers to account, and working with the Department for Health and Social Care to support impacted workers.

In conclusion, we continue to look at the best approaches for the immigration system, but it is important to note that the sponsorship compliance regime has exposed widespread abuse and stripped hundreds of rogue employers of their ability to recruit internationally. The system is therefore key to ensuring that future workers receive the pay and conditions promised when they applied for their visa. Although we recognise the issues raised today, there is also much more work to do urgently to improve the system. We are utterly committed to doing that and to working with colleagues across the House to make those changes and improvements a reality.

17:27

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate, which was very positive. I also welcome the Minister’s contribution, and acknowledge both her understanding of the exploitation taking place in the sector today and her willingness to address that through existing and future measures.

On regional support hubs, however, the evidence we have heard—that only 5% of people losing their sponsorship are able to gain another role within the 60-day period—is proof enough that the system is not yet working adequately. I acknowledge that there are efforts to be made, but that does not address the problem that migrant workers face. They are in vulnerable positions and precarious employment, and when that is threatened and taken away, it is very difficult to find another sponsor. I would like the Minister to take that on board further.

Finally, my view is that strong trade unions are the key to exercising rights at work. Migrants should be represented in a union in their workplace. We also need a sympathetic legal underpinning that helps individuals and workers generally to exercise those rights. I am hoping that the Employment Rights Bill and other proposed legislation will do that. I am hopeful, ultimately, that the Government will see the economic and social benefit of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.