Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maternity Services
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered maternity services.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank all the Members in attendance for their interest in this important topic and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time to debate maternity services in England.
On average, a baby is born in England every 56 seconds, over 1,500 babies each day, most of them delivered in an NHS setting with the help and support of a maternity department or at home with an NHS community midwife by their side. That is over 500,000 babies every year. I contributed to that statistic in 2014 and 2019 when I gave birth to my children at St Richard’s hospital in Chichester. Two very different births that I will not spend my valuable time in this debate reflecting on, because there are far more important voices that need to be heard and considered. A person is at their most vulnerable moment when they or their partner go into labour. We put our health, safety, and the safety of our unborn child into the hands of professionals who work in that setting—the midwives, obstetricians, anaesthetists, and neonatologists—to support us in the safe delivery of our child and get us all home safe. And in the majority of births that is the case.
However, several investigations have revealed fundamental flaws in how maternity care is delivered across England. A Care Quality Commission inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% were not safe for women to give birth in, with studies showing that one fifth of all causes of stillbirth are potentially preventable. The Ockenden report, led by Donna Ockenden, investigated the maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, but it also highlighted the flaws in maternity care across England. The report laid out immediate and essential actions which are key to reforming maternity services and ensuring that every mother and baby receive the care they deserve and should expect. In her report Donna reflected that sometimes that spotlight can feel harsh to staff on the front line, who are doing their very best in what are often extremely challenging circumstances.
In conversation with midwives and others working in the maternity care sector, I recognise that each one I spoke to entered the profession as a the result of a calling, vocation, or passion for supporting mothers to bring their babies into the world. They are frontline NHS staff who often go above and beyond the call of duty to support and care for their patients in those extraordinary hours and days. Midwives in particular spend significant time with expectant mothers, supporting them through all stages of pregnancy and birth. They see women at their most vulnerable. They act as therapists, teachers, friends and maternal figures. Yet across the country, staffing levels are inadequate. In 2023, midwives and support workers worked over 100,000 hours of unpaid overtime every week. The pressure and stress on them is immense and this leads to burnout, absenteeism, high staff turnover and the loss of experienced professionals from the field, and that ultimately puts patient safety at risk.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate and the excellent and persuasive way that she is making her case. On burnout, does she agree that one of the biggest issues is that when a tragedy happens, midwives and obstetricians often feel that if they speak out the risk is that they or their institution will get sued, or that they could get fired from their jobs? Does she agree that litigation reform to try and change the rules of the game, so that people are able to be open when they think they have made a mistake and learn from those mistakes, is one of the most important ways that we could improve the record on patient safety, which is as much a concern to her as it is to me?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to change the way that we do litigation, because NHS trusts often argue that they want to learn and grow from poor experiences, but the litigation system means that they rarely have the opportunity to do so, because everybody is so afraid to speak out. We need to change that culture within maternity services and the NHS as a whole.
As a country, we are training more midwives than ever before, yet retention remains a problem and the pandemic exacerbated an already difficult situation, with highly trained midwives with families or caring responsibilities leaving the profession too soon.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate here today. Frimley Park hospital in my constituency received an outstanding report from the Care Quality Commission in 2023, but it none the less identified that inadequate staffing remains one of the highest risks on the maternity register. That has daily implications; many midwives reported, for example, that daily checks were often incomplete, handovers were interrupted and not standardised, and mandatory training was often not completed.
Does my hon. Friend agree that to ensure high-quality maternity care, from admission to discharge, requires not only stringent oversight by trust boards, but far greater care for staff in the setting of the hospital, providing safe spaces where conversations can be had, handovers can take place, and nurses can rest? In that way, we will both retain and also hopefully recruit more of our vital nursing staff.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the key to providing strong maternity services that benefit both the staff and the patients is making sure that there is a full workforce so that they can do not just the “need to haves”, but the “nice to haves” in a maternity department, which can make such a difference to patients’ experiences when they are going through that service.
The retention issue that we have directly impacts training. Newly qualified and inexperienced midwives need experienced mentors, but if seasoned professionals leave, the next generation lacks the support necessary to transition into leadership roles. Midwives and other maternity staff must train together at every level to be fully equipped for every situation, and ensure that concerns can be escalated effectively. That is why the Ockenden report and the Royal College of Midwives seek a commitment to including midwives in the long-term workforce plan.
In 2017, bursaries for student nurses and midwives were ended, with the Royal College of Midwives warning that that decision threatened the future of our maternity services in England. It has led to one third of midwifery students having debts exceeding £40,000, with 80% of them knowing someone who has dropped out of their course due to financial hardship. Many also take on additional jobs to afford their studies, which detracts from their vital training. To mitigate those pressures on trainee midwives, I encourage the Government to explore alternative routes to support midwifery and nursing students, which have been laid out by the Royal College of Midwives, through new funding options or a scheme where student debt is forgiven after a defined period of service in the NHS.
A similar funding issue affects apprenticeship schemes in midwifery. Despite receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback from trusts across the country regarding the apprenticeship route, many trusts cannot afford to offer those positions due to a lack of backfill funds, so trusts often hand back their apprenticeship levy, as the scheme is undeliverable. I hope the Minister will work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to address this fundamental flaw in the delivery of level 6 and level 7 apprenticeships, which have proven to deliver the midwives of the future.
In preparing for today’s debate, I was invited to my local maternity unit at St Richard’s hospital in Chichester, where as I mentioned I had both of my children. University Hospitals Sussex had its maternity services inspected by the CQC in September 2021, which found all hospitals across the trust to be inadequate or requiring improvement. Although there has not been a formal inspection since, the trust assures me that all actions from the CQC have been completed, with the majority of the Ockenden immediate and essential actions implemented. However, to fully implement all the IEAs will require funding, which currently the trust does not have.
St Richard’s hospital confidently tells me that it is now fully staffed for the first time in a long time, and the director of maternity services is keen to look at how she can further improve patient experience and communication. I know Members across the House are keen to work with their NHS trusts constructively to ensure the best outcomes possible for their constituents. I was reassured by the senior leadership team, those working in the department, and the new parents on the ward, who I had the pleasure of congratulating. Introducing tiny babies to the world was probably the best moment of my recess—it was very bizarre for those parents when the MP walked in and said, “Can I say hello?” I am pleased that the trust is taking seriously its responsibility to provide a much improved service.
It would be a missed opportunity if I, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding, did not mention how we could do much more as a society to support mothers to breastfeed, if they choose to. The UK’s breastfeeding rates are among the lowest in the world. Only 1% of mothers exclusively breastfeed at six months, despite the World Health Organisation recommending exclusive breastfeeding for this period and continuation, alongside nutritious foods, for up to two years. Some 44% of mothers surveyed wished that they had breastfed for longer and would have done so if they had received better and more tailored support. New mothers need time, expertise and evidence-based information to make informed decisions on their feeding choices, and maternity services play a key role in establishing a feeding plan that works for mother and baby before they go home. But, across the country, community midwifery and health visiting services have been vaporised, so support is patchy and often delivered by volunteers or midwives in their spare time. I hope that the Government will support improved community services such as milk support groups, to give all women, regardless of their feeding choices, somewhere to turn when they need support.
I will take this opportunity, perhaps selfishly, to get on record the name of one of the coolest kids I ever met. Benedict Henry Goodfellow was an absolute dude—[Interruption.] I am not going to cry—and I am proud to call his mum, Steph, one of my close friends and the strongest woman I know. This debate is so important to me because Bendy needed 24-hour care since birth after a case of extreme birth trauma left him with devastating neurological damage. Bendy was loved by everyone who came into contact with him until he died, aged 10. The experience left Steph traumatised and profoundly changed. Bendy was born nearly 30 years ago and yet Steph and Ben’s story is just as relevant today. It should not be.
I am immensely grateful to Donna Ockenden for putting me in touch with families from across the country—including from Leeds, Nottingham, Shrewsbury and Sussex—ahead of this debate to hear their personal experiences of failures in maternity care.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
As I am the Member for Leeds North West, the hon. Member may have spoken to my constituents, Dan and Fiona, who tragically lost their baby Aliona after only 27 minutes. Despite the fact that the inquest found a number of gross failings, the figures for Leeds, which came out only last night, are horrifying. Does the hon. Member agree that there are grounds for an independent review of maternity services in Leeds?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the case of Dan and Fiona. I was lucky enough to have them give up their time to share their heartbreaking story with me. They are at the forefront of the fight for an independent inquiry in Leeds. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that he would look at whether there is cause for an investigation but those families are still waiting to find out if that will go ahead.
I met with families like Dan and Fiona to ensure that the questions I ask the Minister today are the questions that those families would ask if they had the opportunity. I cannot begin to imagine how exhausting it is to relive the moments that their lives changed forever, over and over again, in the pursuit of better outcomes for the next family. I will include a number of their questions to the Minister in my closing remarks, but I reflect that the families who were able to share their experiences with me were, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, often highly educated and that many had medical backgrounds or academic careers before going through this trauma. Lord Darzi’s report found that black women are almost three times as likely to die in childbirth as white women and that neonatal mortality in the most deprived areas is more than double that in the least deprived. Who speaks up for those families? Who ensures transparency and accountability for those with a fundamental distrust of the medical profession, or those who have learning disabilities, or English as their second language, because those people are not supported in navigating the complex systems that are in place?
Negligence claims in obstetrics account for just 13% of the volume of litigation received by NHS Resolution in 2023-24 but cost over £1 billion every year—nearly 60% of the total cost of clinical negligence claims. Beyond financial costs, those failures carry a devastating human toll. If we truly invest in our maternity services, in both professionals and facilities, more than money is saved; lives are saved.
In conclusion, I would like to ask the following questions of the Minister. First, the previous Government were supportive of the Ockenden review, and previous health Ministers had made assurances that maternity services were going to get the support they desperately needed. I know the Secretary of State for Health is supportive of the Ockenden review and has met many bereaved parents since the general election. He has assured those parents that fixing maternity is a priority for the Government, and that actions would be outlined publicly before Christmas 2024. He came back shortly after Christmas saying they needed more time. That response is now two months overdue. Can the Minister assure me that those families will hear an update in the near future?
Do the Government support all the Ockenden report’s immediate and essential actions arising from the review into the Shrewsbury and Telford trust? How will the Government ensure that all integrated care boards and trusts across the UK implement all the actions? What support will be provided to the trusts to achieve that, and prevent a postcode lottery of maternity care?
If those IEAs are implemented, what will be the Government’s measure of success? We currently have no national data regarding preventable deaths. It is the charitable sector that has determined that more than 800 baby deaths a year could have been prevented. One of the IEAs is a long-term plan to secure a safe maternity workforce and improve training. Can we expect to see maternity care professionals, including neonatologists, obstetricians and anaesthetists, included alongside midwifery colleagues in the refresh of the 10-year workforce plan for the NHS?
An overriding theme in my conversations with bereaved parents was the CQC’s hesitancy to prosecute. Cases were often supported in the first instance, but families were then informed, just days before the three-year statute of limitations expired, that the CQC would no longer be seeking a prosecution, with the families having no time to appeal that decision. Does the Minister believe that a three-year statute of limitations is appropriate when families dealing with bereavement are often not even considering a case in the first 12 months?
Does the Minister have any concerns about the CQC’s ability as a regulator? Or does she agree with the parents that there is a reluctance to prosecute by the leadership of CQC when there have been failures in patient care? Does the Minister support calls from Sands and Tommy’s charities for all triage phonelines to be recorded, as currently they are not?
Finally, parents repeatedly reported to me that the bereavement care they received felt like a tick-box exercise, with a lot of focus on the mother and a lack of communication and support for the father, when both have suffered that bereavement. Does the Minister agree that communication could be vastly improved across maternity services in all cases, so that both parents have the opportunity to understand what happened in those most vulnerable hours?
I would like to finish by thanking every Member who has come to talk about this important issue. I also thank Donna Ockenden and all who contributed to the creation of the review. My greatest thanks go to all the families who gave up their time to share their stories with me, reminding me that those babies were people, not statistics. They are loved, they are missed, and they deserved better.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for calling this debate. As neighbouring parliamentarians on the south coast, we are both passionate champions of the health of our residents and want the best healthcare provision for all, and that includes maternity services.
Unfortunately, despite numerous reviews, plans and strategies, too many maternity services remain shockingly, stubbornly poor, as the hon. Member pointed out. Successive investigations into high-profile failures have described a pattern of dysfunctional and even dangerous cultures, with a failure to listen to families and missed opportunities to address known issues. As a result, too many mothers and babies have experienced substandard care and unacceptably poor outcomes.
In the past year, the number of maternity services in England receiving ratings of inadequate or requires improvement from the CQC increased from 54% to 67%. Of the 131 maternity services inspected from August 2022 to December 2023, only 4% were rated outstanding, and not one was rated outstanding for safety. In that context, we see stagnating progress on improving stillbirth and maternal mortality rates not seen in the UK for over 20 years.
As we have heard, black women are almost three times as likely, and Asian women almost twice as likely, as white women to die during birth or post-natally. Maternal mortality rates for women from the most socioeconomically deprived areas are twice those for women from the least deprived areas. Closing the black and Asian maternal mortality gap and tackling profound health inequalities such as those is rightly a priority for this Labour Government, and it is the reason I went into politics.
Poor outcomes exist, too, for the most vulnerable and marginalised women, such as refugees, LGBTQ+ women, prisoners, those who have been through the care system and those who have experienced domestic violence or sexual abuse. All of them are more likely to experience poorer maternity care and the resultant trauma. Poor standards in maternity services are part of a wider picture of a healthcare system that has not prioritised women’s reproductive health.
The Women and Equalities Committee highlights that gynaecological care waiting lists have grown faster than lists in any other specialty in recent years. As a public health professional, it saddens me to say this, but the NHS Confederation reports that the UK stands out as the country with the largest female health gap in the G20 and the 12th largest globally, with women spending three more years in ill health and disability compared with men. Those systemic failings underpin the poor outcomes and health inequalities that we see in maternity care.
As a public health doctor, I have worked in and led health teams, and as the proud MP for Worthing West, I have heard from dedicated staff across our local services. I understand that systemic issues fail staff as well as patients. In our hospital in Worthing, the maternity services are staffed by hard-working, capable healthcare professionals who want to get on with the job they have trained for. They are as frustrated and saddened as the rest of us when processes, equipment, staffing levels and governance are simply inadequate for the provision of excellent healthcare.
Our Government have pledged to recruit and train thousands more midwives, which is to be warmly welcomed. The forthcoming 10-year plan for the NHS is an opportunity to address the underlying problems of a deskilled and demoralised workforce, which impact maternity services. We must take action to improve midwife training and retention, address the numbers of qualified medical staff on maternity wards, improve patient voice and bring a relentless focus to safety and compassion.
There is an urgent need to transform the health and social care system. In doing so, we have a superb opportunity to look at innovative models of integrated and accessible “neighbourhood health” maternity services, delivered alongside hospital care. Finally, I welcome the recommendations of the APPG on birth trauma for a national maternity improvement strategy and a maternity commissioner to drive improved outcomes and rebuild our services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for setting the scene so well. I thank her for sharing her personal stories; nothing sets out an issue better than a personal story. I am my party’s health spokesperson, but it is always good to give a local perspective too. I look forward to the responses from the Minister and Opposition spokespersons—the trio here today seem to be in all the debates on this subject, and I thank them for their contributions.
Our maternity services in Northern Ireland are crucial and, arguably, among the most consistent services offered by the NHS. Although all our services are important, everyone must be born and must be given the best start in life, and it is through our wonderful NHS maternity services that we are able to succeed.
My constituency resides within the South Eastern health and social care trust, which offers both midwifery-led and consultant-led care, with a fantastic focus on personalised support for mothers through their pregnancy and after labour. The trust also provides antenatal clinics, home visits and care options for expecting mothers.
Back home in Northern Ireland, in October 2024, an independent review concluded that a co-ordinated system-wide change is needed to radically improve maternity care. There are problems with maternity care not just here on the mainland, but with us back home. The Minister does not have a responsibility for that, but she has an interest in all things pertinent to Northern Ireland. Whatever the subject matter, and whenever I ask her for help, as I always do, she always responds in a positive fashion, and I appreciate that.
There are clear inequalities in services across Northern Ireland. It is no secret that the health service has witnessed extreme difficulties over the last couple of decades. More must be done to support staff and to ensure safe and quality care, so that women and families feel supported through their journeys during pregnancy and labour.
One of my constituents gave birth to her first baby just last week, and I want to record what she said, because I think that that is important. Her experience was made by the incredible student midwives who supported her and held her hand the entire way. When my three boys were born—that was not yesterday—I was there with my wife. She held my hand, and the blood circulation in my hand got less and less as my dear, loving wife’s pain increased. I say that because we have to give some credit to the student midwives who are there for what they do.
The Department of Health and Social Care has increased the number of commissioned pre-registration nursing and midwifery university places from 680 in 2013 to 1,335 in 2023. Those are good figures, but unfortunately, due to budgetary constraints, the number of places returned to the baseline of 1,025 in 2023-24. So there was an increase sometime back, but the numbers have levelled out again.
Thousands of people across Northern Ireland apply to study nursing and midwifery each year. The number of midwifery training places is extremely limited, and demand often exceeds the number of available spots. The Royal College of Midwives has noticed a downward trend in midwifery applicants and has stated that that is a concern, expressing apprehension about the significant drop in the number of applicants. For the record, has the Minister had an opportunity—she probably has—to get the opinion of the Royal College of Midwives on where we are and how we could help?
We must look at why this is happening. It could be said that, because midwifery is a challenging field to get into, many do not see the point in applying directly for it. Again, what are the Minister’s thoughts on how we improve things? Additionally, some have stated that it is easier to progress in a career by going in at entry level, as opposed to starting university after school and trying to get a job after.
There must be ambitious reform of these services to ensure that we can support expectant mothers and give them memorable and positive experiences. We often hear of horror stories, and we must allow for the best start in life for babies and families.
To conclude, we have some of the best staff in our maternity wards, and their work and dedication must be recognised. They are hammered day and daily in their jobs, due to budgetary constraints and the inability to get the support they need. I look to the Minister and the Government to give a commitment to our NHS—and, more importantly, to those who work in it—that more will be done to properly fund our wonderful maternity services across the whole of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to give families and parents the best possible start to their children’s lives. I request that the Minister have discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, on what we are doing back home, so that we can work better together.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. I should note at the start my officership in the APPG for infant feeding and the APPG on single-parent families.
Women’s health is often an already under-prioritised area of our health system, with the UK found to have the largest female health gap in the G20, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) noted earlier. Women are falling through the gaps, which have been made worse by the past 14 years of austerity and reorganisations in the health system.
The situation facing midwifery and maternity services is even more dire. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee I have met the Royal College of Midwives, which made clear its worries about the need for better investment in midwifery and maternity services, and its concerns about safe staffing levels in a workforce facing crisis.
Those real concerns are borne out by the national review of maternity services, which found that 47% of services were rated as requiring improvement on safety grounds. That is not to say there are not bright spots of positivity, and I have nothing but praise for the work of Calderdale’s maternity services, which were fantastic and supportive at the births of both my children. However, the national picture is one of services that are stretched and midwives who are working extra hours to plug the gaps. At the end of last year, figures showed that more midwives than before have left the profession after five years or less.
The story across the health service is, sadly, consistent, and that is the result of pressure in an NHS that Lord Darzi warned was on life support. That is why the NHS 10-year plan is even more vital and timely. It gives us not only a real opportunity to begin undoing 14 years of damage to our health service, but the chance to rebalance our health system and focus on different priorities that have been long neglected, be that maternity services or mental health. Women who access maternity services often do so at a time when they feel most vulnerable, and it is important that those services are there to protect them at that time.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this hugely important debate. Today I will highlight both the excellence and the challenges of maternity services in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell.
Last year, the dedicated staff of Epsom and St Helier university hospitals delivered more than 3,400 babies. Their commitment to patient care is outstanding, with care being ranked No. 1 in London for patient experience. Both units have also achieved UNICEF UK baby friendly hospital initiative gold accreditation, reflecting their exceptional support for new mothers’ feeding choices. Those outcomes are testament to the experience, compassion and hard work of the staff, despite the conditions they work under.
Our maternity services are held back by infrastructure that is simply not fit for purpose. Some of the hospital buildings at Epsom and St Helier are older than the NHS itself. Those conditions make it harder to provide the high standards of care that mothers and babies deserve. At St Helier hospital, the maternity unit’s lift regularly breaks down, making it increasingly difficult to safely transfer maternity patients to intensive care or the main theatres. Both Epsom and St Helier hospitals lack waiting areas and suitable space to maintain privacy, making it harder to implement a nationally mandated triage system and to provide private spaces, which are vital for bereaved families.
Every year, the trust spends millions just on patching up these crumbling facilities, which is not sustainable. The cost of maintaining outdated buildings and equipment diverts critical resources away from the frontline. Furthermore, staff are stretched thin by running duplicate services across two sites, which affects patient outcomes. The promised new hospital in Sutton was meant to solve those problems by bringing together emergency care, maternity services and in-patient paediatrics in a modern, specialist facility. However, the Government have pushed construction back to at least 2032, leaving our community in limbo. Meanwhile, Epsom general hospital alone needs £44 million-worth of repairs, with 46% classed as high risk, meaning that failure to address them could lead to serious injury or major service disruption. If the UK is to be the safest place in the world to have a baby, we must do better.
Beyond the building, staffing remains a critical issue. A local midwife recently shared with me the reality of working in our maternity services. She described how the staffing problems in maternity continue to be dire. There simply are not enough midwives rostered each day to cover the work, which makes it unsafe for women and their babies, and creates an unsustainable working environment for those left behind. Midwives are working longer hours, starting early or leaving late, taking on more than they should just to ensure women are seen. This leads to burnout, and many midwives ultimately leave the profession as they feel that the stress and huge responsibilities are not matched by adequate support or fair pay.
As a woman, the midwife told me how deeply saddened she is that this is the service being offered to women in this country. The care a woman receives during childbirth has lifelong implications—not just for her, but for her children and for society as a whole. She worries that women’s choices, particularly around home births, are becoming increasingly sidelined. Women’s autonomy over their own bodies is becoming less relevant, and she fears what that means for the future of maternity care for our daughters and granddaughters. Her worries reflect those of so many across the country.
I have three children, all of whom were born successfully in London. I wanted a home birth for all of them. Sadly, we were only successful in having one home birth due to complications, but I am grateful that I had the choice. I thank Brierly midwives for that, but not every woman today has that choice.
The people of Epsom and Ewell, Leatherhead and Ashtead—and around the UK—deserve outstanding maternity care, unhampered by crumbling infrastructure, chronic understaffing and a lack of investment. As a first step, I urge the Government to release the full impact assessment of the delays to the new hospital programme and reconsider the decision. We cannot afford to let maternity services deteriorate any further. The safety of women, babies and midwives depends on it.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. Fundamentally, it is about giving kids the best start in life and giving mums the best care. There are few subjects of more importance to us, right across the House.
The evidence is clear that midwife-led maternity units are great for babies and mums. They are every bit as safe as the big hospitals we have heard many hon. Members talk about today, and one of the benefits they offer is the option of a more natural birth, with less intervention from health professionals, unless it is necessary. Mums who deliver in a midwife-led unit are less likely to need a caesarean or help from forceps or a vacuum. While those procedures can be life-saving, and we should thank the people who use them every day to support babies into this world, they come with downsides. Caesareans increase the risk for mums, including haemorrhage, blood clots and infections in the womb, and they take much longer to recover from. The potential side effects of forceps and vacuums are less severe but are, nonetheless, very real.
As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) said, choice is important for mums. So that people can have the birth they want, we should make sure that, when they come to the end of their pregnancy, they can choose where they want to deliver—be that at home, in a more clinical setting if there are additional risks, or in a midwife-led unit.
In Lichfield, we were lucky enough to have a fantastic midwife-led maternity unit at Samuel Johnson community hospital. The unit was closed during the pandemic for reasons we all understand, given the national crisis, but it has never reopened. The closest maternity unit is at Queen’s hospital in Burton, 11 miles up the A38. When High Speed 2 is not destroying the transport infrastructure in my constituency, that is not necessarily a significant trip in an ambulance, but it presents barriers to those who do not have access to their own transport. It is currently the only option available to people in Lichfield.
However, mums in Lichfield will soon not be able to choose that midwife-led unit because it is on the chopping block. That would be a huge loss. The service gives women in Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding villages somewhere close to home to deliver in a calmer, quieter setting than the big hospital. Where that is appropriate, I think everybody in this room, and people much more widely, would want to support it.
Shutting the midwife-led unit would mean less choice for mums, and potentially worse outcomes for mums and babies. I have met many people whose children were born in that unit and who are so happy to have had the option. When I mentioned that I was taking part in this debate, one of my staff members said, without prompting, that she had had four kids—two in the clinical setting of a big hospital, and two at the Samuel Johnson community hospital. She was so much happier with her experience in the midwife-led unit. She was not, in any way, talking down what happened in the other hospital, but the more natural, quieter and more relaxed environment was a benefit as she was going through childbirth.
I thank everybody who works in maternity services, and I particularly thank those who champion midwife-led units.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate, which is particularly important to my constituents Charlotte and James.
In April 2019, Charlotte gave birth to a daughter, Norah. Norah was given the all-clear by a doctor but quickly became poorly. Despite concerning oxygen saturation results, Norah was not rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit. She died very suddenly that same night. Charlotte and James are still fighting for the truth about why their daughter died.
The UK should be the safest place in the world to have a baby. However, according to the Care Quality Commission’s most recent figures, nearly two thirds of England’s maternity services are not safe enough. We must see an end to understaffed maternity units, and I am sure the Minister will agree that addressing disparities in obstetric care is essential for a fair society.
Women and their babies deserve better. All pregnant women in my Eastleigh constituency and across the UK should have access to safe and fully resourced maternity care. However, according to NHS data and the Royal College of Midwives, the number of people in the maternity workforce is shrinking. Midwives and maternity support workers are working in excess of 100,000 hours a week in unpaid overtime. The result is that many staff experience stress and burnout, with some midwives saying that they feel uncared for at work, unable to take breaks to get a drink of water or use the loo, and—with the best will in the world—unable to deliver the kind of maternity care that women expect and deserve. How can the NHS be expected to deliver a higher quality of care with fewer, already very overworked staff? Health outcomes for mothers and babies will only decline if commitments in the workforce plan are not ambitious and funded.
I also highlight the often overlooked factor of mental health in maternity care. According to the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, one in five women experiences a perinatal mental health problem, and 70% will conceal or underplay maternal mental health difficulties. Tragically, suicide is the leading cause of maternal death in the first year after birth.
As we have heard, on average a baby is born in England every 56 seconds. The Royal College of Midwives states that no other NHS service has as much contact over a prolonged period with so many normally healthy individuals. With a properly staffed and resourced maternity service, there is great potential to use this period to ensure that, after leaving hospital, mothers are mentally in the best possible position to care for their newborns. I fully support the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto commitment to transforming perinatal mental health and offering more support for those who are pregnant, new mothers and those who sadly experience miscarriage or stillbirth.
It is welcome that maternity services are important to the Government, but I share the view of the Royal College of Midwives that this priority must be reflected in how maternity services feature in the 10-year health plan, with a decade of ambition and focus, as well as a commitment to proper funding.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate.
Maternity services are a vital part of our national health service. They are unique in that they are entrusted not only with the care of newborns at their most vulnerable and mothers at their time of greatest need, but also with ensuring that the wondrous process of bringing a new life into the world is a safe one. For many families, it is, and I thank those in our NHS who work tirelessly to deliver the best care they can, especially against the backdrop of 14 years of chronic underfunding of services and of conditions that are not acceptable in a modern healthcare system.
However, for too many families in East Worthing and Shoreham, and others served by hospitals in the University Hospitals Sussex NHS foundation trust, maternity services are not performing as they should, despite the hard work of many staff. All four maternity units in the trust have been determined by the CQC to be inadequate or requiring improvement, showing just how urgently that change is needed.
Behind each rating and category are the devastating experiences of real people. I have met families in my constituency who have had to endure the most tragic and unimaginable suffering as a result of having received inadequate care from the trust’s maternity services. Some families are living through the devastation of stillbirth. In one case, a baby with no underlying conditions, who in the eyes of all involved was completely healthy, tragically died. Numerous issues should have triggered additional monitoring and alternative care pathways, but they were never acted on. In that case, the trust admitted failures in care to the parents, but I am aware of failures in other cases.
Another family—who were, again, due to welcome into the world a healthy baby with no underlying health conditions—suffered horrendously because of misdiagnosis, delayed treatment and a missed opportunity for a caesarean. These errors were compounded by poor communication and note keeping, which resulted in clinical staff not being aware of earlier events, and yet another unimaginable tragedy taking place. Sadly, these families are not alone. A group of bereaved families in Sussex, who no doubt wish they had no reason to know each other, have come together to call for action to ensure that no expectant parents have to endure what they have gone through.
I am glad that our Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have rightly prioritised maternity service improvements as part of their plan to change our NHS. They too feel the urgency for change that many of my constituents feel.
I am grateful to the families in my constituency who have channelled their grief into the courage to share their harrowing stories with me, and to the Health Secretary for meeting families previously in the care of the University Hospitals Sussex NHS foundation trust to hear their experiences and calls for action. We need action. With a new baby born every minute, we cannot delay or defer making our maternity services safe for all, including by tackling racial inequalities in care. The need is now and the urgency is clear.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate. We are here today because maternity services are not at the level that they need to be at. There are many, many fantastic services across the country, but we are here to highlight those that need urgent improvement to improve outcomes for all mothers, not just some.
The excellent report that the all-party parliamentary group for birth trauma produced last year is to be commended for the way that it highlighted the fact that, for a minority of women, the experience of childbirth is traumatic and has long-lasting consequences. The section about stillbirth and neonatal death includes a submission from one mother who reported:
“The scenes in theatre can only be described as chaotic and these along with subsequent events have left me traumatised and suffering with PTSD.”
I pay tribute to the Brontë birth centre in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, a midwife-led birthing centre in the Dewsbury and District hospital. It recently reopened in April after having been closed for two years because of staff shortages. Two of my children were born there more than 20 years ago, so it will always have a special place in my heart. I would not want my comments to be misconstrued as criticism of the services it provides.
We have heard about the difference between midwife-led and consultant-led services, and we have heard about positive examples of where midwife-led services are more appropriate and can deliver better care. I am not making a point about midwife-led versus consultant-led care: the APPG report also cites horror stories from women in childbirth where consultants were present. Rather, my point is that, in reviewing maternity provision and seeking to minimise the risk to women during childbirth, we should also ensure seamless obstetrician provision for midwife-led care if required. If mothers giving birth in the Brontë birth centre encounter complications that require more in-depth medical care—God forbid—they would need to be moved from Dewsbury to Wakefield, which is a journey of more than half an hour. That increases the risks to the mother and the unborn child, so I would like the Government to address that issue.
For many who have experienced emergency situations, the image painted earlier of sheer terror and panic is all too real. It is likely that maternity services will fail to meet the national maternity safety ambition to halve the 2010 rate of stillbirths by 2025—indeed, recent figures suggest the 20% decline in stillbirth deaths achieved between 2010 and 2020 is in reverse—so it is imperative that we explore every aspect of maternity provision to ensure it is as safe as it can be.
Although almost 61% of maternity services are rated good, only 1% are rated outstanding, and just under 38% are still rated as requiring improvement for safety. Improving maternity services in the NHS is a critical priority, and the many reports since 2010 have made several key recommendations to enhance care quality and safety. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Government are taking, or will take, to address workforce gaps where the need to recruit and retain more midwives and maternity staff is essential to provide adequate support for mothers and babies. What steps are the Government taking to reduce health inequalities, to tackle disparities in maternal health outcomes, particularly for black and ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas? How will the Government ensure that adequate funding—including the reinstatement of the bursaries for midwives and nurses—is available and allocated to deliver the best quality maternity services?
Enhancing maternal mental health support for women with long-term mental health conditions is crucial. Listening to women’s experiences is also key; the continuous gathering of feedback and acting on it are essential to improve care. What are the Government doing to implement anti-racism strategies so trusts can set clear standards of behaviour to support both staff and patients? If implemented, these improvements will help ensure that all mothers receive safe, high-quality care during pregnancy and birth.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing today’s debate. My constituents are watching at home and she eloquently set out the challenges that face our maternity services and the health of women across the UK, so I thank her for doing that so well.
When people in Redditch elect their Members of Parliament, they do so with a clear mandate on maternity services and the future of the Alexandra hospital. It would be remiss of me not to thank the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) who did a tour of service at our hospital in the earlier parts of his career—we thank him for that.
Our maternity services are famed for delivering one Harry Styles many years ago—[Interruption.] Yes, just the one Harry Styles. More seriously, in 2015 our maternity services were closed and relocated to Worcestershire Royal. That temporary relocation was made permanent in 2017. That is the only site delivering such services across our entire county. That means many of my residents are forced to travel to Worcester or Birmingham to get the services they need.
Although the hon. Member for Chichester was brave enough to share some of the stories that she has heard from her constituents, I am quite frankly not strong enough to retell some of the stories I have heard—of stillbirths and, frighteningly, of parents giving birth to their children on the roadside—in the way that they deserve. Since 2015, the initial promises to return those services to my constituency have been forgotten. Despite signatories totalling over 50,000 from the local community, no parameters for the return of such services have been discussed by the ICB.
I want safe services for my constituents, but although I am concerned by the current configuration of services, I am deeply concerned about the future of services in my constituency. Worcestershire Royal has significant constraints on growth. Worcestershire is set to deliver tens of thousands of new homes and huge population growth in the next 10 years, with pressures on services set to rise substantially. As this Government seek to rebuild and reconfigure our NHS, it is time for those services to meet the needs of the present and, most importantly, deliver the services of the future. I urge the Government to review the decisions taken on the centralisation of services that may have made sense in the past, but will not in the future.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I am proud to represent Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), could not be here, but, on the subject of centralisation, our nearest maternity hospital is in Inverness, which is four hours each way from parts of Sutherland, Argyll, and the Isle of Eigg—around Muck, which I am sure the hon. Member is, or should be, familiar with. I wonder whether the hon. Member could support our case that centralisation is becoming a real problem for expectant mothers, who suffer enormous complications because of distance, given that smaller regional hospitals are no longer providing maternity care?
Chris Bloore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sorry to hear about the level of problems that mothers face his constituency. The hon. Member for Chichester started the debate saying that this is about services for women at their most vulnerable, when they are giving birth. It is clear from the experiences of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine that services are not meeting the needs of those women when they need them the most. That is the challenge that we should now take up.
I conclude by saying that, in the past, the reconfiguration of services has been based on a financial envelope and the challenges of staff shortages, and that has dictated many decisions, but now is the time, with the Darzi report and the eloquent speeches we have heard today, to build that service for the future. We should all strive to meet that challenge, even if that means making difficult financial decisions to invest in the long term, so that we can give women and families the support that they deserve.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
There are three speakers, and we have five minutes to go.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. I will keep this brief and not reiterate all the things that have been said before, but there are a couple of points I want to make about how important it is to talk about women at the most vulnerable point in their lives, as well as the most vulnerable point for the babies who are being born. There cannot be a more important time in their lives than the moment when they are born, which is why it is so important to talk about this. I speak as a woman and a mother, but also as a human being. We are discussing the birth of the human race; I do not think there is anything more profound than that.
However, I will focus on something that has not been raised very much today: the role of the CQC in keeping our maternity services safe. One of the hospitals that serves my constituency of Chelmsford is Broomfield hospital, the maternity services rating of which was downgraded to inadequate at the beginning of January. That on its own is shocking and worrying enough. I have met the staff at Broomfield hospital and been to the maternity services there. I want to give it help and support so that it can improve. However, what concerns me is that the CQC carried out its inspection in March last year and only released its report in January. That is utterly unacceptable. How can we be expected to hold our services to account and how can we help them to improve if we do not even know what is wrong with them in the first place?
It is the CQC’s job to tell us what is wrong with those services and lay it out bare so that we can learn from the things that go wrong and quickly put them right. It is not okay for the CQC to turn around and say “We have had technical difficulties with our new system and, therefore, we couldn’t get the report out”. That is not good enough. It is also not good enough for them to say “We shared some of our findings with the hospital, which is also making them public at the same time”. It is simply not good enough. We need to support the CQC to do much better.
I am conscious of time and I know other Members want to speak, but I want to underline the importance of the role of the CQC, as well as the leadership across all of the NHS. From the excellent job that the midwives and the support staff do in maternity centres to the leadership of the hospitals, including the chief executives and the ICBs, everyone has a role to play in improving maternity services. The CQC also has a huge role to play, and it must do better.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will talk for about a minute. The Minister heard from me last autumn, when we had a debate about Gloucestershire’s maternity services. The background remains as it was before, but there is an important update. When I was elected, Cheltenham general hospital’s birth unit had been closed temporarily since Autumn 2022—I think we should now use the word “indefinitely”. That is simply not good enough. Cheltenham has a population of around 120,000 and it serves a much larger area. Since then, Gloucestershire Royal hospital’s maternity services have been downgraded to inadequate. They remain inadequate, and have done for a number of years.
There have been some really worrying bits of casework slipping into my inbox recently, which tells me that things are going wrong and there are ongoing issues with bad bleeds, which has been raised by the CQC. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned the CQC’s lag time. The CQC reported in January after a visit last spring, so there is clearly a long delay. I will end there to give my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) a minute, but I hope the Minister can respond on those points and provide an update on what is going on with Gloucestershire Royal hospital’s maternity services.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing the debate. She spoke movingly and eloquently, and reminded everyone that these are not just statistics, but people.
I will make three points very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) touched on maternal mental health. As the mental health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I was as shocked as anyone to know that the No. 1 cause of death for women in the 12 months post giving birth is taking their own life. That is tragic, and it is one reason why my team are organising an event in Parliament in April with the group Delivering Better to bring together women who have experienced mental health challenges during pregnancy and after childbirth. The event will provide a platform to share stories, raise awareness and discuss how we can improve support and services for mothers across the country.
I recently attended the 120th anniversary of the vet school at Liverpool, where I went to university. I spoke to the pro-vice-chancellor, Professor Louise Kenny, who is a consultant obstetrician and has done a lot of research on health during gestation and the months after birth, and we discussed the latest research. We have not touched on that today, but I will do so briefly now. Healthy gestation is the foundation of a person’s lifelong health, and it has a far greater impact than any lifestyle changes in adulthood. We need to look not just at birth itself, but at the care of the mother before birth—everything from stress to nutrition.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate and making such an excellent opening speech, in which she covered most of the ground that we need to cover.
It is important to acknowledge that the vast majority of babies arrive safely, despite the increasing number of complex pregnancies. My own experience of having a baby was 16 years ago, but I am sure that the thousands of women having babies now are having the same experience that I did. The staff of hospital maternity units make you feel simultaneously that you are the most important person ever to have given birth, and that you are the umpteenth person to have done so this week, they know exactly what they are doing and you can relax. I felt like that even when everything went wrong, which is a great testament to the professionalism of the staff at Wycombe general hospital all those years ago.
This is one of many debates on maternity services that I have attended in the last three years. The first followed the issuing of Donna Ockenden’s report on maternity services in Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which serves my constituents, including Kayleigh and Colin Griffiths, who fought alongside Rhiannon Davies and Richard Stanton and others to give a voice to the many families who suffered as a result of the failings at the trust. But that was not the first scandal in NHS maternity services—Morecambe Bay had already been investigated and reported on by Dr Bill Kirkup—and, tragically, it was not the last either. Dr Kirkup has reviewed significant failings at East Kent, and Donna Ockenden is currently investigating a huge number of incidents at Nottingham. We have also heard the concerns of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) and for Leeds North West (Katie White) about the state of services in Sussex and Leeds. I am sure that Members across the House are concerned that the tragedy at Shrewsbury and Telford will not be the last.
It makes me quite angry to say that that is not a surprise. We have heard that 65% of trusts were rated inadequate or requiring improvement when it comes to safety in maternity services in the latest CQC survey. That is despite the previous Government’s commitments from the Dispatch Box, which I believe were made in good faith, to deal with unsafe staffing levels and bring about cultural change across the country. The lack of action is unacceptable. Donna Ockenden described the Conservative Government as being “asleep at the wheel” when it came to making progress on the 15 immediate and essential actions she recommended for the whole of England in March 2022, despite their having accepted all those actions.
Each of the reviews into these heartbreaking tragedies has found the same recurring themes: poor management of incidents when things go wrong and, critically, a failure to learn from them, which is indicative of defensive management culture and sometimes toxic working arrangements, including a feeling among staff that they do not have the freedom to speak out and, when they do, inadequate protection for whistleblowers; failure to ensure safe and timely assessment at triage; reluctance to acknowledge the need for medicalisation for a C-section when one is in the best interests of the mother; unsuitable estates and a lack of access to equipment, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); and, underpinning all these issues, unsafe staffing levels.
That last point is really important, because staff are experiencing burnout. They are leaving the service in high numbers, and are unable to deliver the care that they really want to deliver to mothers at their most vulnerable moment. There are no excuses now—the issues have been identified time and again—but there is evidence that we are going backwards on maternity care. The 2015 national maternity safety ambition to halve rates of stillbirths and neonatal and maternal deaths by 2025 has stalled and is unlikely to be met this year.
There is a shocking disparity of outcomes between different ethnic groups. Black women are more than twice as likely to die than white ones, and other ethnic groups also carry an unacceptably high risk. No one really understands why; there has been no research into it. There are clear links to deprivation, because people in deprived areas also carry a much higher risk, but translation difficulties, certain health conditions and, shamefully, even racism may all play a part in this shocking disparity. The women’s health strategy for England proposed to address these disparities, but it is impossible to point to any measurable progress. Poor maternity care can have a devastating impact on families, and it makes no sense for the taxpayer either. As we have heard, 60% of the value of clinical negligence claims is related to maternity services, and that costs more than £1 billion a year. It makes no sense not to address these issues.
It is important to acknowledge the work of charities such as Sands and Tommy’s and the work of a number of APPGs in this place over the last few years, including the baby loss, maternity, and birth trauma APPGs, all of which I was involved in. They have campaigned tirelessly for safe staffing levels and to improve care across England, and indeed the UK. This debate relates to England because health is a devolved matter, but the whole of the UK must strive to become the safest place in the world to have a baby.
Addressing disparities in obstetric care is essential for a fair society. The immediate and essential actions of the Ockenden report must be implemented at once, because if they are not, more families will face the trauma of a birth injury or worse. The actions included a commitment to safe staffing, and in 2022 the Government made a significant investment in staffing; it is essential that that is continued. The commitments made in the workforce plan must be backed by adequate funding, and include expansion of the wider maternity and neonatal workforce. The UK Government must renew the national maternity ambitions beyond 2025 to include all four nations, and include a clear baseline to measure progress. They must also address this critical issue of health disparities. In her 2022 report into Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, Donna Ockenden said:
“The impact of death or serious health complications suffered as a result of maternity care cannot be underestimated. The impact on the lives of families and loved ones is profound and permanent.”
In my first debate on this subject, in March 2022—the day that report was issued—everyone in the Chamber contributing said that the scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford should be the last. It was not. I hope the Minister will today commit to a strategy to ensure that maternity care scandals are ended on the watch of this Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am pleased the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out that many people actually do have a good birth. I think that is really important, as there is a danger we scare potential mothers. There is good-quality care up and down the country, but it could be better.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) pointed to my work. I never actually served in Redditch in the obs and gynae and the paeds there; my time was done in the early 2010s over at Worcester. One of my favourite times as a doctor was being on the elective C-section list, and seeing the mothers go in, having the music there, and seeing birth after birth. It was fantastic. I also experienced one of the worst things that I have ever had to do as a paediatrician—being handed a lifeless baby and trying to sort that out. Worse still was an emergency C-section after a baby went into the mother’s bladder. Both went off to the intensive care units, and I had to go and speak to the father, who was expecting a normal delivery, to tell him what was going on.
This is the reality of what happens, because having a baby does carry inherent risks. What we are talking about here is what we can do to mitigate them. I think that is the heart of what the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) so eloquently set out; this is about the safety of mitigation. Her story about Bendy and Steph will stick with many people, because that is exactly what this House and the NHS should be trying to avoid. The aim should be to mitigate as much risk as we can.
We have also heard talk about breastfeeding and post-partum mental health, which is really important. Those things should form part of a strategy. Not all patients receive a safe and timely assessment when they are being triaged, with instances of phone triage going unanswered and some women discharging themselves before even being seen or picked up, due to the delays. That was backed up by the Care Quality Commission, which found that unsafe practices in triage form the basis of 81% of the enforcement actions issued to providers and were found to be a safety concern in about a third of all inspections.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) pointed to the fantastic quality of care that exists, despite the conditions—we know that 18% of the NHS estate has been described as not fit for purpose and lacking the space for facilities. In my constituency, we have a plan to bring forward an improved maternity centre for Leicestershire. That, too, has been delayed in the future hospitals programme, but at least funding is coming forward to try to deal with that.
Looking at the record of the previous Government, from 2010 to 2022, the rate of stillbirth decreased by 19.3%, the neonatal mortality rate for babies born over 24 weeks gestational age of viability decreased by 36%, and maternal mortality decreased by 17%. In 2015, the then Government launched the national maternity safety ambition, which was to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries in babies occurring during or soon after birth by 2025. The current Government have not yet set out an updated ambition for the next decade, so I would appreciate it if the Minister would bring that forward.
As of December 2023, there were 2,361 full-time equivalent midwives working in NHS trusts and other core organisations. That was an increase of 3,700, or 18.9%, since 2010. On the other hand, the birth rate is falling while the number of midwives is rising. I recognise that births are taking place and are somewhat more complex than they used to be, due to things like diabetes, weight and age. It is really important that we have a plan to deal with that; I hope the Minister will comment on that going forward.
That leads me on to community midwives and continuity of care, which we know is inextricably linked to improved care. A report by Cochrane, a non-profit organisation that produces global research to improve health outcomes, showed that women who experience continuity of care—in other words, seeing the same midwife or teams of midwives in pregnancy—have far better outcomes. During the last Parliament, funding was provided for the implementation of continuity of care models. As of April 2024, an additional £186 million had been allocated to improve the quality of care for mothers and babies and to increase the number of available midwifes in post.
I further welcome the £6.8 million in funding provided by the previous Government to help to implement continuity of care for black and ethnic minority groups living in the most deprived areas. As we have heard in the debate, that is a real concern—the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with her professional experience, pointed to the disparities we see in seeking behaviours among those from BAME backgrounds when it comes to having babies. We also saw that in our work on the Health Committee—I have asked the Minister to look at the two reports on litigation and the Ockenden report in the last Parliament. There is a lot of good cross-party work there that could help to inform current thinking.
Of course, far more remains to be done in the area of saving babies. NHS England published its own delivery plan for maternal and neonatal services in March 2023. Commitments included updating the “Saving babies’ lives” care bundle by 2024 and introducing a national maternity early warning score and updated newborn early warning trigger and tracker to follow up the babies in those cases. The “Saving babies’ lives” care bundle is helping to provide the best practice for providers to reduce neonatal mortality and is rightly a major component of NHS England’s maternal and neonatal services delivery plan. Will the Minister provide an update on the implementation of version 3 of the care bundle?
There are a few closing questions that I would like to pose. The maternal mortality gap has been reduced over the years, from five times to two times, but clearly we need to do more. What further action will the Government take to address the issue of the black and Asian maternal mortality gap, and what ambition will be set out? At the general election, the Government stood on a manifesto to recruit more midwives. Will the Government confirm how that fits into the long-term workforce plan? I am pleased that they have stuck with the previous Government’s plan, and are looking to amend it.
In the new operational planning guidance, NHS England has committed to implementing the key actions in the three-year delivery plan. Will the Minister update us on progress against some of those actions, including the commitment to introduce a national maternity early warning score system and an updated newborn early warning trigger and track tool? As part of their response to the East Kent review, the previous Government established a group overseeing maternity safety services nationwide chaired by my former colleague, Maria Caulfield. Will the Minister provide an update on the national oversight group’s work? Are she or any of her ministerial colleagues part of those discussions?
My final question is about litigation, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt). Under his chairmanship, the Health and Social Care Committee produced a report looking at different maternity models, including in the likes of Japan, and at how can we reduce the cost for taxpayers while improving clinicians’ ability to have the honest discussions we need, and to feel that they can come forward and blow the whistle.
Birth is not about making babies; it is about making mothers—strong, competent and capable ones. We do that by supporting, respecting and informing mothers every step of the way. That is an admirable aim for this House and the NHS, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for raising this extremely important issue. It touches so many of our constituents and so many families across our country, and I know how many of them she and other Members have spoken to. As the Secretary of State said, it is an issue that keeps him awake at night. The hon. Lady spoke very movingly about her friend Steph and Steph’s son, Bendy, whom I know she remembers very fondly. We have had too many decades of similar stories, but she did good service to her friend and Bendy today.
I will do my best to answer as many questions as possible—it has been a wide-ranging, respectful and thoughtful debate—but the Minister for Patient Safety, Baroness Merron, who leads on this issue for the Department, will be happy to write to colleagues where necessary.
The hon. Member for Chichester asked a number of questions at the end of her speech, and I hope that I will address most of them. I completely understand why she is pushing on behalf of the families that the Secretary of State met for the maternity services plan to be outlined. Families have waited long enough, but we want to make sure we get it right, so we are taking time within the Department to discuss the next steps with officials and ensure that any plans we put out are as strong and effective as possible; we have had too many plans that have not been. Those families will receive an update on the next steps very soon.
I will come on to some of the essential actions from previous reports, but I will re-emphasise that all Donna Ockenden’s recommendations were accepted and are being worked on. I will pick up on that later in my speech.
On workforce and training, we will publish in the summer the refreshed long-term workforce plan. That will set out how we will build a transformed health service over the next decade, and obviously it will include midwifery.
Karin Smyth
I will, but I will not be able to get through my speech if I keep giving way.
Helen Maguire
I will be very brief. La Retraite sixth form in London has a T-level qualification in health with midwifery, linked up with Guy’s and St Thomas’, and it is proving successful. Will the Minister consider working with the Secretary of State for Education to look at rolling that out throughout the country? It is proving really successful in getting new midwives into the system.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady raises something very close to my heart. I spoke frequently in opposition about apprenticeships and the need for the health service to work on that. I actually visited that centre with the chief nursing officer and met students there. It was a lovely visit; we had a fantastic morning with really enthusiastic young people who wanted to go into the profession. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and we will continue to work with Guy’s and St Thomas’ on that. Others could take note of what they are doing.
We understand the issues with the CQC. They are well documented and were further highlighted by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). We do not think now is the time to make changes to the statutory limitation power, because we want the CQC to prioritise improving its regulatory approach and focusing resources on the recovery plan in line with the Dash report. Once that is done and the CQC is working better, the Government have committed to reviewing that statute of limitation power.
With regard to phonelines, Sands and Tommy’s do fantastic work for bereaved parents across the country— I know that from my own Bristol South constituency. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions from the experience of people working on the ground. I will ask officials to consider recording triage phonelines as part of our longer-term work on maternity and neonatal services. Many hon. Members raised general points about communications. The hon. Member for Chichester was right to mention communication for parents—both mothers and fathers. That was a point well made, and I will pick it up later.
Donna Ockenden rightly commands huge respect across Government, parties and the NHS. She was right to say that previous Governments were “asleep at the wheel” on maternity care. We have heard already, but it is worth restating, that babies of black ethnicity are twice as likely to be stillborn as babies of white ethnicity. The maternity workforce is experiencing significant challenges and safety in maternity care is very far from where we want it to be.
Hon. Members highlighted their meetings with families. The Secretary of State and Baroness Merron have met a number of bereaved families over the past few months, as I know others have done. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) talked about the families he has met. He highlighted that when he talked to me recently about issues in his constituency.
As with so many issues in healthcare, there is no quick fix to the challenges we face. There have been too many high-profile independent reviews into maternity services over the past few years. With remarkable consistency, they all point to the same thing: a culture that belittles women, downplays concerns and puts reputations above all else, even patient safety. We know that is wrong and we know what needs to happen. It is now time to crack on and deliver.
We are making steady progress on recommendations from all 15 areas of the Shrewsbury and Telford review, such as workforce accountability and bereavement care. Much of that progress has been made through NHS England’s three-year delivery plan. The plan seeks to make maternity and neonatal care safer, fairer and more tailored to every woman’s needs, by setting out expectations for informed choice and personalised care planning, to improve women’s experience in labour and birth.
Some of the initiatives have been highlighted today. The saving babies’ lives care bundle, helping to reduce stillbirths and pre-term births, has been rolled out to every trust in England. I am pleased that all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme, an initiative to promote and sustain a culture of safety. There are also initiatives to reduce inequality. As I know from my constituency, women living in deprived areas are more likely to suffer adverse outcomes. It is right that local systems are trying to bridge the gap through equity and equality action plans.
We have set clear expectations for escalation and accountability through the three-year plan. We are supporting staff to hold up their hands when things go wrong, through the freedom to speak up initiative. The public can monitor the progress of the three-year plan against the Ockenden recommendations, through their local maternity and neonatal systems and integrated care boards. Local women and families, should they choose, can see what progress has been made, who is accountable and how the system is changing. NHS England is also investing £10 million every year to target the 10 most deprived areas of England.
Safety must be the watchword at every step of the journey. NHS Resolution’s maternity incentive scheme is rewarding NHS trusts that prove they are taking concrete steps to improve the quality of care for women, families and newborns. As highlighted by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), since 2010 the neonatal mortality rate has shown steady signs of improvement, decreasing by a quarter for babies born after at least 24 weeks of pregnancy. The stillbirth rate in England has decreased by 22% and the overall rate of brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth has fallen by 3%.
We all know there is so much more to be done to improve outcomes for mothers and babies, and to ensure that they receive the safe care that they need. There are ongoing initiatives to ensure lessons are learned from every tragic event, to prevent similar events in future. Hospitals carry out internal perinatal mortality reviews, which aim to provide answers for bereaved parents about why their baby died, and give them some closure. The reviews also help hospitals to improve care and ensure we learn the lessons from every tragedy.
The maternity and newborn safety investigations programme conducts independent investigations of early neonatal deaths, intrapartum stillbirths and severe brain injury in babies after labour. All NHS trusts are required to report those incidents, carry out an independent investigation and make safety recommendations to improve services in future. For those parents who go through the heartbreak of losing a baby, we must do everything we can to support them in their grief. That is why the Government extended the baby loss certificates; as of last week, we have issued almost 100,000 to grieving parents. It is also why, through the three-year plan, we have made provision for seven-day bereavement care supported by investment, and why we will continue to support the work of Sands and Tommy’s, which do so much for bereaved mums and dads across the UK.
The hon. Member for Chichester rightly talked about the importance of workforce and meeting safe levels of staffing. Throughout the winter I have seen up close NHS staff doing their absolute best in appalling circumstances that were not of their own making. I know that however dedicated our NHS staff may be, they cannot provide the right care without the right support. That is why we are committed to tackling the retention and recruitment challenges in the NHS, and why work is under way to modernise NHS working cultures and make our hospitals more attractive for top talent. That includes a much stronger focus on health and wellbeing, more support for flexible working and a renewed commitment to tackling inequality and discrimination.
Bringing in the staff that we need will take time, but it is an absolute priority for this Government and for me personally. NHS England is leading a range of initiatives to boost retention of existing staff and ensure the NHS remains an attractive career choice for new recruits. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we are keen to work with all devolved Governments to ensure that and to share learning.
There is a dedicated programme for the retention of midwives, an issue highlighted by the hon. Member for Chichester and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). The initiative contains a range of measures, including a midwifery and nursing retention self-assessment tool, mentoring schemes, strengthened advice and support on pensions, and the embedding of flexible retirement options.
NHS England has also invested in retention leads for every maternity ward. Alongside investment in workforce capacity, that has shown promising signs of bringing down vacancy, leaver and turnover rates. The leaver rate declined from 10.3% in September 2023 to 9% in September last year. There has been progress, but we know that there is more to be done. As of November, there were a record number of midwives working in NHS trusts, with around 24,700 working full time, up by over 1,300 compared with the year before.
While all this work is going on, we are also doing the hard yards of fixing the foundations of our NHS and making it fit for the future. I am pleased that the National Institute for Health and Care Research has commissioned over 40 studies looking at how we can prevent pre-term births and improve care for babies and women. It has launched a £50 million funding call, challenging researchers and policymakers to come up with new ways of tackling maternity inequalities and poor pregnancy outcomes.
While that work is going on, we will continue to talk to staff about the 10-year plan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is attending a staff event in Peterborough on Thursday, and I will be attending one next week. We want to know how we can better support our staff, ensure we unleash their potential and give patients the care they need. A central part of the 10-year plan will be our workforce—how we train them and provide the staff, technology and infrastructure the NHS needs to care for patients across our communities. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) is right to highlight the estate, which is also a problem in this area. We need to consider all policies, including those that impact maternity and neonatal care.
Over 95,000 people have responded to the consultation so far, and we want to hear from more. We have heard in this debate about midwifery-led care from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and about mental health support from the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I hope that they contribute to the consultation.
I am conscious that I need to give the hon. Member for Chichester a few moments to wind up. We know that we will not be able to fix these issues overnight. We are committed to investing in safety, workforce retention and tackling inequalities, and we are making steady progress. As was highlighted, most women have safe care with a healthy baby, and are made to feel special at a very special moment. That is a testament to the staff. We need to make sure that that happens for all women, everywhere. A lot of work has been done. There is a lot left to be done, but I am confident that we will build a maternity and neonatal system that delivers for every woman.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank all Members from across the House for their constructive approach to the debate. It is clearly an area where there is passion in all parts of the House. I thank the Minister for her replies to the questions, and I am sure that a lot of Members will be writing follow-up letters to Baroness Merron asking for further detail on particular areas. I will forgive the Minister for her “crack on and deliver” pun.
The Minister mentioned that lessons are learned from every tragic event. I will finish by saying that the parents I spoke to did not feel like lessons were being learned from their tragic events, because nobody was asking them what had happened. If just one thing comes out of this debate, let us send this message to all NHS trusts and ICBs: “When there are tragic events, please don’t cover them up. Please contact the parents, because they want to talk to you and they want to make it better for parents in the future and the babies that we lost too soon.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered maternity services.
Thameslink Train Services
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Thameslink train services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Many of my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on Thameslink services on the Bedford line to get to work or get into London for leisure. About 1.5 million passengers use Harlington and Flitwick stations in my constituency each year to meet friends, go shopping and take advantage of everything our capital has to offer. Commuters from the Flitwick and Harlington stations might also take advantage of the convenient connection that Thameslink offers to our local airport in Luton, or perhaps use the Thameslink direct connections to Gatwick airport, slightly further afield.
I have spent much of my career commuting to work on Thameslink services, so I know that many constituents in the eastern part of Mid Bedfordshire also rely on services from the Arlesey and Hitchin stations on the east coast main line, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), and many others use Thameslink services from stations including Bedford, Leagrave and Luton.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Like him, I have been a regular users of the Thameslink services in his constituency and mine, and, like many of my constituents, I have been consistently let down. My constituents’ two most common bugbears are the lack of drivers, which means that Thameslink cannot consistently put on the services it advertises—that seems the bare minimum—and the fact that when services go wrong, the emergency routes home via taxis and buses, which are so important in rural communities such as ours, are an afterthought. Does he agree that securing sufficient drivers for the line and getting back to putting passengers at the heart of our rail operations will be fundamental to delivering the rail services that my communities and his desperately need?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for joining this important debate for the communities across Bedfordshire that rely heavily on rail services for leisure and work. The disruption is also having a huge impact on our economy; I will come to that later in my speech.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done for disabled people who use trains regularly. That should be happening everywhere in this great United Kingdom. Does he agree that disabled people—those who are in wheelchairs, and those who have mobility or vision issues—deserve the same quality of service no matter where they are in this United Kingdom?
Blake Stephenson
I could not agree more. Later, I will talk about the need for step-free access to Harlington and Flitwick stations, but that is necessary right across the country for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has set out.
In this debate, I will focus on the Thameslink services on the Bedford line and east coast main line, which my constituents use regularly. Since I first moved to Mid Bedfordshire more than a decade ago, I have been a regular user of Thameslink, but it feels to me and many of the constituents I speak to about it that something has gone wrong. Overcrowded, standing-room-only carriages have become the norm. Too often, the timetable is merely a guideline, not a rulebook for when trains will arrive. We pay more and more each year for services that deliver less and less: a season ticket from Flitwick into Farrington costs about £5,500 per year.
When this debate was selected, I launched a survey of local residents to hear about their experiences of travel on Thameslink. Fifty-seven per cent of respondents told me that they thought the service is poor, 80% told me that they had been impacted by a cancellation in the past month, and 88% told me that they had experienced a delay of more than 10 minutes. Those are not healthy statistics. I want to share some of the things that people in Mid Bedfordshire told me about the impact that the poor service is having on them. Callum from Flitwick told me:
“Trains are subject to delays or cancellations at very short notice. On one occasion I was on the platform and the train was cancelled with only one or two minutes’ notice before it was due to arrive, even though Thameslink must have known it hadn’t left the previous station (Bedford) at least 10 minutes before it was due to arrive at Flitwick.”
Tracey from Haynes would happily use the train from Flitwick to Gatwick, but it is too unreliable; they have to use the car instead. Kate told me that despite travelling just once or twice a week, she has had to make five delay repay claims in the past month. Stephanie from Flitwick told me:
“This train service is appalling. We very nearly missed our eurostar despite leaving hours to spare. It’s got the stage that we dread using the service and are always worried about being stranded in London.”
Ginette from Maulden noted:
“Flitwick is often cancelled as a return stop from London where there have been delays. This is usually only advised once we are on the train leading to frustrated passengers disembarking at Luton.”
I hope that these examples of the hundreds of comments that I have received from residents make the problem clear. Too often, Thameslink services are unreliable, late or cancelled, and too often my constituents are stranded when their stop is cancelled while they are sat on a Thameslink train. Too often, taking the train is simply not an option for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It should not be this way. For commuters in Flitwick and Harlington, the frustration of unreliable services is compounded by the frustration caused by Network Rail’s failure to deliver step-free access programmes at pace. If we want people to use the train, we must make it easier for them to do so.
For too long, things have not been getting better. In 2008, a commuter getting the 7.41 am train from Flitwick could expect to arrive at London St Pancras at 8.32 am. Nearly 20 years later, the timetable has no more stations, but commuters on the 7.41 am from Flitwick can expect to arrive at St Pancras two minutes later, at 8.34 am—and that is when the trains arrive on time. Too often, they do not arrive at all. In the past 100 days, 11% of the 7.41 am services from Flitwick have been cancelled, and 25% have arrived at St Pancras more than five minutes late. That compares reasonably favourably with the 7.43 am service, which has been cancelled 28% of the time and has arrived late 42% of the time. That is simply not good enough.
That is just the morning commute. The best performing return journey from St Pancras to Flitwick between 5 pm and 6.30 pm has been more than five minutes late 23% of the time in the past 100 days. For commuters in Harlington, the evening peak period sees three services that are more than five minutes late 50% or more of the time—three evening services more than five minutes late every other time a commuter uses them—and one service that is cancelled more than a quarter of the time.
We must do better than this, and we can. Investment through the Thameslink programme under the previous Government has seen the travel times from Arlesey to St Pancras drop from 47 minutes in 2008 to 40 minutes now. Here, at least, services have become much more convenient, with trains now running beyond St Pancras and into south London—and beyond. Of course, even here there have been problems with delays and cancellations, as the hon. Member for Hitchin knows too well, and the east coast main line section of Thameslink will face its own pressures, which I will address later.
The picture I have painted is of an underperforming service that is letting my constituents down, and I could cite plenty of other statistics to back that up. This matters to my constituents, who suffer the inconvenience of the service in their daily lives, but it should matter to the Government, in the big picture sense, too. Quick, reliable trains into London help us to improve UK productivity, with fewer working hours lost on station platforms and more workers at their desks, growing the economy. They also allow for better economic ties between places such as Mid Bedfordshire and our capital, and make it easier for local people to set up and run growing businesses. That helps to deliver on the Government’s mission for economic growth.
A well-performing Thameslink service is also vital to supporting the economic growth of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is one of this Government’s central missions. Thameslink services already link London to Cambridge, but they will one day also link London with East West Rail at Cambridge, Tempsford and Bedford. If we want to maximise the return on investment of that infrastructure project, its connections into the wider train network need to be fast and reliable.
That takes me nicely to the next section of my speech. As an outcome from this debate, I would like to see not just a strategy to improve the Thameslink services we have today, but one that starts thinking about the Thameslink services we will need for tomorrow. On the Thameslink line, we have already seen the booming success that new onward connections can bring. Farringdon station, which is on the Elizabeth line, served just over 4.6 million passengers in 2010; today it serves 10 times that number. We know that Thameslink faces significant future pressures. If those pressures have even a fifth of the impact that the Elizabeth line has had on Farringdon, we will need to see serious forward planning to ensure that commuters travelling to and from Mid Bedfordshire can benefit from sufficient capacity to enjoy comfortable commutes.
Take the Bedford line specifically. In relatively short order, it could see additional pressure from Luton airport expansion, a Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, an interchange with East West Rail, a rail freight interchange in Sundon, and more than 10,000 more houses in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire alone. I hope that within the next decade, we might see the Ryder cup come to Luton Hoo, bringing with it huge opportunities but also considerable pressures on the local transport network.
If we are to ensure that comfortable travel on the Bedford line is the norm and not the exception—I do not think that is too much to aspire to—then we must start doing the long-term legwork now to put the capacity in place, because at the moment the capacity is simply not there. Overcrowded trains at peak times are now the norm, not the exception. The timetable shows that. Anyone who goes on the Thameslink website will see that the vast majority of morning and evening commuter services are filled with the red of standing-room-only trains.
We need more capacity now so that my constituents do not have to resign themselves to a cramped, standing commute every day. However, we particularly need more capacity on the Bedford line to cope with the challenges of tomorrow. Do not misunderstand me; I know that work is already being done on that. I met with people from Thameslink recently and I set out some of the challenges that my constituents and I foresee arising over the coming years. I know from my discussions with the Mayor of Bedford that significant progress is being made on the construction of Wixams station, which will serve the new town of Wixams in my constituency. However, with the Government pressing ahead with their nationalisation agenda, it will be Ministers who will oversee much of the future planning in that area, so it is incumbent on Ministers to understand the challenges and opportunities facing our communities.
It is so important that we get it right. It is important for commuters using the stations at Flitwick, Harlington and, hopefully soon, Wixams to get into work in the morning. It is important for all the growing businesses in Mid Bedfordshire, which rely on a good rail connection to do business in London and across our region. It is also vital for the Government’s growth agenda.
If we want to take advantage of the potential expansion of Luton airport, and use it to grow the economy, we must get people there comfortably and quickly. If we want to get the best bang for the taxpayer’s buck on East West Rail, we need a Thameslink service that is reliable enough for people to be able to count on making their connection train at Bedford. If we want to take advantage of the economic game changer that is the planned Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, we must provide sufficient transport capacity to get people there. More generally, if we would like to grow the tourism economy in Bedfordshire, as I would, a Thameslink service that works is a vital part of the jigsaw. People will not visit our towns and villages, spend money in our shops or enjoy a pint in our pubs if we make the process of getting there difficult and uncomfortable.
Of course, as I said earlier, it is not just the Bedford line that my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on; for many commuters in the eastern part of my constituency, the Thameslink services at Arlesey and Hitchin play a crucial role in their daily commutes. That line is not immune from pressures of its own. Planned housing growth, all the way down the line, will have a significant impact on capacity pressures over the coming years, as will the line’s own interchange with East West Rail at Tempsford and the potential housing growth that the Government might like to put forward there. Significant development at Tempsford would require concentrated efforts to increase capacity, in particular to avoid services into London becoming standing room only further down the line.
Any increase in capacity on that line is made much more challenging by the limitations placed on the services by the Digswell viaduct and Welwyn North station, where the line bottlenecks and drops from four tracks to two. When Ministers take full control over the services on that line, they will need to have a plan for how the network will cope with the future development plans being pushed forward elsewhere in Government.
As I conclude, I will touch on the Government’s plan for rail nationalisation. I say “plan”, but at the moment I am unclear whether that is the right word. If I have understood correctly the various announcements made so far on rail, the Government will be nationalising Govia Thameslink, but they cannot say when they will do that. There will be a central, unified rail system under Great British Railways, except in areas where mayors have requested rail powers under English devolution plans. Great British Railways will be directly accountable to Ministers and mayors, but there will also be a new quango, the rail watchdog, presumably to make sure that Ministers and mayors are doing their job and improving passenger experience. The watchdog will refer poor performance to a regulator, not Ministers. The Labour party’s manifesto set out that one focus of nationalisation was affordability, but Ministers are now briefing that the savings are minimal and fares are likely to keep going up.
My constituents need a clear plan to improve our rail network. So far, it is far from clear how, if at all, the Government’s renationalisation plans will do that. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out exactly how they plan to make services more reliable, to expand capacity and to keep fares down, now and in the future. That is what our constituents deserve from the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate and providing this opportunity to discuss the performance of Thameslink services, and I thank the hon. Members who interjected to make points, which I will try to address in my response.
The Government recognise the crucial role that the rail network plays in supporting economic development, housing and employment growth, tourism, and environmental benefits. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.
I recognise that performance on Thameslink, operated by Govia Thameslink Railway, has not been where we expect it to be, and passengers deserve better. Thameslink passengers have faced recent disruption caused by a variety of Network Rail infrastructure incidents, as well as a high level of cancellations due to train crew availability, particularly during the final few months of last year. I know that cancellations, especially those made close to the time of travel, can be very inconvenient for passengers, disrupting their lives and making it difficult for them to travel with confidence.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Just this morning, commuters in Ashwell in North East Hertfordshire, which is also served by Thameslink, wrote to me about the challenges that they are experiencing because of a lack of reliability and expensive fares on the line, and how those challenges are increasingly cutting them off from work and education opportunities. Could my hon. Friend the Minister address what steps the Government will take to improve fares and reliability on those routes as they bring Thameslink into public ownership?
Simon Lightwood
We are rewiring Britain’s railways to end decades of poor service, waste and timetable chaos. A unified, simplified railway will put passengers first, raise living standards and boost growth, as part of our plan for change. We will hear more about that when the railways Bill comes before Parliament.
Disruption due to train crew availability remains a priority for my Department. The Department’s officials are closely monitoring train crew availability levels and the actions that GTR is taking to improve, which will provide greater resilience in this area. I am pleased that there has been some improved performance in that area this year, but that must be sustained and improved on further. The Department has also commissioned work to understand, in detail, the impact of train crew availability on performance. That will look at issues such as staffing levels, recruitment, training, overtime and planning efficiency. It will outline recommendations to address those issues in the short, medium and long term.
On disruption due to infrastructure incidents, GTR and Network Rail continue to work closely to improve the reliability of the infrastructure used by Thameslink services to help to reduce associated delays and cancellations. A programme is currently under way to upgrade the overhead wires on the midland main line, and the central London Thameslink core had most of its rails replaced over the Christmas break, which will help to prevent track faults.
The Government are focused on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing our passengers. The Rail Minister has met GTR and Network Rail to ensure that they are delivering on their plans to address Thameslink’s poor performance. Department officials, the Rail Minister and I will continue to closely review Thameslink’s progress for a sustained recovery in performance to deliver the punctual, reliable services that passengers and taxpayers deserve.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I apologise for being an interloper from the west midlands. The Minister rightly and importantly mentioned passengers being failed, but the fragmentation of our network has meant that we have been failing not only passengers but businesses, particularly those that want to invest in constituencies such as Redditch. Improved services are improved not only for passengers but for businesses deciding where they may relocate and invest.
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must ensure that passengers are at the core of what we deliver, but the knock-on effect on businesses is also important. GBR will also focus on freight: how do we get some of the cargo transported by our roads on to our trains?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) talked about the need for more train crew. GTR is particularly vulnerable to the effect of train crew availability issues—the problem tends to be the availability, rather than the number, of train crew—and of all Thameslink’s cancellations, 50% are attributed to train crew. That is largely due to historical terms and conditions and legacy agreements that mean that there is a high level of reliance on rest-day working.
I will close by confirming that this Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do and deliver a railway of which, in its 200th year, we can be proud once again. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire again and acknowledge the importance of this matter to him and his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
SEND Education Support
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered SEND education support.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful for having secured this important debate, and welcome the opportunity to discuss special educational needs and disabilities support, especially how it is failing and how it can be improved. I am pleased too that so many Members are present to contribute. I have no doubt that those MPs who, like me, are new to this House will have been blown away by the scale of the SEND crisis in their constituencies. Parents are quite literally crying out for help, and we must listen to them and act.
In this debate we will hear about the national crisis, as well as the many local failures experienced right across the country, and the devastating human impacts that the crisis is having on young people and their families. But while I have the Minister’s attention, and before I get into the detail, I want to set out two important points. First, tackling our nation’s SEND crisis must be a national priority—much like rebuilding our NHS or tackling the housing crisis. We must be determined to rebuild our SEND support as a nation, and build a system that works for our children. Sitting alongside that, we must plan for the sustainable funding of the SEND system.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
SEND children are falling through the cracks. I have been told by a school in my constituency that it is experiencing a crisis, and is self-funding its own education, health and care needs assessments. As a result, it is facing an incredible deficit in funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial for the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to work together to deliver EHC assessments to ensure that our schools do not end up in unsustainable financial positions?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I agree, and I will talk about those points later in my speech.
Secondly, I will highlight the severe challenges for SEND that are faced in rural areas, such as my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. I am keen that the Minister visits my rural constituency to see, up close and at first hand, how rural education and the rural SEND crisis differs from that of our urban neighbours.
Let me start today’s debate by setting out the scale of the SEND crisis. As the recent report from the National Audit Office highlighted, the crisis is severe and growing. There has been a 140% increase in children with education, health and care plans—or an equivalent statement of SEND needs—from 2015 to 2024. The total number of children and young people with SEND today is estimated to be 1.9 million. Despite that growth in demand, the NAO has raised real concerns that there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for children and young people with SEND since 2019. Without drastic action, a full belt-and-braces review of SEND and a real determination to see improvements, we will only see SEND provision get even worse.
Funding is one part of the problem. With growing demand we need a sustainable funding plan—one that is able to tackle, and grow with, that demand—but, much like the issues facing our NHS, the answer does not lie just in funding. We need a belt-and-braces review that seeks to get to the heart of the challenges and build provision around current and future needs. I would like to see a national conversation about SEND, bringing in the voices of parents and young people and giving them the opportunity to share their experiences. Far too many families and young people have felt marginalised, silenced and kicked to the sidelines when they have battled hard to get the support their children are entitled to.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In 2023, a report by Warwickshire county council revealed that only 9% of education, health and care plans in Warwickshire go to children with special needs in North Warwickshire, compared with 31% in Warwick, which has a lower rate of child poverty. A year later, Conservative Warwickshire county councillors made derogatory comments about SEND children and their parents. I am concerned about the effect of those councillors’ attitudes on the provision of support for SEND children across the county, especially in more deprived areas such as mine. Is my hon. Friend concerned that this is an example of a trend across the country, where families in more deprived areas are unable to get the support they need?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to be succinct and short with interventions.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her timely intervention. I am about to give a similar example from my area. In Suffolk, the county council has failed to deliver 60% of outstanding care plans for SEND within the 20-week timeframe. Compare that with the national average of 50% and we can see that Suffolk is struggling.
The recent Care Quality Commission report for Suffolk, published last year, identified
“widespread and/or systemic failings”
across the local area partnership. It has the lowest possible rating, which means that the inspection identified failings that have
“a significant negative impact on the experiences and outcomes of children and young people”.
Suffolk county council responded with a blueprint, published in January this year, which it says is a forensic road map for change, but, as we sit here, there are parents in Suffolk and across the country who have been let down and are in desperate need of help. In January, I launched a survey in Suffolk Coastal asking parents and young people to share their experiences. That survey has shown some awful and tragic statistics, laying bare the true toll on families and young people of the SEND crisis in Suffolk.
More than 100 families from Suffolk Coastal filled in my survey and the report will be out next month. I would like to share some of that detail now. More than 50% of the children who filled in the survey have missed out on school because their SEND needs could not be met; 13% have been off school for more than a year. The impact that is having on young people’s education cannot be overstated. More than 30% who responded did not have an up-to-date EHCP in place, and one in 10 had been waiting more than a year to get that EHCP.
Six parents who responded to my survey have had to take their cases to a tribunal to attempt to get their children the right SEND provision. Many told me that they have had to use their personal savings, borrow money from friends and family or take out a loan to pay for legal support they need. That cannot be fair or right.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She speaks to the heart of the issue. It is often only people with the means, resources and time who can become experts in the service they are trying to access, a right that is enshrined in the Children and Families Act 2014. Will she join me in encouraging the Government’s instinct that, in moving to a more inclusive mainstream education system, we cannot simply say, “Everyone in,” without protecting the necessary resources centrally when we issue those instructions?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. As time is tight, I remind Members to keep interventions succinct.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I believe it should be part of a wider conversation that includes today’s debate, and I hope the Minister will respond to it.
I submitted a freedom of information request to Suffolk county council and received information back yesterday. Over the past five years, between 2019 and 2024, 920 appeals were logged against Suffolk county council. It has not told me how many of those went to tribunal, but it did supply the breakdown of the figures. Except for a drop in 2020, which I suspect can be accounted for by the covid lockdown, the numbers have risen year on year. In 2019, there were 103 cases, and by 2024, there were 286 cases. The most staggering fact my survey revealed is the cost of the crisis to families. More than one in two families told me that the SEND crisis is affecting their families’ mental health. They are struggling as they battle to provide their children with the support they are entitled to.
I have two examples of families in my constituency. The first is that of Jacob, who is an example of how hard the situation is for so many parents in Suffolk Coastal. His parents are incredible, working two jobs each. They are young and doing everything in their power to provide for him. Jacob is just four and is already being let down. He has autistic spectrum disorder—ASD—and, though he has an EHCP in place, his parents have to fight “tooth and nail” to attempt to get him to the right school.
As his dad told me,
“We don’t choose to be parents of a child with SEN. However, this is our child, and I feel he is being treated like a number rather than a human being.”
It is equally tragic to say that Jacob has had a head start in many ways, because he has an up-to-date EHCP in place. I could tell countless harrowing stories about the delays and issues that parents in my constituency face just to get an EHCP completed.
The way the system is failing our children is equally highlighted by my constituent Tiffany, a young girl in year 6—another student with a brilliant mum advocating for her. She has struggled in the extreme with mental health issues. She has missed out on schooling for two years as she battled a serious and severe mental health breakdown, which caused her to spend long periods in hospital, all before she turned 10. It should be no surprise that, while she was battling for her health, she lost out on schooling. Despite having an up-to-date EHCP, she has been told that she cannot stay in the special school that has accepted her because she is too far behind academically. Somewhat absurdly, she is now expected to enter mainstream education in year 7, despite all the challenges that she has faced. Her mum asked me:
“Why should anyone with mental health issues be denied the support they require to access an education?”
I could give many more heartbreaking examples, but I want to give others Members time to do the same. Before I end, let me highlight again the complexities of SEND in rural areas such as my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. Rural areas are made up of small villages and tiny market towns. Such schools often teach mixed age groups, and teachers work across more than one year group. In one of my schools, years 6, 5, 4 and 3 are taught together. The transition from a tiny primary to a very large secondary school can be incredibly challenging for a child with SEND—or indeed any child. That produces a spike of SEND cases in year 7. Our SEND provision should therefore take the challenges in rural areas into consideration, and help schools and children with the transition from primary to secondary school. There are some great examples in my constituency of secondary schools working with feeder village schools from years 5 and 6 to try to bridge that transition and directly target children with SEND during that process.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
For those who do not know, the hon. Lady is my constituency neighbour in Suffolk, and I think she is doing a fantastic job of highlighting the complexities faced by people such as Jacob and Tiffany—I see them in my inbox too. She has done a fantastic job of talking about the problems, and she is beginning to talk about the solutions. What does she think about universal early intervention programmes, which have been demonstrated to reduce cost at the acute end of the system in the long term? Will she join me in pushing for universal access to early language programmes in schools in Suffolk?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The example of Jacob, a small boy aged just four, shows that interventions need to happen in the early years—right from the very start.
The model of secondary schools working with primary schools should be looked at nationally. I again call on the Minister to visit Suffolk Coastal to see that in greater detail.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of Members want to speak, so I will have to impose a time limit. I will first call Iain Duncan Smith, and then could Members bob for a few seconds longer than they would normally so that we can get everybody’s name on the list?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I will obey your strictures and try to keep this brief. I want to focus on a very narrow aspect of special educational needs. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this debate. As we can see, many Members have issues with the supply of SEND education support.
I want to focus on something that originated in a special educational needs school in my constituency called Whitefield, which has calming rooms. I have been to see the Education Secretary about this issue, because I discovered, thanks to a BBC programme, that there is no regulation as to the nature of calming rooms in special educational needs schools and what happens in them. For the most part, those schools are very good, but when it comes to calming rooms there is a big variety of capability and, for that matter, quality. Children in that school were locked away in calming rooms. I would have thought that that was illegal, but it is not in special educational needs schools. What happens in those rooms makes the children’s behaviour worse. If they are suffering in one way or another, that suffering gets worse, particularly when they suffer from autism. What happens in those rooms becomes abusive, as has been captured on video.
A survey has shown that more than 500 schools use this kind of lock-in for children with severe autism. The videos I have seen show some of them in cages, and some of them being put in what we would consider to be padded cells, with no visits for long periods of time.
I simply want to put this point to the Minister. I have seen the Secretary of State and put it to her that this issue needs to be looked at and embraced in some kind of guidance or regulation, so that the rooms, if they have to be used, are used sparingly, and that there are regulations about the times that people should visit, to make sure that children are okay in them. Frankly, the rooms should be an absolute last resort, and should be used only very briefly. They are now definitely being abused in different schools. That is the one point I want to make.
I ask the Minister to take this issue up again with the Secretary of State, so that at the next legislative opportunity, Ministers can sit down and figure out how we regulate this. These children often have no voice for themselves, for obvious reasons, and their parents now find their behaviour even worse, and do not know whether their children have been locked into a calming room, such as I have seen and been horrified by. We must make that change so that those with very severe autism who go to special needs schools will not have to suffer as though they were criminals or prisoners—and in ways that we would not even treat those.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Andrew Lewin, I will put an advisory two-minute limit on speeches. If that is not followed, I will impose a two-minute limit. I am sure colleagues will want to ensure that time is available for all others present.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is the nature of being an MP that we are rightly expected to manage a wide range of issues, but one constant since being elected has been the frequency with which I have been contacted by constituents about the crisis in SEND provision. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on being a champion for families in her constituency, and I am pleased that she has secured this debate.
The themes are consistent: extremely long turnaround times to obtain an EHCP, compounded by even longer waiting times to secure a place at a desired school, and exasperated parents who are leaving employment to care for children who have not been found a place in the system. Most important of all, far too many children are suffering because the right support is not being made available to them. Constituents told me of a case in which Hertfordshire county council allocated a family seven different officers in the time it took to finalise a place for an EHCP. Another story was of a parent who had no choice but to give up their job to become a full-time carer for their child, as they wait for an appropriate school place. I could recite countless more examples from Welwyn Hatfield. My message to all local families is that we need concerted action at both local and national level to turn around the system.
I am conscious of the little time that I have today, so I put on the record how pleased I am that this Labour Government have recognised the scale of the challenge and made a £1 billion commitment to SEND across the country. It is imperative that Hertfordshire receives our fair share of that money. What gives me confidence is having met all the local school leaders who are doing everything in their power to help, from specialist providers at Lakeside and James Marks academy in Welwyn Garden City to Southfield school in Hatfield. The changes they are making are a source of hope, but we all have a moral imperative to turn the situation around both locally and nationally.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this hugely important debate.
As has just been noted, this is an issue about which we all receive a huge amount of correspondence every day, from parents who are at their wits’ end. Supporting children and young people with special educational needs is not an act of charity; it is a fundamental responsibility of government, and yet we find that parents are repeatedly battling to access the complicated system. I will briefly give an overview of Dr Warwick-Sanders, a constituent I met in Winchester recently. He is a psychiatrist and his wife is also a medical professional. Their son was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in 2002 and referred to the child and adolescent mental health service. Despite being medical professionals, they said that they just did not know where to turn for help. Although CAMHS is the cornerstone for child mental health services, it has a shocking 150 week wait in our area. Dr Warwick-Sanders’ son is stuck in a system where the ADHD medication he needs is out of reach until an assessment is completed. He said, “If medical professionals like me cannot navigate the system, what hope do others have?”
If we are to give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential, we must prioritise our investment in SEND services. My question for the Minister is, how do we streamline this process for accessing support so that everyone—including medical professionals, but also people who have no experience of dealing with such organisations —can get the help they need, when they need it?
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on continuing to keep this important issue on the parliamentary agenda. For many of us, this is a defining issue that motivated us to stand for election; to try and bring about meaningful change on behalf of SEND families who are living with a constant fight for recognition of the challenges they face, for a diagnosis, for mental health support and for the right educational setting.
I could use double or triple my speaking time today describing the cases that come across my desk week after week of children who are not just struggling to get the right support today, but whose lives could have been different if their needs had been identified and met early. Instead, I am going to go through some of the things that I believe—and that parents and professionals I have met with over the last eight months believe—will make the difference and start to bring this broken system under control. I will limit myself to two things, and I hope the Minister will respond and take it as read that I welcome the steps she has already taken to deliver a more inclusive system.
First, there is much more to be done in partnership with the NHS. The time it takes to get a diagnosis for autism or ADHD varies wildly across the country and has vastly increased in recent years. Meanwhile, access to child and adolescent mental health services is now being rationed in a way that means only the most serious referrals are expected, with the perverse effect that children who are not seen get worse. There will be no fix to the SEND crisis that does not also address the crisis in CAMHS, so I urge the Minister to continue to work closely with her colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care and get school-based mental health support rolled out as quickly as possible.
Secondly, although the fix to the SEND crisis is not all about money, that does not mean that money does not need to be spent—particularly on capital. The reality is, although we need more inclusivity, we also need co-located provision in mainstream schools and more alternative provision. In my constituency in particular, we have a big shortage in specialist social, emotional and mental health difficulties places which is affecting life chances today—the cost of which will be borne by other parts of the state in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on so passionately describing the issues for her constituents—but these are replicated for all of us. I will give some statistics from Northern Ireland to add to the support that I give to the hon. Lady and others. There are some 11,000 children in special education—an increase of 70% in the past 10 years—and 8% of those children have special educational needs.
I do not know how many meetings I have attended with parents who are worried about their children. It has become an incredibly important issue. It is a mammoth take for the Minister here—it is good to see her in her place and I wish her well—as it is a mammoth take for those back home as well. I honestly believe that every child is a precious gift from God, born with a unique personality and a purpose to fulfil—each is valued, is important and matters. That is why I support the Minister in coming forward.
I want to put it on the record that the Education Department in Northern Ireland, which I represent, has committed to a vision where,
“Every child and young person is happy, learning and succeeding.”
That aspiration is no different for our children who face additional challenges to accessing learning. Reform is urgent and essential to deliver that vision, ensure inclusion, and improve outcomes for learners who require additional support. The SEN reform agenda is an ambitious framework for change and takes a whole-system approach to tackling the issues underpinning current challenges in the system.
What do we need? We need two things: first, early diagnosis for those who have educational issues, and secondly, plenty of staff members who can take on the issues and can respond quickly. My request to the Minister is—I know she probably does this without me asking her—will she discuss with our Education Minister back home to see how best we can deliver this for all of those in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That was a five-minute speech done in two minutes.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Thank you for keeping to the two minutes, more or less. We should continue that trend.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Last week, I had the privilege and opportunity to meet with the parents of some students from Hexham Priory school, which supports children with severe learning disabilities in my constituency in the county of Northumberland. One thing that comes to mind when speaking to those parents—as one of them put it to me—is that they are constantly fighting for their child, not just for their education, but for their ability to access swimming pools, leisure centres and other provision that we all take for granted when we are speaking to other children in our constituency.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
On that point, I want to emphasise that the parents and carers who I speak to in Hyndburn and Haslingden are bruised and burnt out—my hon. Friend talked about the constant fight and the adversarial nature of the system. I also keep hearing concerns from the parents and teachers in the system about some fear around the reforms that are coming, because they feel that might happen without them. Would my hon. Friend agree that is really important that the Government work with parents, teachers and carers as they develop those reforms, and that there is a real two-way conversation as we bring forward what is needed?
Joe Morris
My hon. Friend knows, as I think we all do, the strength of feeling from SEND parents, staff and teachers, who have been burnt out over 14 years of failure on SEND. I certainly have my frustrations with Northumberland county council’s wrong-headed, misguided and deluded approach to the SEND crisis in my county. That particularly comes across with the lack of provision in the west of Northumberland, when I am constantly confronted by families travelling from Haltwhistle, which is—for those here who are not familiar with the geography of my constituency—in the extreme west of Northumberland, all the way to the coast to Ashington, which is often a journey that exceeds 90 minutes either way. Accessing that provision is incredibly hard and draining.
I want to put on record my thanks to the parents and staff at Hexham Priory school, who provide that supportive and caring environment, to local charities such as Mencap, and to individuals who constantly reach out to my office—I know that there were 11 places, for which 72 applied. This is a crisis that we must work to address.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this really important debate.
Education is, and always will be, one of my top priorities. I am lucky enough to have visited many of my schools in South West Hertfordshire to see the excellent work that teachers are doing to ensure that every one of the children in my constituency has a good or excellent education. However, the statutory framework around parent choice should be working for schools, not against them. In my constituency, 17% of children have special educational needs, and I regularly receive correspondence and surgery requests from parents and constituents who are going through the process of trying to get an education, health and care plan for their child, or are dealing with the implementation of one.
I am glad that Hertfordshire county council has made progress in this area and is continuing to do so. It is important that progress continues to be made. As someone who is dyslexic, I understand at first hand the frustrations posed by special educational needs and learning disabilities, and how important it is that those with SEND have the support they need to succeed in school.
From conversations with schools in my area and officers at Hertfordshire county council, it is clear that the parent choice framework needs to change. Schools are gaining reputations for being good at educating children with special needs. That is something that all schools should strive for, but it has led to a higher concentration of children with EHCPs in some schools and very low numbers in others, placing a financial burden and additional pressure on the schools that provide such valuable support for children who need it. That should not be the case. All schools should be able to support children with special educational needs; it should not be left to a select few. Every parent wants the best education for their children, and that would allow all schools to continue to provide a top-quality education for all. I urge the Minister to consider changes to the statutory framework.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate.
Early in my career, I had the privilege of working for the disability charity Scope, where I successfully campaigned for increased funding for the schools access initiative to improve access to mainstream education. Ever since then, I have been a strong believer that, wherever possible, children with specialist needs should have them met in mainstream schools that support them and everything should be done to facilitate that. While I still believe in mainstream inclusion, I recognise that the demand is great and the complexity of need has increased and changed.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On the point about access, does the hon. Member agree that it is really important that children are able to get to school in the first place? Private providers of SEND transport have reported that the increase in national insurance contributions will greatly impact their ability to get children to school, because they will have to run at a loss and might have to relinquish some of the contracts. That will put local authorities at risk of not meeting their statutory duties to ensure that children with SEN can access that transport.
Ms Minns
I am sure that the Minister will address that point in her closing remarks, but I want to focus on the need, and the ability to get into a specialist school in the first instance.
James Rennie school in my constituency is rated outstanding and does incredible work for children aged three to 19, but not everyone who needs a school like James Rennie is able to access one. The school has seen a huge increase in demand in recent years from families whose children have specialist needs. At the moment, it is already operating well above its published admission number, something it has achieved only by converting spare space into classrooms, and there is still more demand. For this September, it already has 43 known applications—25% of the children already in the school.
James Rennie is not alone. Department for Education figures from March last year show that there are approximately 4,000 more pupils on the rolls of specialist schools than their reported capacity. Will the Minister address the need that we now have for more specialist schools? Let us be clear: there are 1.5 million SEND children in this country, including the 202 at James Rennie in Carlisle. All of us, in every part of the House, have a duty to ensure that we do not fail them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this vital debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an NHS optometrist. I rise to highlight two critical issues: the severe gap in transport provision for post-16 students, and the additional challenges faced by children with visual impairment in the SEND system.
No parent of a SEND child willingly chooses to send them miles away for education. They do so because there is a lack of local provision. Until the age of 16, local authorities cover the cost of transportation, but beyond that, families are expected to finance it themselves —an expectation that is, frankly, unrealistic. I have spoken to parents who are on the brink of crisis, including Ruth and Esther from Still SEND 16+. Some are considering giving up their work to personally manage their child’s school commute, pushing them into benefits and ultimately costing the state more than simply providing transport would. A consultation has already shown that 29% of affected young people may be forced to abandon education. Will the Government consider making post-16 SEND transport statutory, ensuring that young people do not have to choose between education and affordability?
I also wish to raise the additional challenge faced by children with a visual impairment within the SEND framework. Across the UK, 41,000 children and young people rely on specialist visual impairment education services. Half of them have additional SEND needs, yet local disparities in provision mean that many do not receive the support they require. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has called for urgent reforms. I echo that. The curriculum framework for children and young people with visual impairment must be embedded in all SEND policies. The Government commitment to recruit 6,500 expert teachers must include funding for additional registered qualified habitation specialists and qualified visual impairment specialist teachers, and all teacher training and special educational needs co-ordinator courses must include mandatory visual impairment awareness training to improve inclusivity in mainstream schools.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing today’s debate. I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of support from support staff unions. I also wish to make a non-financial declaration of interest, which is that my partner is a member of the Department’s expert advisory panel on SEND. However, the views I express are my own.
In the House we often talk about SEND funding and funding is important, but we also need to talk about SEND spending. The reality is that much money in the system is not spent well and that there are providers who charge too much for too little. In other aspects of education —children’s homes and other parts of the sector—we look at overcharging. The pirates of the high needs exist in SEND as well. I see it in my constituency and I see it in the cases parents and families bring to the SEND surgeries I run. I hope that when legislation is brought forward in this area, those problems will be addressed.
In a former role, I submitted a freedom of information request to all local education authorities. Two thirds could not answer a simple question about average spend on EHCPs in their area. Indeed, no such duty exists under the 2014 Act. If we are to drive up standards we need accountability for the money that is being spent, because parents are furious at the money that is not available to their children.
I will make just one more brief point, because time is so short. Much could be done in schools to improve the sensory environment—I believe this point has been partially raised already. When I was a SEND pupil, such simple adjustments as flexible lighting and variable noise levels would have made a huge difference to classroom management and learning support. I hope that when school design standards are next looked at, minimum expectations for inclusion by design can be set.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate and for powerfully setting out so many of the failures that families in my constituency will be all too familiar with.
There is nothing more heartbreaking than speaking to people in my constituency who have been let down by the national failures of the SEND system: the young person who has been out of school for far too long, with all the impact that has on their mental health and development, just because there is no school suitable for them in our local area; the family who have often had to step back from work to fight for the bare minimum legal entitlement of support that their young person needs to thrive at school; or the far too many of our schools that, despite going above and beyond, know they are not being set up to succeed when it comes to supporting far too many pupils with additional needs.
When she described the system as “lose, lose, lose”, the last Conservative Education Secretary could not have been more right. In my local area, those painful failures are absolutely present at the local authority level too, whether in Hertfordshire county council’s shocking failure to deliver EHCP plans, laid bare by Ofsted in recent years, or in Central Bedfordshire council’s planning failures when it comes to specialist places, which is causing chaos for some of my local schools. From Ivel Valley school, whose redevelopment is now in doubt, to local schools that found out that their inclusion centre was being paused when developers did not turn up when they were meant to, it is clear that councils need to do much, much better with the tools already in their grasp.
As a former teacher and local authority lead, I know that national change is needed too. The extra money prioritised in the Budget—£1 billion for the high needs block and £750 million for adaptations—is crucial, but much wider work is needed. We need clear accountability frameworks for local authorities and schools that hold them much more accountable for SEND and inclusion. Whatever the school structure, driving up standards should never come at the expense of an inclusive approach to admissions and exclusions.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that far too many children in our part of the world miss out on years of education as a result of this crisis. In setting out many of the reforms we need to see, will he join me in urging the Minister to bring forward those reforms as swiftly as possible and to provide a clear timeline so that parents in our constituencies can look forward to them?
Alistair Strathern
Absolutely. It is really welcome that this has been a priority, right at the heart of the Government’s early decision making on education, and we need the pace to continue.
It is clear that much further work will be needed on workforce planning. It is fantastic that we finally have a Government who are taking an interest in this issue and commissioning a survey to understand where the workforce shortages are, but it will be crucial for them to put in money to support the resolution of the challenges, especially in edge-of-London constituencies like mine, where all too often the resource is dragged into other authorities as a result of London weighting. We need to make sure that health partners are playing an ambitious role, too. Deprioritising health budgets is a false economy that only leads to increased pressures on education budgets.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate. My area of Norfolk has unique challenges as well as the common challenges we have heard about from many Members. Between 2019 and 2024, we saw a 74.5% increase in the number of EHC plans issued, and it is rising faster than the national average.
I want to touch on a few of the systemic problems I see in my area. Hon. Members have mentioned health. In Norfolk there are more than 10,000 children on waiting lists for an autism or ADHD assessment, and the average waiting time is seven years. That is totally unacceptable. Can the Minister tell us what is being done with the Department of Health and Social Care to expedite that process?
When members of the public contact me, whether because they are being told that, since the specialist provision is within 3 miles, they must walk there and transport will not be funded, or whether it is to tell me about the thousands of pounds being poured into tribunal processes by Norfolk county council, my feeling is overwhelmingly that the system is failing them. We have an adversarial system in which parents and children are not being listened to. We also have a real challenge in Norfolk with the expense of transport, which costs the local authority a huge amount but forces children to travel miles.
There is a school sitting empty in Norwich North that could be turned into a special school. I have been campaigning for that with local councillors for almost four years, but bureaucracy seems to be getting in the way. I do not understand why the simple transfer of a lease is impeding the provision of an extra specialist school for our children. We really need to look at how we can expedite the use of facilities that could be repurposed.
I also hear from constituents that when they are told there is no place for their child in a specialist resource base, they are not told the reasons why. My constituent Joanne was told that there is no right to appeal, so she has been left with no understanding of why her child cannot have the place she desperately needs. I agree that we need clear guidelines for families. We also need a co-production model, so that parents are not just talking to a system, but being included in the system right from the very start, through delivery for our young people.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far. I know that we will take so many more. Ultimately, speed is of the essence.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate. This issue resonates deeply with families in Dudley and across the nation.
We all know that too many families are navigating a SEND system that is too difficult. Assessments are taking too long, support is inconsistent, and local authorities are under huge pressure to meet the increasing demand. Schools are struggling with managing children with no diagnosis and supporting those with a diagnosis. In the 2024 autumn Budget, £1 billion of specifically allocated SEND funding was announced. That investment is vital to tackle the challenges that parents and schools face every day.
Dudley is no exception to the issues that have been raised. The number of children with education, health and care plans has risen significantly, reflecting the growing need for specialist support. We must confront the fact that too many families and schools feel that they have to fight the system just to get the right support for their children. My constituent Catherine Beaman has had to set up her own SEND support group in Sedgley, as there is no wraparound service. That simply is not right. While funding is increasing and reforms are under way, families want to feel that our children will get the support they deserve. I ask the Government to move faster and more efficiently to improve the system.
I believe that an early diagnosis is key for our children to get the best start in life, but support is required throughout an individual’s lifetime. I ask the Minister to develop a cross-departmental strategy on SEND for the future of our children.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate. I have been contacted time and again by parents in Gloucester who are desperate for support for their children. They have been failed by the system and their children have been left to suffer as a result. The message from parents is clear: they want more support, a reduction in the waiting times for EHCPs, and a system where every plan is processed quickly, fairly and effectively.
It is clear that the last Government failed to invest, failed to plan and failed an entire generation of our children and their parents. They created a postcode lottery whereby parents are forced to battle the system rather than being supported by it. That is one of the biggest challenges facing parents in my area: a system that denies their child’s needs and puts the presumption on saying no, rather than asking how it can best support children.
The repercussions are staggering. In the past decade, decision times on EHCPs increased by 140%, with two in five taking more than six months to process. In Gloucester, only 35% of EHCP decisions were issued within the 20-week target. That is a disgrace, and it is yet again up to the Labour Government to fix the Tory mess.
I understand that there are no quick fixes and there is no magic wand that can undo 14 years of neglect, but I welcome the Government’s £1 billion uplift in SEND funding and the £740 million to create new specialist places in mainstream schools, as well as the commitment to train 400 new educational psychologists and retain these professionals. Will the Minister outline the steps the Government are taking to improve the EHCP process so that families feel supported through it? These measures will ensure that we do not repeat the failures of the last Government. We will be the voice of change, breaking down the barriers to give SEND children better support. These children face so many hurdles in their lives, and it is time we ensured that they have a brighter future and are supported.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this incredibly important debate. When we came into government we knew we were going to inherit a mess after years of chaos under the Conservatives. Unfortunately, special educational needs provision has been a particularly shocking example of the real consequences for families and individuals who are lost in a system that has been mismanaged, neglected and starved of funding. Put simply, SEND provision was at crisis point.
I pay tribute to the incredible teachers and teaching assistants who work so hard to support every child, in every school, in every classroom. Whenever I visit schools in Derby, I see how dedicated they are to helping children, despite their limited resources. But teachers feel guilty because while they focus their attention on the children with special educational needs, they are unable to support the rest of their classes who, with a little more help, could go on to achieve so much more. Every child deserves the tools they need to succeed, but children cannot succeed when they are deprived of the basic support they need in the classroom.
In my constituency, one of the challenges we face is the availability of appropriate SEND school placements. I welcome the steps that the local council is taking to address that shortage. It is creating 70 more SEND places at the Kingsmead school in Alvaston, as part of a broader plan to create more than 200 additional specialist places for the city’s schools over the next two years.
But there is only so much that local authorities are able to do. Funding, support and reform from central Government is crucial, and I am pleased that we have an Education Secretary who is committed to sorting out SEND as one of her top priorities. It is the Conservative party that broke our SEND system, but I say to every parent who is currently struggling to advocate for their child to access the support they need: it is the Labour Government who will work to fix it.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) and congratulate her on securing this debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my partner’s interests.
Given the time limit, I will focus on one case in my constituency, out of so many. It is not new, but a decade-long issue on which we have been fighting for one child. We tried to submit this child’s assessment when she was three years of age, but it was unsuccessful. Only following an Ofsted intervention at Warwickshire county council did she finally get a diagnosis of autism, six years later. No directives were made for other special needs.
She is now in secondary school and, eight years on, she is still awaiting diagnosis of and support for ADHD and other complex needs. Her mum constantly has to fight, and has engaged proactively with every intervention she has been offered, such as early help. When her mum last inquired to find out how long they would have to wait, she was told the waiting list is still measured in years, not in months or weeks. After first displaying diagnosable traits at three, there is every chance that this child may leave her education without fully understanding her needs.
The impact on the family has been profound, and the impact on the mental health of this child has been traumatic. Her mother found a notebook detailing her suicide plans when she was in year 6. After sleepless nights worrying, she finally got a mental health assessment weeks later and was told that she did not present a risk as she had not identified the tree or rope she would use to hang herself. This is disgusting and a complete failure. No family should have to go through this.
Jim Shannon
Everybody brings a personal story to this place, and the hon. Lady has brought a very personal story. It is obvious to all of us here that the hon. Lady is a compassionate MP and understands the issues for her constituents, and she has portrayed that very well. She is assiduous and honest, and we thank her for that.
Jodie Gosling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a moment to compose myself. Children should not be seen as a tick list of diagnosis criteria. We need a SEND system that deals with children and families holistically, that listens to their voices and that tackles the root causes.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this debate. I know she is doing all she can to improve SEND provision in her constituency and in the wider county of Suffolk.
SEND issues in my South West Norfolk constituency are a constant in my inbox. After 14 years of neglect, families are at the end of their tether and are desperate for support. The size of the task facing the Government in repairing trust in the SEND system is clear and frankly daunting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, we must not forget that in areas like Suffolk and Norfolk the challenges are exacerbated because of rurality and difficulties accessing services that are often miles away.
I have been here before to speak about SEND, and have spoken to the Minister a number of times, but today I want to make a particular point about tribunals. Many county councils are losing scores of tribunal cases. In Norfolk, the Conservative-controlled county council is losing 98% of all tribunal cases—there seem to be no real consequences to the failure to act in the first place—and has racked up a bill of almost £1 million in legal costs in one financial year fighting SEND cases. Money that could have been spent on providing services for families is used to pay legal bills. Local authorities usually engage solicitors and barristers, which was never the intention for SEND tribunals. The way they were set up was supposed to mean that neither side needed legal representation.
I urge the Minister to speak to the concerns about tribunals specifically. I recognise that solving the crisis in SEND will not happen overnight, but I am encouraged by the Government’s action so far and by the additional money.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate and for her excellent speech.
As colleagues from all parties have said, the system for young people with special educational needs in England is not working for schools, for councils and, most importantly, for the young people who so desperately need support. This is yet another area where, as the commentator Sam Freedman who worked at the Department of Education put it, the previous Government
“chose to go slow in coming up with solutions so as to avoid difficult or expensive decisions before the election.”
It has been left to the new Labour Government to fix it. I welcome the steps taken so far, with £1 billion infused into the SEND budget in October and £740 million announced to create thousands of specialist places, including in mainstream schools.
In my Dartford constituency, Kent county council has been unable to respond properly to the families seeking the help that their children need. I hear regularly of EHCP annual reviews taking many times longer than the 12 weeks they should take, including one case in which an annual review is yet to be processed over a year after it took place. I hear of caseworkers leaving the service and families not being told, leaving parents asking for assistance but not being heard. I hear complaints about EHCP decisions going months without an answer. There are frustrating waits to correct errors and multi-year waits for other forms of assessment.
Too many vulnerable young people are missing crucial years of education when they are needed most. There are no quick fixes, but the Government have an opportunity, as we all do, to bring forward much-needed reforms that will improve outcomes over time. So many families are depending on it. Let us work with the Government to ensure it happens.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate.
Another week, another debate on SEND. Since the start of this Parliament, barely a week has gone by when we have not had questions or debates, either in this Chamber or the main Chamber, on special educational needs and disability provision. From what we have heard today—I particularly thank the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) for her courage in sharing her constituent’s moving story—we know that every Member’s inbox is bulging with casework from constituents about the dire crisis in SEND, which is why these debates are so oversubscribed. We are also getting report after report. In the last few months, the National Audit Office, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Public Accounts Committee have all come out with the same damning verdict about a broken system, with money coming in but outcomes for children going down.
These are some of our most vulnerable children and young people, and we as a society must do our best to meet their needs. We know that families face a postcode lottery, with delays that can last months or even years and vulnerable children missing out on the support that they deserve and need. With special schools full, mainstream schools struggling to provide appropriate support because their budgets are so overstretched, and spiralling high-needs deficits leaving many local authorities on the brink of bankruptcy, it is clear that urgent reform is needed.
As we heard in a Westminster Hall debate just a few weeks ago, the process to get an education, health and care plan is often far too lengthy and far too adversarial. Families are increasingly forced to take their cases to tribunal, with the number of cases doubling since 2014. Local authorities lose almost all those cases, wasting annually over £70 million of public money that could be spent on supporting children and young people rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles. Given the huge rise in demand for support, and the previous Conservative Government’s failure to keep up with that demand, local authorities are too often struggling to meet their statutory responsibilities, forcing families to navigate a broken system to secure even the most basic support. As the former Education Secretary Gillian Keegan described it, it is a “lose, lose, lose” system for all.
Ministers have repeatedly, and quite rightly, stressed the need for mainstream schools to be more inclusive in order to meet the rising need for special needs support. I recently visited Stanley school in my Twickenham constituency which, like two other nearby primary schools, has a specialist resource provision. Children with complex needs are able to spend time with dedicated teaching assistants for support, but they have the opportunity to play, socialise and participate, where appropriate, in lessons and other activities with children in the school who are not part of the SRP.
As the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) referenced, we are seeing falling rolls in schools and space opening up. SRPs will be a key intervention in our approach to ensuring that mainstream schools can be more inclusive. However, finding and keeping the staff to support children in SRPs or other mainstream settings—or indeed in special school settings—is an ongoing challenge. SRPs need to be properly funded but, as things stand, the headteacher at Stanley explained to me, the maths just does not add up for him. He explained that his wider school budget is having to plug the shortfall in SRP funding. If we are to tempt schools to have SRPs, we are going to have to make sure that they have the resources to provide that SRP.
Support staff costs have risen over the past two years, with unfunded pay increases and increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the horizon. We know that local authorities, health services and schools are all struggling to recruit the number of staff that they need to meet growing demand—both to undertake assessments in the first place, when a child might be eligible for an EHCP, and then to meet that need in school.
A national survey of headteachers found that only 1% of senior school leaders believed that they had enough funding to meet the needs of pupils with SEND. A report by London Councils on SEND inclusion in schools found that stakeholders from across the sector said that they would be able to be more inclusive if they had more funding. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for increased funding for local authorities to reduce the financial burden on schools. We know that the £6,000 per pupil notional SEND budget, which each school is meant to allocate before applying for an EHCP, is, frankly, a fiction in today’s school finances, given the pressures on budgets up and down the country.
When I visited Stanley the other week, and when I visited a beautiful new school, Belmont school in Durham, last week, I was told by both headteachers that for many mainstream schools, the disincentive to take on children with SEND is the way that standard assessment tests and other public exam results are reported. Frankly, certain young people in those mainstream settings are not in a position to sit their SATs or GCSEs, yet their results, which will essentially be nil, are reported in the schools’ performance measures, which are available publicly. In a competitive schooling environment, where parents vote with their feet for the schools that typically have the highest grades, that sadly results in an incentive for too many schools to actively avoid taking SEND children on to their rolls. There are schools that are doing the right thing and including those children, but, as the Minister is considering how to make mainstream school more inclusive, I wonder what consideration she and other Ministers have given to this issue.
I would like to spend a moment focusing on special schools. For children for whom a mainstream setting is not right, special schools should, and in many cases do, provide the necessary educational support. However, we know that in May 2023, two thirds of special schools were at or over capacity, and the impact of that is children with complex needs being inappropriately accommodated in the mainstream, where their needs cannot be met, which sometimes has a detrimental impact on other pupils and, indeed, staff. Many parents in those situations feel forced to home school. We know that parents who feel that they have had no option but to home school are concerned about what some of the provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will mean for their being able to ensure that their child is in an appropriate environment.
The lack of specialist provision is being played out in the eye-watering SEND transport costs that local authorities are having to fund to send children out of area. Add to that the cost of private special schools, which are being funded by the taxpayer. I will return to that subject in a moment, but I want to take this moment to welcome the provision in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open new special schools. For too long, local authorities that have identified a need, and that want to bid for funding and open special schools, have been turned down. A number of applications from local authorities that wanted to open special schools were turned down during the previous Parliament by the previous Government, so I welcome that change in the Bill.
Returning to private special schools, many private SEND schools provide an excellent education and are run as not-for-profit charities. However, the Minister is aware—I have raised this issue previously, not least in Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—that private equity firms and other profiteering companies are increasingly entering the special school market, as they see it, at an extortionate cost. Councils are spending £1.3 billion on independent and non-maintained special schools, which is more than double what they spent just a few years earlier. The cost of an independent special school place is, on average, double the cost of a state special school place. Some private equity companies running these schools are making a profit of 20%-plus. Typically, the private equity-owned providers, not the other private sector providers, have the highest level of profitability in the sector. I feel that our most vulnerable children and our local authorities are being held to ransom by some of these companies, which are not behaving in the best interests of our children.
Mr Mohindra
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we ban private equity companies from being involved in the sector?
Munira Wilson
No. As a Liberal—I have said this many a time—I believe in a mixed economy in many of our public services. I was about to make the point that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains important measures to stop profiteering in children’s social care. When I proposed an amendment in Committee to extend the profit cap to special schools, I explained that the private equity companies that are making a ridiculous amount of profit in the children’s social care sector are also running private special schools. Some are not making a huge profit, but I do not think a 20%-plus profit margin in a taxpayer-funded system is acceptable, which is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I proposed an amendment to the Bill to extend the profit cap to special schools. I was disappointed that Labour Members and Ministers voted against it, but I again urge them to consider the proposal. We know we are in a cash-constrained environment—we hear every day from Ministers, not least the Chancellor, about how little money there is—but savings can be found in this area, and we can invest them back into our most vulnerable children.
My final proposal for Ministers, which the Minister has heard me talk about before, is that for our most complex children, we need a national body for SEND to fund those with exceptionally high needs who face a postcode lottery of provision across the country, and pose a particular risk to local authorities where those needs arise. That body could also have oversight of standards and budgets across the country.
I know that SEND is high on the Minister’s agenda. We are still waiting to hear how the £1 billion announced in the Budget will be allocated, but I fear that, given the £2.7 billion of local authority SEND deficits, it will disappear into a black hole. We have been promised reforms later this year, but our children cannot afford to wait. Children missing out on an education will never get that time back. Every child, no matter their needs or background, should be given the opportunity to thrive and fulfil their potential, yet too many children with SEND are simply not getting that right now.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate. As Members have said, we seem to discuss SEND in this House pretty much on a weekly basis, and rightly so.
I am the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and I do cross-party work with colleagues in this Chamber and beyond to ensure the experiences of constituents are heard in this place. I, too, have a number of special schools in my constituency—both state and independent.
Hon. Members will have to forgive me for not talking about every single contribution that was made today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comments about sensory and calming rooms, and I hope the Minister will take them into account. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose commitment to education in his constituency is obvious. I hope the Minister will consider the statutory changes that he asked for. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), whose moving and heartbreaking story touched us all and will have resonance with all our constituents.
Clearly, special educational needs and disabilities are extraordinarily important. That casework fills my postbag, and a lot of it comes from my predecessors, which demonstrates how long some of these cases can go on for. The Conservative Government’s reforms, through the Children and Families Act 2014, marked a significant shift in raising awareness, changing the narrative and addressing educational shortfalls in the system that, under a previous Administration, had failed to adequately make legislative changes for SEND children. The Act created EHCPs, a vital tool for allowing parents to receive the support that they need for their children in the education system.
Only a minority of SEND pupils actually have an EHCP. According to data from the Department for Education for 2023-24, 1.6 million pupils in England had SEND conditions. Of those, 1.2 million received SEND support without an EHCP, meaning that 400,000 had an EHCP. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: in her plans, what happens to the other 75% of SEND pupils?
Nearly 17% of independent school pupils are receiving SEND support, but only 6% of those have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners that:
“Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.”
Will the Minister confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent system who receive SEND support with no formal EHCP are not included in her plans, as the Prime Minister outlined in June?
The 2014 Act was a step change. Now, we need a further step change from this Government. In the Public Accounts Committee’s recently published inquiry into the SEND emergency, it was revealed that the Department for Education does not fully understand the root causes behind the surge in demand for EHCPs. In my area, between 2019 and 2024, EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire—well above the national average. In the Committee’s inquiry, the Department admitted that it had not adequately examined the barriers to promoting inclusivity in mainstream schools.
That is particularly concerning for the three SEND schools in my constituency—the Ridgeway school, Hollywater school, which is currently expanding due to Hampshire county council’s funding, and the Abbey school —which are now under extreme pressure from the exodus of children, once educated in the independent sector, who are now entering the mainstream system. I am also worried by the lack of provision and support given to independent special educational schools, which is affecting three schools in my constituency: More House, Undershaw and Pathways. Those three schools educate nearly 1,000 children with complex SEND needs, and, without these independent schools, my local state schools will crumble under the pressure.
While the Government’s £1 billion for SEND is entirely welcome—this funding injection will be a positive boost for local authorities—we have seen that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education are not listening to those parents of children who do not have an EHCP and are educated in the independent sector. Therefore, I ask the Minister—
Gregory Stafford
I am under a lot of time pressure, and I want the proposer of the motion to be able to get in, so I will not. I have to leave time for the Minister too, and I really want to hear her answers to my questions.
As I was saying, I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that she has engaged with parents and teachers in this situation. And what steps is she taking to ensure that vulnerable children do not suffer the greatest because of this Government’s policy?
Despite the—I have to say—utter nonsense we heard from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), the Conservative Government launched a review of the SEND system in 2019 to end the postcode lottery, and committed an extra £700 million in the year 2020-21, an 11% increase on the year prior. Moreover, to ensure that children and young people received the most appropriate support for their needs, the national SEND and alternative provision implementation board was established.
Gregory Stafford
I am not going to give way, sorry. That created a national system with new, clear standards under the Green Paper, and a consultation that set out the Conservatives’ commitment to delivering the support that children with SEND truly need.
To oversee those vital changes, the SEND system leadership board brought together sector leaders across education, health and social care to drive improvements. The Local Government Association has warned, however, that without proper reform, SEND provision will deteriorate and become financially unviable. A 2024 National Audit Office report echoed those concerns, highlighting the 140% rise in EHCPs since 2015 and warning that the system will become financially unsustainable if unchanged.
Information from the Children and Young People Select Committee last year indicated that there were 2,784 children and young people waiting for autism and ADHD assessments in East Hampshire in my constituency, with waiting times averaging around two years. During that time, children and their families are unable to access the necessary provisions, and that negatively affects their quality of life and puts pressure on local schools. That situation increases the risk of adverse outcomes in educational attainment, mental health and future employment.
I am working closely with local organisations such as SEN Talk CIC, which is a charity founded by a constituent of mine. I have seen its profound impact: 92% of children participating in its programmes report a positive change in their lives, and 80% gain valuable lifelong skills. That is just one of the great initiatives that support many children in my constituency, particularly SEND pupils who are home educated. Although home education is not right for every child, it is a fundamental right that is employed by parents across the UK to give them a hands-on approach to their children’s education.
I have spoken to Kate from Nurtured Neuro Kids and others who have expressed their considerable concerns about the impact that the Government’s rushed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will have on SEND children who are educated from home. They are very upset by the lack of positive acknowledgment from the Education Secretary of the important work that they do to take the strain from the mainstream system, and the lack of consultation or consideration for Conservative amendments that would have protected their work. It is therefore important for constituents such as Kate to be assured that the Government will take steps to ensure that all children with speech and language needs get the help they deserve.
It is clearly a wise and welcome decision for the Government to continue the Nuffield early language intervention programme, which provides crucial support to children with speech and language needs. We must acknowledge, however, that there remains significant disparity in access to funding and support, regardless of the region or the individual specialist needs of the child. Every child who struggles with speech and language must have access to support, regardless of where they live.
Despite a relatively collegiate debate, a number of Members—I pick out the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Gloucester—have seen fit to blame the Conservative record and point out Conservative councils’ record in this area. Of the three councils with the highest appeal rates for EHCPs, however, two are Liberal Democrat and one is Labour, so I gently say to Government Members that this is a nationwide problem. Rather than point scoring, it would be better for hon. Members to work together, so that those unfair decisions, and the impact they have on families, are quickly resolved. The comments from the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) were particularly uncharitable. I point out to him that in the spring Budget statement, the last Government committed to 15 special schools, with which this Government are not continuing.
I urge the Minister to address the root causes of the problems in the SEND system, including funding and the decision to tax independent schools. Proper reform of the system, including reform of the EHCP process, would give children a proper educational choice. Without it, we risk what the Public Accounts Committee called a “lost generation of children”.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to leave a minute or so at the end, so that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal can wind up.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this incredibly important debate, and on the way in which she set out her constituents’ case. Like many other hon. Members in the Chamber, she clearly has a keen interest in the support and services that are made available to children and young people with SEND.
I also thank hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for recognising that work is needed to put right the terrible situation currently faced by far too many children in the system, and that we need to improve it. Doing so is a vital part of the Government’s opportunity mission. We want to break the link between background and opportunity, and that means giving every child, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, the very best start in life.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
On the point about giving children the best start at the earliest stage, what are the Minister’s thoughts on properly integrating family hubs into education, health and local authorities, to ensure seamless support for children with SEND?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government are committed to expanding the work of the family hubs to ensure that every community has support to create that earliest intervention. Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of early intervention. We agree that it is vital, but I will come to that in more detail. She tempts me down a different path from the one I was going down.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that addressing challenges in the SEND system is a priority for me, for the Department for Education and for the Government. We recognise that this is a whole-Government effort, including the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. Many hon. Members raised challenges around school transport. It is a priority to fix that system and get the best outcomes for every child. I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that I would be delighted to visit her constituency, which I hope can be arranged.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
More than one in three SEND children in Oldham is diagnosed with autism or a neurodivergent condition, which is above the national average. We know that there are implications for educational attainment and work. Has there been an assessment of the increase in children with autism or neurodivergent conditions? If so, what were its conclusions?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The additional recognition of special educational needs and disabilities has highlighted not only the extent of the challenge to ensure the best offer for all children, including those with SEND, but that we should give every child the best education, regardless of their special educational needs and disabilities. Our ability to identify aids us to have the infrastructure and support in place to ensure that every child has the best start in life. I will talk in more detail about how we do that, as many hon. Members have asked.
We have reached the point of recognising the challenge, although the surprising contribution of the Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), was a caveat to that. In the context of this debate, where we recognise that there is a shared challenge, his contribution seemed to skip from 2014 to the present day, as though the previous 10 years had not happened. It bore no recognition of that, despite his former Secretary of State for Education, Gillian Keegan, acknowledging that the system presided over in the10 years prior to 2024 was “lose, lose, lose”. I agree that we should not be arguing about who created the challenges; we should be getting down and resolving the challenges together. I did not think that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was respectful of the positive contributions that other Members from both sides of the House had made.
Alex McIntyre
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having the confidence and courage to accept interventions, unlike some hon. Members. Does she agree that the shadow Minister’s comments showed how out of touch the Conservative party is? Parents have been in tears in my surgeries due to the system that the Conservatives left behind.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I am happy to take interventions, but I have to cover a lot of issues that hon. Members have raised. I hope that, in the time we have left, I have the opportunity to do so.
I know we all agree that every child deserves the opportunity to achieve, thrive and succeed. Where possible, as highlighted by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), that should be within a mainstream setting with their friends. However, we are aware that there are significant challenges currently in achieving that. That is why we are prioritising early intervention, which a number of hon. Members have raised, and inclusive provision within mainstream settings.
We know that providing early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating and supports children to achieve their goals and thrive alongside their peers. We are really committed to working to deliver that for every child in every community. We are doing so by increasing high needs funding by £1 billion, which brings the total funding to £11.9 billion. Suffolk county council is allocated £124 million through the high needs funding block. That is an increase of £10.3 million and a 9% increase per head for two to 18-year-olds.
We know that the high needs funding formula needs to be looked at. It has been largely unchanged because we needed to prioritise making sure that we create a fair funding system, and direct funding to where it is needed and can make the biggest impact. That is why we are allocating funding towards capital to ensure that we have places available where they are needed. The £740 million of high needs capital can be used by local authorities—we will announce the allocations in due course—to deliver new places within mainstream settings, special schools and other specialist settings, and to improve the suitability and accessibility of current buildings. It will also help to tackle the issue of transport, which many hon. Members have raised. If we have mainstream availability of specialist support within a local community, there will be no need to travel such distances.
Catherine McKinnell
I am sorry; I will not be able to respond to hon. Members’ queries and concerns if I give way again.
EHCP timeliness was raised by a number of hon. Members, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), whose contribution was excellent, and the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). We monitor the timeliness of ECHPs, but there is a balance to be struck between issuing them within the timeframes required, which we need to see, and making sure that they achieve the outcome that we want—namely, better opportunities for the children that they are intended to serve. We will continue to monitor that and work with local authorities to improve it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal will be aware of the key role that alternative provision settings such as pupil referral units play in supporting vulnerable children and young people with SEND. We want them to work together with mainstream settings to make sure that we have targeted interventions and support to improve behaviour and attendance and to reduce the risk of exclusions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin raised.
Speech and language is an important opportunity to intervene at the earliest possible stage for children. We know that children need to find their voice and that an increasing number of children are starting school without having had the support to do that previously. That is why we have prioritised the early language and support for every child programme. We are trialling new and better ways to ensure that we can reach communication needs in early years and primary schools.
I am very conscious of time. I want to let the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) know that I take on board the concerns that he raised. The abuse that he described is abhorrent and disturbing, and not within the current regulations or rules. We are running a consultation on the use of reasonable force, which is open until 29 April 2025 and contributions are welcome.
I am afraid that I have to draw to a close. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed; they made the case for their constituents well. I recognise the work of all those in our education, health and care systems who work with our children and young people with SEND in Suffolk and across the country. We need to deliver the very best for our children and young people, and to give them the best start in life. I am sure that, together, with this determined effort, we can do that.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the Minister for her comments. It is great to hear that this issue continues to be a national priority. Members on both sides of the House will continue to work with the Government to ensure that each of our regions can deliver and help to fulfil that goal. I thank all hon. Members for contributing and look forward to welcoming them to Suffolk Coastal to see it at first hand.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered SEND education support.
Affordable Rural Housing
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I call Olivia Bailey to move the motion. 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 in a 30-minute debate. I call Olivia Bailey.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of affordable rural housing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am delighted to have secured this important debate, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and my hon. Friend the Minister over the next 30 minutes.
My Reading West and Mid Berkshire constituency boasts the very best of the English countryside. We have many beautiful rural villages and hamlets, many nestled in the north Wessex downs national landscape, formerly known as an area of outstanding natural beauty. They are villages full of families who have lived there for generations, but unfortunately villages now under threat due to a lack of affordable housing. There are many barriers to affordable housing in those villages: some are a consequence of the national landscape designation, but others are a consequence of a lack of political will. In west Berkshire people have been let down by Conservative and then Liberal Democrat administrations that offer warm words about the future of our villages, but are unwilling to take the action necessary and do the hard work to secure not massive developments in our villages, but small developments, with the support of the community, of houses at an affordable price.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. This is a massive subject for my constituents, as it is for hers. For those who have lived in the countryside, who were born in the countryside and whose grannies, granddads and great grannies all live in the countryside, when it comes to affordable houses they have a real problem. Does she agree that perhaps we need legislation to ensure that those who are born in the countryside can stay in the countryside, in housing that is affordable for them?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member; I agree that this is about keeping generations of families together and I will talk more about that later in my speech.
As I said, people have been let down by Conservative and then Liberal Democrat administrations, which have been bodging the local plan process, trying to pass the buck and avoid the hard work needed to secure the vibrant villages that we were promised.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In response to what the hon. Lady has just said, I would like to congratulate the Liberal Democrat-led South Hams district council, which has just contributed £623,000 to support a community housing project that will offer 39 new energy-efficient, 100% social rented homes for people with a local connection, including a community garden and orchard and a community building that will be delivered once the homes are complete. Does she agree that that is the kind of development that we need to see?
Olivia Bailey
I am delighted that the hon. Member has had an opportunity to congratulate her council, and I thank her for her intervention.
With a lack of supply come skyrocketing house prices. In the five years to 2022, house prices in the countryside increased at close to twice the rate of those in urban areas. We need only look at the nine houses currently for sale in Upper Basildon in my constituency: four are on the market for more than £1.25 million and only one at under half a million pounds. Across the villages in my constituency, there are very few properties available for private rent, and the small number that are available are simply unaffordable for many.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Twigg. In North Warwickshire, private rents grew to an average of £898 in January this year—an increase of 11% from the previous year. Young people are prevented from starting their careers in North Warwickshire because those rent increases are unaffordable, and many of my young constituents are having to move away because of the lack of affordable housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that increased rental costs and a lack of social housing in rural areas prevent local economic growth and pose insurmountable challenges for young families in our rural areas?
Olivia Bailey
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Simply put, these costs price people out of the community. One constituent in Bradfield shared her story with me. Her daughter would love to be able to stay in the village that she grew up in, but there are no affordable houses that are the right size for her young family. Eventually, she is likely to have to move away—a story repeated across my constituency.
Without affordable housing, schools close because there are not enough children to fill a class; pubs shut their doors because there are not enough punters to buy pints; and services for the elderly stop operating because there is nobody to volunteer. We simply cannot have a community without people, and those people need affordable homes.
I am delighted that the Government are committed to building the housing we need and to boosting home ownership, providing over £5 billion total housing investment in 2025-26 and a £500 million top-up to the affordable homes programme, and building an ambitious 1.5 million homes with the infrastructure that they need. I am also pleased that the Government are paying particular attention to housing in rural communities, giving local authorities flexible but ambitious targets for affordable housing development, recognising the value of rural exception sites and community-led development, and committing to look at how national policy can promote affordable rural housing.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Twigg. In my constituency we have some villages, such as Dent, where 40% of the homes are second homes or Airbnb-type short-term lets. I also have concerns for Morecambe, with the Eden Project coming there. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at the licensing and regulation of short-term lets as part of the solution to the rural housing crisis?
Olivia Bailey
I am pleased that the Government are acting to level the playing field for first-time buyers, and I am sure that the Minister will elaborate further on that in his statement today.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. Similarly, in my constituency, the county council has built just 15,000 homes since 2013 and only 3,700 affordable homes, yet 2,000 people are in urgent need of housing. I am also delighted by this Government’s commitment to building 1.5 million homes, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that it would be fantastic to see an allocation within that for rural areas in the country.
Olivia Bailey
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we need more affordable housing in our rural areas; that is what I am seeking to address with this debate.
I will focus first on rural exception sites, which allow the delivery of small developments of affordable housing on the edges of rural communities, solely for local people. The role of rural housing enablers to deliver those are crucial, and I consider Connecting Communities in Berkshire to be the gold standard there. The team works in partnership with developers, landowners, local authorities, parish councils and local people to try to build truly affordable housing in rural exception sites. It is currently working to deliver affordable housing in Beenham, identifying housing need and suitable land in partnership with the parish council and the local community.
The Government are committed to funding the rural housing enabler programme until the end of March, and I know my constituents would welcome an update on its future from the Minister today. More widely, I also ask the Minister to provide an update on how he plans to promote exception sites as he prepares to consult on national development management policies in the coming months.
We also need to consider the impact of affordable and social housing stock being sold off by developers and moving out of the hands of the local community. I welcome the Government’s focus on the needs of social renters in the revised national planning policy framework and the commitment to explore how national policy can support social housing.
Sadly, constituents have shared with me that Sovereign, which owns a significant proportion of social housing in West Berkshire, has been selling off older properties in West Berkshire’s villages, which means that swathes of perfectly usable social housing stock is going into the private sector to be sold or rented at unaffordable prices. Housing that could be offered for social rent to local people who cannot afford to buy in their village is now being bought up and taken out of the community. I share the frustration of parish councils, who are working to increase the amount of affordable housing available through developing rural exception sites, when they see a social landlord putting existing affordable properties in the village up for sale. Will the Minister consider this particular problem as he consults on national policy to support the delivery of social housing?
Rural communities in Reading West and Mid Berkshire are at a turning point. They desperately need affordable housing in their local areas and they finally have a Labour Government laser-focused on delivering the housing that this country needs, focusing on policy reforms that enable local authorities to build the affordable homes that will keep communities together and supporting the work of organisations such as Connecting Communities in Berkshire and local parish councils such as Beenham. These communities need a local council to match that ambition.
I look forward to working with the Lib Dems in West Berkshire council to deliver vibrant villages, ending the era of bodged planning processes, internal politics and inaction, the era of being aware of the issue and acknowledging that something must be done, but being unwilling to take the action to tackle it. I am incredibly optimistic that we can achieve that, having seen the brilliant work that people in my constituency are doing to secure the future of their villages. I am confident that this Labour Government can and will deliver for them. From Beech Hill to Mortimer, from Beenham to Compton, from Hampstead Norreys to East and West llsley, and from Upper Bucklebury to Upper Basildon, we can build the affordable housing that is so vital for these beautiful villages to continue thriving far into the future.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
May I just check that the Member has sought permission to speak?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
indicated assent.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this debate on the important topic of the affordability of housing in our rural communities. I represent a seaside community; around 30% of my constituency is coastal villages, where we acutely feel the pressures of the rural housing crisis. As other Members have spoken about, our community has seen the rise of Airbnbs and second homes, putting on real pressure and pushing up rental prices and house prices in our community. We have not seen enough affordable homes built in our communities. The situation now facing our villages and rural areas is that many young people find that they cannot afford to live in the villages they grew up in and are forced to move away from family.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
My constituency faces a chronic lack of housing as well, which disproportionately impacts young people; they face a future where they cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up. Some 8.4% of all residential properties in the dales are not the primary homes of residents. Does my hon. Friend recognise the significant impact that second homes and holiday lets have on housing supply and prices in rural areas?
Helena Dollimore
That is a pressure that many of our rural communities face. There is definitely a contribution that holiday lets can make to the local tourism economy, but many of us agree that we need to get the right balance between supporting tourism and providing homes for local families.
It is so often the case that many local people in the rural areas of my constituency cannot afford to rent or buy in the areas they grew up in and are forced to move further away. We also see that, when developments do happen in those villages, too often new-build developments are given the green light with zero affordable homes on those sites. Just last year, in Peasmarsh in my constituency, 41 homes were given the green light on a greenfield site, with zero affordable homes. We see developers using loopholes around viability to wriggle out of their responsibility to deliver affordable housing, and too often councillors feel that their hands are tied by the current legislation. I urge the Government, as part of the reforms to the planning system, to ensure we stop developers getting away with wriggling out of their responsibility to deliver affordable homes.
It is also clear that, with the right focus and the right local leadership, we can get this right. I draw attention to a brilliant local community-led housing scheme in Icklesham, a small village in my constituency just outside Hastings. The village came together to form the Icklesham Parish Community Land Trust and built 15 housing units for local people, all for social rent. If a village the size of Icklesham can do it—let me tell hon. Members, it is a very small area; I would be delighted to welcome the Minister there—anywhere can deliver affordable social housing, whether rural or urban. That is what we need to build on.
As we move forward with the vital mission of building 1.5 million homes under this Labour Government, we must ensure that our rural communities see the benefit and that developers cannot wriggle out of their commitments to deliver affordable housing.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. She has only been in the House a relatively short time, but she has already established a reputation as a doughty champion of her constituency. Those she has the privilege of representing should be reassured by the fact that she has already assiduously conveyed their views and concerns to Ministers on a range of matters, including the one we are considering today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) and others who have made contributions to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire raised a number of distinct issues on the provision of affordable rural housing and I will seek to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available to me. Before I do, I would like to make some brief remarks about planning reform and the role of the planning system in delivering homes of all kinds and meeting identified need for affordable housing, as a means of providing some important context.
It is not in dispute in this Chamber, I do not think, that the Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, or that significantly boosting the supply of homes of all tenures is essential to tackling it. That is why we acted decisively to overhaul the national planning policy framework last year, to revise the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of pro-growth measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. I think it is true that all of us would like to see more affordable housing delivered for our constituents, but does the Minister agree that top-down housing targets for all areas of the United Kingdom are not always suitable? I am thinking of my own constituency on the Isle of Wight, where on average we deliver 300 homes a year and are committed, through our local plan, to deliver 450. The Government are asking us to deliver 1,000. Does the Minister agree that there have to be some areas of the United Kingdom where the standard method does not apply?
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We think the changes we have introduced and the revised standard method are appropriate. Every part of the country will need to play its part in achieving our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes across the country. That is the scale of ambition we need commensurate with the crisis we face, and that crisis affects every part of England.
The Government believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. Local plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system and we are determined to progress towards universal coverage. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local plan or how her local planning authority may interpret national planning policy due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but there is merit in me making some general comments on plan making in local authority areas that overlap with national landscapes, as is the case in her own area.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, taking into account a range of considerations. That includes fully exploring the role of planning conditions and developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development or support infrastructure provision as appropriate.
When it comes to plan making, local authorities are expected to use the revised standard method to assess housing needs. However, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, but also protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt. They are then expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local planning consultation. An examination of their approach will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and the plan is sound.
I turn to the focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks—namely, the case for supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people, and in particular for boosting the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government are committed to doing so, and it was a pleasure to have the chance to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend last month. It cannot be right that, as a number of hon. Members said, young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages in which they grew up. That harms not only them and their families but the vibrancy and long-term viability of rural communities.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the most important policies that we can look at in planning reform to deliver genuinely affordable homes in rural communities are a bold approach to land reform, the abolition of hope value and the reform of compulsory purchase orders to allow our local planning authorities to assemble the land that we need in our rural communities?
Matthew Pennycook
As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, we have already brought into force a discretionary power to disapply hope value in certain instances where a public interest test could be met. We are committed, through the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, to bring forward further reform of the compulsory purchase process and compensation, so he can look forward to seeing more action in that area.
National policy makes it clear that local authorities should ensure that their planning policies and decisions respond to local circumstances and support housing that reflects local needs. That includes promoting sustainable development in local areas and ensuring that housing is located where it will maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and flourish, especially where that will support local services. We also want more affordable housing in rural areas, as part of our manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We have already taken steps to support the delivery of affordable rural housing. For example, our golden rules for green-belt development—which ensure an affordable housing contribution 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%—will unlock new affordable housing provision in a range of rural locations.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the Minister say a few words about the massive change in our lifetimes? Doctors, policemen and teachers had houses owned by their local authority body, and they have now been sold. That pressure is continuing. Does he think we should go back to that to ensure that people can work in those sectors?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the hon. Gentleman is making a wider point. I am not sure what specific legislative provision he is referring to in the past. There is a very clear place for ensuring we are building the right types of homes in all parts of the country, including homes that support key workers and other frontline public sector staff, and I am more than happy to discuss that matter with him outside the Chamber.
The Government have been clear that we want to look further at measures to support affordable housing in rural areas. That is why we asked a question on that issue as part of the consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework last year. The responses we received are informing our ongoing work in relation to producing a set of national policies for decision making—national development management policies, as they were referred to under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire a firm date today, I can assure her and other hon. Members that we will consult on those policies in the spring, as promised, and I will update the House in due course.
My hon. Friend also knows that, since taking office, the Government have provided additional grant funding to support the delivery of affordable homes in all parts of England. At the Budget on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor set out details of an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. On 12 February 2025, the Government announced a further cash injection of £300 million to the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver a further 2,800 new homes, more than half of which will be for social rent.
At the multi-year spending review this year, the Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We know that delivering affordable housing in rural places can be especially challenging. There are particular challenges that come with the delivery of sites in rural areas, so that is one of the factors that will be taken into consideration in the design of the future capital investment programme, which will succeed the existing one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire might also like to know that, to provide additional support for rural housing delivery in settlements with populations of fewer than 3,000 people, Homes England has developed a rural housing strategy and has dedicated rural housing champions in each of its operating areas.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the significant contribution that can be made by rural exception sites. As she is aware, these allow local authorities to address the housing needs of rural communities by creating sites where local residents, and others with a strong family or employment connection, can live in affordable homes and in perpetuity. Rural exception sites tend to be just outside village boundaries, where housing is not normally granted permission, so it is possible to create them even in the green belt or designated rural areas. We recognise the strong support for rural exception sites and the potential for strengthening this policy. That is why we made clear in our response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that we are giving further consideration to how we can better support rural affordable housing, including through use of exception sites. That will include consideration of how we can drive greater uptake of rural exception sites and introduce a more streamlined approach. Again, I will set out details about our thinking in due course.
I will take forward this work with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including by considering the role that rural housing enablers play in supporting rural affordable housing. My hon. Friend mentioned a case in her own constituency. Again, I am afraid that I cannot give her any firm assurances in this debate in respect of ongoing funding because that is subject to the Government’s ongoing business planning, but I can assure her that we will provide an update at the earliest possible opportunity.
I want to briefly reference a couple of issues that hon. Members raised, as I have the time. The first is the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire of developers and housing associations—in her case, Sovereign—selling off much-needed social and affordable homes in rural areas. She might like to know that when and if grant-funded homes are sold or part-sold, there is a system in place to recover Government grants through the recycled capital grant fund. That means that the cash value of the grant is placed in a fund to be used for further investment in new affordable housing supply. I am more than happy to discuss with her the specific issues with Sovereign in her own constituency.
Briefly, on short-term lets and the existing developer contribution system, Members across the House will know that we have debated this issue at length on various occasions. We are committed to taking forward the previous Government’s measures—a registration scheme for short-term lets and the abolition of the furnished holiday lettings scheme, which comes into force on 1 April—but we have been clear that that is not enough and we are giving very considered thought to what further powers local authorities need, in particular, though there is a balance to be struck, to deal with excessive concentrations of short-term lets that often deny local people not only homes to buy but, increasingly, homes to rent.
On section 106 contributions, we are reviewing viability and we are committed to strengthening the existing section 106 system, in lieu of taking forward the previous Government’s approach, which was an infrastructure levy. When taking those reforms forward, we need to ensure that local authorities are better able to negotiate at the point that those agreements are reached and are then able to ensure that developers honour the commitments that they make in those agreements, when struck.
In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire for securing this important debate, giving the House an opportunity to consider a range of important issues relating to affordable rural housing supply.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not—I am just winding up, I am afraid.
I hope that I have not only conveyed the Government’s firm support for delivering much-needed affordable housing in rural areas, but reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire and others that I am actively considering what further measures are necessary to ensure that we do so while balancing the need to ensure that development is sustainable and appropriate. I hope I can continue to draw on the insights provided by my hon. Friend and other colleagues, as the Government continue to develop their thinking in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Groceries Code Adjudicator
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
There is a deep unfairness at the heart of our food system. That unfairness stems from the power imbalance between producers and retailers. At one end, the retailers we buy our food from are making huge profits. Last year, the big four supermarkets saw a 97% increase in their profits: Tesco made £2.3 billion, Asda made £1.1 billion and Sainsbury’s made £701 million. That is enough to convince anyone that there is enough money in the till to go around.
As we know, food prices have soared since 2022, yet Welsh farming incomes are actually falling. That is a sign of a food system that generates huge profits for the supermarkets and the big retailers, while the producers at the other end suffer what they must. Farmers and growers carry the risks of food production but do not receive a fair share of the rewards. The people who grow our food deserve to earn a decent living. That is why the Liberal Democrats will keep campaigning to level the metaphorical playing field for farmers.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Groceries Code Adjudicator was established by my party, the Liberal Democrats, during that sad time in Government. It was an extremely important achievement designed to protect the interests of farmers and food producers. Some hon. Members will know of my background as a director of the National Farmers Union, and my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead is home to some 1,600 farmers. In recognising that farmers are the lifeblood of the rural economy, would my hon. Friend agree that the GCA’s resources and scope must be expended to ensure it can exercise its investigative powers and correct the imbalance between our farmers and the big supermarket chains?
David Chadwick
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the achievements of the Liberal Democrats in power, particularly the fact that we have a long record of standing up for rural communities. The physical hills that Welsh farmers have to climb are getting steeper. Energy and fertiliser costs are rising, subsidy schemes are changing and farm incomes are falling. To make matters worse, the Government’s family farm tax threatens to further strain their livelihoods. Those are just a few of the battles that farmers face. Their industry deserves a fair market, and it is for that reason that the Liberal Democrats introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator during the coalition years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is absolutely right to refer to the importance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. In my constituency of Strangford, we are blessed to have many local suppliers and farmers, which have created jobs and opportunity. They supply to large shops and supermarkets, and are very much an integral part of the community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to ensure fair treatment, and to ensure that local suppliers can take advantage of fair payment and commission terms? We need fair play—and we need fair prices for the products we produce.
David Chadwick
Absolutely. We need greater transparency down the entire supply chain and fair conditions for everyone involved in the food system. The GCA was established in response to multiple scandals where large supermarkets used their market power to take advantage of local producers. It has helped to improve fairness in the food supply chain. Since its introduction in 2014, the Groceries Code Adjudicator has made significant progress, and the number of issues around the treatment of farmers by supermarkets and retailers has fallen. It is my belief, and that of many farmers and producers that I represent, that the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be strengthened and better resourced, and its remit expanded if we are to ensure fairness in our supply chain.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he has come to a very important part of the debate. First, we need proper resourcing of the GCA as it currently exists. Secondly, there is a structural problem with the accountability chain here. The GCA effectively governs the relationship between the middle link, the processors and distributors and the supermarkets. The Agriculture Act 2020 deals with primary producers in that middle link. What we need now, surely, as well as extra resources, is a process by which the whole thing can be rewired together.
David Chadwick
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly. He will be aware that the levy that supermarkets pay to fund the Groceries Code Adjudicator has not been increased since 2018, despite the massive increases in food prices and supermarket profits since then.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In November 2024, research by Riverford Organic Farmers, based in my constituency of South Devon, showed that 61% of farmers are concerned that they will not be operating within the next year but only 25% of them believe the claims that the big six grocers support British farmers. Would my hon. Friend agree that the big six need to do more to support our farming sector?
David Chadwick
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right to highlight the power imbalance between the producers and the retailers. It is quite right that she also focuses on the important research that has been done on this topic by organisations like Riverford. The evidence they have provided has been crucial in helping us push forward the campaign for fairer prices for producers.
It is my belief, and that of many farmers and producers I represent, that the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be strengthened, better resourced, and its remit expanded if we are to ensure fairness in our supply chain.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
As the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) mentioned, Welsh Government figures show that income fell for Welsh farmers by 34% between April 2023 and March 2024 and the dairy income by 59%. Does he believe we should safeguard all future food production in Wales? Welsh farmers should be able to rely on a fair deal for the products and, as Elfyn Llwyd called for 10 years ago, the regulatory bodies should be made to support that.
David Chadwick
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the plight of Welsh farmers. Their livelihoods are under threat. That is why it is so important that we ensure greater fairness in the supply chain for them, to ensure that they get a fair price for what they produce, and that the Government are fully aware of the impact the tax changes they wish to make will have on the rural communities we represent.
Rural communities are really suffering at the moment. We know that constituencies like my own are losing thousands of young people every year because there are fewer and fewer jobs to go around. The long-term consequences of that are terminal. That is why it is so important that we ensure that farming, the engine of the rural economy, continues to generate profit and jobs throughout the rural economy.
The GCA has improved the rights of farmers, but producers still report bullying behaviour by major suppliers. Just a few examples of the ongoing mistreatment of producers: a delay in payments—sometimes farmers and producers are not paid for up to and sometimes exceeding 45 days; no compensation for forecasting errors; de-listing; changes to orders placed and orders eventually accepted. It is a story of David versus Goliath.
With six major buyers and 14 retailers covered by the GCA, the supermarkets have often been accused of using their collective buying power to force thousands of farmers and producers to plough on with prices that have fallen below the cost of production. Supermarkets helped themselves to a 97% surge in profits in the last year alone. They passed on higher prices to customers during the inflationary crisis, yet they are not handing on a fair share of that to producers.
I am raising this issue after a local farmer told me how a supermarket went back on its pledge to buy animals he had spent years rearing, leaving him at a loss. That is not a small loss for a local farmer. The costs involved in raising livestock to maturity are immense, and the losses when supermarkets change their mind are damaging to local producers. A recent survey on behalf of Riverford found that 45% of farmers feared going out of business, with 75% of those asked saying that treatment by supermarket buyers was one of their top concerns. Research from Sustain has found that only 5% of farmers want to sell to supermarkets due to having little say over prices and not enough connection to shoppers.
The consequences of unfair practices extend far beyond individual farms. The UK’s food security is at risk when farmers are unable to make a living from their work. As more farmers are forced out of business, we become increasingly reliant on imported food, which can be subject to price fluctuations and supply chain disruptions. This brings me to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. While the GCA and the groceries supply code of practice—I will refer to this as the code—are highly regarded among farmers and the rest of the industry, I often hear from local producers in my constituency that they feel that the GCA does not have all the powers it needs to fully level the playing field between farmers, producers and retailers.
Beyond powers, there remains work to be done on increasing awareness of the GCA among farmers. Although awareness of the GCA and its roles has increased since 2014, it has stalled recently, and a significant number of producers still do not fully understand its role. More worryingly, many farmers still feel reprisals for reporting breaches of the code. A staggering 67% of farmers have reported fearing being de-listed should they speak out about unfair practice by supermarkets. That means that there is almost certainly an under-reporting of incidents to the GCA, which undermines its effectiveness.
More needs to be done to improve confidence in the system for producers and to enable the GCA to instil understanding and trust in its role. That also extends to the requirement for the GCA to have received a complaint to launch a report. People I speak to in the industry would like the GCA to have the ability to launch its own investigations without having to wait for a farmer to report malpractice first. An example of using that power in practice could be launching an investigation into the recent issues with Amazon or concerns over the chicken meat supply chain.
The parameters of the GCA and the code are insufficient in an ever-changing food market. The inclusion of Amazon into the 14 suppliers covered by the GCA was a welcome move, but given Amazon’s low level of compliance with the code, it raises serious questions about whether other significant retailers who make less than £1 billion in revenue from the food system are falling through the gap. Likewise, there are serious concerns that food processors, packagers and manufacturers who act as the middle people between farmers and retailers are also falling through the gaps when it comes to regulation, despite collectively supplying over half of Britain’s food.
The GCA’s seven golden rules have been widely welcomed by the sector. To protect suppliers, the rules should be fully incorporated into the code, rather than only being guidelines. This needs to happen quickly, because suppliers are continuing to experience difficulties in cost price increase negotiations as a result of the ongoing inflation crisis we find ourselves in the middle of. The supermarkets are willing to use energy and fertiliser price inflation as justification for increasing prices for customers, but are seemingly unwilling to pay farmers a fair price that recognises those changes and the increased input costs for farmers.
The Government must strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the groceries code to ensure that we have true fairness across supply chains. First, the Government can improve the visibility of the GCA and awareness of its work. The GCA must give farmers the confidence to report issues and to know that they will be handled confidentially, especially as many farmers feel that they may be punished or blacklisted for making complaints. Secondly, the GCA only has seven members of staff, including the adjudicator himself, yet is responsible for regulating an industry worth billions of pounds.
The GCA’s reliance on temporary and seconded staff hinders its ability to enforce the code. Giving the GCA a dedicated staff team would allow it to respond effectively at all times and to build and retain specialist knowledge. Likewise, the GCA should not have to wait for a producer to report malpractice. If it suspects that retailers are not complying with the code, let it launch its own independent investigations.
We should also move to expand the remit, as over half of the food being supplied by packagers, processors, distributors and manufacturers and in several other key areas of the food supply chain still falls outside of the regulation. The seven golden rules have been rightly welcomed across the industry, but many concerns remain that those are only guidelines set by the GCA, rather than forming part of the code itself. Legally incorporating them into the code would help to ensure that producers are fully covered when it comes to reports of unfair cost-price negotiations.
Overall, the Groceries Code Adjudicator is improving the relationship between farmers and large retailers, but as our food market evolves, so too must the GCA. By expanding its remit, providing additional resources and enhancing its enforcement powers, the Government can ensure that the GCA truly works for farmers and producers, and ensures fairness in the food supply chain. Let’s give our food system the fair market it needs, let’s give our rural communities the support they need, and let’s make sure that the GCA remains a strong and effective safeguard for the future of our food system. I look forward to other hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for his fantastic speech. I draw the House’s attention to my role as the chair of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, which I thank for its helpful briefing.
As we have heard, the UK grocery sector is shaped to a large extent by the huge concentration of power in the hands of the major supermarket retailers, which are competing to achieve the lowest prices and the biggest profit margins on key goods, but there is a limit to suppliers’ ability to keep prices down through productivity, automation or cheaper input costs. The story that the hon. Member told was about the pressures faced by farmers, but there is also often a relentless downwards pressure on labour costs, which has led to attacks on the pay and conditions of workers employed across supply chains. This race to the bottom has resulted in a proliferation of low-paid and casualised jobs, and the growing exploitation of agency and migrant workers.
Surveys of food workers conducted by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union show that in-work poverty has spiralled in recent years, with food workers worrying about feeding themselves and their families. At the same time, staggeringly, the supermarket chains have continued to report huge profits and dividend payouts to their shareholders. We have also seen rocket and feather pricing: because of wholesale cost rises, the price of key items is increased excessively, but when those wholesale costs come down, the price on the shelf does not come down in tandem.
The role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is therefore an important one. The GCA has helped to tackle some of the most abusive practices, such as unreasonable short-notice terminations of contracts, abusive promotional practices and other failures of compliance with the code. But sadly, as it stands, the GCA cannot intervene to protect suppliers or consumers when it comes to supermarket pricing. This puts the short-term interests of shareholders above the wider public interest.
In this context, I have a few suggestions for the Minister to consider. First, the existing powers of the GCA should be incorporated within the remit of a new groceries regulatory authority, with a wider responsibility to protect the sustainability of UK suppliers and the interests of consumers. The new regulator should be given the power to introduce price floors and ceilings to protect suppliers and consumers from aggressive pricing tactics and exploitative price-gouging. Secondly, a sectoral collective bargaining framework for workers employed in the UK food supply chain should be restored and extended, to ensure decent pay and security. Finally, a statutory right to food should be introduced in UK legislation, to protect consumers and address the root causes of food insecurity.
I will finish by drawing Members’ attention to another matter of concern, which is the impact of private equity acquisitions on UK supermarket chains and food manufacturers. As FoodChain magazine recently put it,
“Under private equity ownership, the strategic focus often shifts towards short-term profitability, which can lead to decisions that are not always aligned with long-term market positioning. For example, cost-cutting measures may involve reducing staff, limiting store refurbishments, and cutting back on product variety.”
There are a couple of examples of major supermarket chains engaging in those practices recently, and many fear that it is just the tip of the iceberg. To that end, I would also be grateful if the Minister considered launching a joint investigation, across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business and Trade and the Competition and Markets Authority, about the impact of private equity acquisitions of UK grocery retailers on the security and sustainability of the UK food supply chain.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on an excellent and eloquent speech, which covered all the issues. I also thank the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for contributing very tellingly.
My background in this subject is that, from 2002, I chaired what was known as the Grocery Market Action Group, which had among its members the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, ActionAid, Traidcraft, Friends of the Earth and others. It was amazing to have such a disparate group of organisations in the same room, actually working together and agreeing 100% about the injustices and dysfunctionality of the way in which the grocery supply chain was operating.
We presented a range of evidence to the Competition Commission. That ultimately provoked an investigation in 2008, which resulted in the commission proposing the establishment of a groceries code to drive fair trade through the supply chain. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was created to enforce the code and ensure that it was applied by those supermarkets. In those days, only five had a turnover in excess of £1 billion, which was the recommendation of the Competition Commission at that stage.
Having done that, and having worked for over a decade to get the legislation through, I obviously have some skin in the game, which I probably need to declare. I am not trying to claim the credit myself, because it was a cross-party effort.
Andrew George
Well, I suppose I should—no, I will not. One stands on the shoulders of giants, and Colin Breed did a tremendous amount of work from 1997 to 2001. He produced an excellent report called “Checking out the Supermarkets”, which laid a lot of the groundwork for the Grocery Market Action Group. Albert Owen, David Drew and other Labour Members were also very supportive and active throughout those years. There was not always cross-party agreement, or even agreement within my own party, that we should intervene in the market in the way that was proposed. We had to win that argument, and ultimately we did.
At the end of the day, the justification for why the Groceries Code Adjudicator, or any kind of market intervention of that nature, was needed, was that, fundamentally, we had a dysfunctional supply chain operating largely to the benefit of the supermarkets. Not all of our agricultural sector was benefiting from European subsidies or any other public subsidies in those days, but it had become dependent on subsidies because the market was so dysfunctional that public money was needed to prop up the whole system. If we have a functioning market, one can enable the agricultural sector to free itself from dependence on public subsidy. That was largely what was behind what we were trying to do in those days.
When the Groceries Code Adjudicator was established and the code was created, the intention then was only that it would create a framework in which future Governments would review its progress and then build on the framework by introducing or reducing regulations. Certainly the framework was to provide the skeleton on which further developments could happen; of course one cannot anticipate all circumstances.
I want to follow up on the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe. There are a number of improvements that I hope the Government will look at very closely. For example, the code should be applied throughout the supply chain, not just to the direct supplier to the supermarket. It was never the intention of the Grocery Market Action Group that the adjudicator should look only at the final transaction between the ultimate supplier to the supermarket and the supermarket itself, because the impact of that contract could be fed right down through the supply chain.
The second point concerned third-country suppliers. The reason why Traidcraft, the Fairtrade Foundation and so on were involved is because they were rightly hoping that third countries could be involved. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said, the adjudicator could launch its own investigation on the basis of market intelligence. Finally, it could work alongside the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, for example, to use its intelligence to take matters forward. Fundamentally, we have a framework that can be developed and improved. It certainly should not depend on seconded staff. We do not get commitment to the cause if we depend entirely on seconded staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said. I hope the Minister will look carefully at this. Thank you very much, Mr Twigg, for allowing me to speak.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
We have just two more Members left to speak, but I want to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 5.08 pm.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this debate on such an important issue.
I spent the whole of last Monday during the recess visiting farms across my constituency, from the edge of Lichfield all the way up to Kingstone. Several of the dairy farmers I met last week raised with me, independently and without prompting, the need to see dairy processors covered by the groceries supply code of practice. Independently, they said that one of the things that we can do to encourage and improve profitability in dairy farming is to ensure that the code is applied to those processors—the middlemen who buy their milk from the farmers and sell it on to supermarkets.
The code is designed to ensure that farmers get a fair deal, but because it applies only to those retailers with an annual turnover of £1 billion or more, the 14 biggest supermarkets are covered but some third parties that supply the supermarkets are not in its scope. British farmers, whether they are dairy farmers or from any other part of the industry where there are different processes, must get that fair deal. That is what the code and the adjudicator were set up to establish, and we should ensure that we carry that forwards so that every single farmer gets a fair deal.
One thing that strikes me is that the NFU’s call to expand the coverage of the code by decreasing the turnover limit from £1 billion would mean that a lot of those processes would be covered. I am interested to hear the Minister’s remarks on that, because that is a non-fiscal intervention we can make that can drive profitability significantly in the farming sector and support the people who feed the nation.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) should not be so self-deprecating. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was brought about by an excellent piece of work and a good campaign. It was possibly the only thing of any worth that the Lib Dems did in government with the Conservatives.
I just want to make a couple of brief points because my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others have covered the ground very well. I am a member of the bakers union group, too, and in 2013 we welcomed the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. We met a few times to talk about the individual issues that occurred then. If hon. Members can remember, we raised the issue of low-cost production, particularly of bread, which was a result of supermarket pressure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford raised the issue of private equity. If we thought it was bad enough when there were individual supermarkets of sizeable status, we are now in a completely different world. Private equity is sweeping them up, exercising enormous power. I feel that the Government need to get ahead of the game. It is like the residential care sector before private equity took over and leveraged those individual companies. I can remember a number of them collapsing, and I think we are in exactly the same position here. That is why the call for an inquiry, bringing in all concerned partners, is invaluable. It is important to think through the implications and what regulation we can develop. The bakers union is calling for a new regulatory authority, because that would give more status and resources, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We need to understand the significance of what is happening in the field at the moment.
I want to make a second, brief point. The Minister here today is also responsible for the Employment Rights Bill that is going through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned low pay. The bakers union survey found that 80% of its members were struggling to get by on basics such as rent, heat and food. There is a scandal on sick pay in this sector. The survey found that 37% of workers have to rely on statutory sick pay alone when they go off sick. Staggeringly, 13% received no sick pay at all. As a result, I believe some are forced into working when they are sick, which is the last thing anyone wants in this sector. It is important that the issue of sick pay is addressed in the Employment Rights Bill, which I think most people will welcome. I know amendments on that are being tabled as we speak and, in this sector, it could have a direct impact on the wellbeing of workers.
Finally, if we are to move forward, from the bakers union perspective the establishment of a regulatory authority is critical. How it is made democratically accountable is also important. Along with the engagement of farmers and supermarkets, it is key that workers are involved and represented through the unions involved in this sector, so that we can plan a long-term strategy for food production that is not based on low pay or exploitation of farmers.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, I should say that I will call the Minister no later than 20 past. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for bringing this important issue to this place and for making an excellent speech.
There have been great speeches from all the speakers so far, with a number of interesting and useful interventions. The five hon. Members who have spoken all made good points that I want to endorse. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe spoke about imbalance in the market with large numbers of producers—1,500 farmers in my constituency alone and thousands across the country—and 12 retailers making up 95% of the sector. That is an incredible imbalance of power. Others have also referred to the greater depth to the industry in the supply chain than the Groceries Code Adjudicator is allowed to give credit for. My hon. Friend talked of the impact on farmers of potential delisting, the impact of late payments, having to pay for waste, and all the things that many have to struggle with.
The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) made a great speech, emphasising the power those retailers have in the market and its irrational nature, which leads to farmers and producers of all kinds going out of business just because the large, powerful entities who own our supermarkets can make that happen in order to maximise their own profits.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) absolutely deserves credit. I first heard the phrase “supermarket ombudsman” from his lips before I entered this place. When he was doing the job I am now doing—being the Liberal Democrats DEFRA spokesperson —he fought hard for that ombudsman, and that is the reason why, in the coalition agreement, what became the Groceries Code Adjudicator came to pass. It was introduced by Liberal Democrat Ministers including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), Vince Cable and Jo Swinson, who were involved in the Department.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) rightly talked about processors. They are significant and are often untouched by the arm of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the role of ownership in the sector and the unfairness that affects the workforce in the retail sector, as well as the producers who supply to it. There is an important point for us to remember here. Those who are at the wrong end of the abuse of power in the food supply chain are processors in broadly rural communities and workers in broadly urban communities; they have a lot more in common than we are sometimes allowed to think.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is one of the things that came from the coalition of which the Liberal Democrats can be rightly proud. It was motivated in no small part by the simple reality that many producers—many farmers—were being paid less than the cost of production for their produce. Most notably in my constituency in Westmorland, but elsewhere in the country, that means those working in the dairy sector, but there are many others besides.
As with all things in the coalition, there were compromises. Even the good things we got were often watered down and were not what they might have been had we had what will one day obviously happen, that is, a majority Liberal Democrat Government. There are three particular areas of weakness with the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which we passionately believe should be addressed in the interests of our farmers, producers and consumers alike.
First, the reach of the adjudicator is too small, particularly its ability to investigate across the range of people involved in the sector. As has been mentioned, the adjudicator can investigate direct supply arrangements between farmers and retailers, but cannot get involved in the enormous majority of the food chain—that is, in the processing sector, and the middle people within the market. The Groceries Code Adjudicator should be given that ability. That is obvious.
The second point is about protecting farmers and other producers from the reprisals that they fear they will get if they refer something to the adjudicator. Members of Parliament, the National Farmers Union—local branches in Kendal and Appleby, and the NFU across the whole country—the Tenant Farmers Association and other advocates should be allowed to make referrals to the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that farmers do not feel that they have to do so themselves while fearing the reprisals, which they clearly do. We strongly support that idea.
Finally, there is the issue of resource, which has been mentioned by other people. The team is seven-strong, including the adjudicator themselves four days a week. That is not right. However wonderful those people are, they can be run rings around by the enormously powerful supermarkets.
The unfettered free market is indifferent to Britain’s food security, and we need to be not indifferent. We need to decide that it is of ultimate importance and that we therefore need to referee the market powerfully to protect our food security. Over the last 20 years, we have seen 30,000 farm holdings cease to be—a 22.7% reduction in the number of farms in the United Kingdom. That is undermining our ability to feed ourselves. Now, only 55% of Britain’s food is produced by farmers in the United Kingdom. If we are serious about food security, we are going to have to put that right.
The Liberal Democrats are challenging the Government over the family farm tax—we would scrap it—which is suppressing production and creating unfairness in the market. There is a 76% reduction in the basic payment this year, undermining small family farmers in particular, in Westmorland and beyond. DEFRA officials told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee the other week that they expect 92% to 93% of farms to survive the environmental land management transition—so, 7% to 8% will not survive that transition. The land use framework, which I welcome in principle, will in practice potentially take productive farm land out of usage. All of that leads us towards a situation where the UK is less food secure.
The overdue Groceries Code Adjudicator reforms are not just vital to ensuring British farmers are treated fairly, which they must be; they are about underpinning the vitality of food security in this country, which is essentially national security. A country that cannot feed itself is not safe.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. It will perhaps come as news to him that I, too, was one of the people who voted for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was a Member during the coalition Government and it was put on the statute book back in 2013 because our farmers wanted an adjudicator to tackle the imbalance between small producers of food and big supermarket buyers. We will always back our farmers for fairness and equity for food producers.
The adjudicator regulates relationships between the UK’s largest grocery retailers and their direct suppliers, and it ensures that excessive risks and unexpected costs are not unfairly transferred. It brings fairer prices to the farming community and provides a guardrail for those smaller food producers who do not have a voice in the complicated food production market. It is funded by a pragmatic levy on designated retailers, with a UK annual turnover of more than £1 billion. There are currently 14 retailers covered by the code.
The results from the annual survey in 2024 show that the adjudicator is making a difference. More than 3,000 responses to that survey show that the number of suppliers experiencing a code issue has fallen to 33% and that the number of suppliers highlighting a retailer’s response to a cost price increase as an issue almost halved, falling from 28% in 2023 to just 16%. For the first time, the Co-op came top of the 14 retailers for overall code compliance, at 98%. The Co-op and Lidl both experienced a 2% improvement, which was the biggest percentage improvement across the 14 retailers.
The adjudicator is there to protect suppliers, such as our precious farmers. However, we are concerned that the Government’s recent actions have done anything but protect our farmers. Food retailers and suppliers of all sizes are under huge pressure because of Labour’s tax on jobs, its increasing red tape around jobs, food inflation and job losses in supermarkets. Labour’s family farm tax is yet another blow. It is a death tax on important family businesses. With no farmers in the UK, there would be no UK-grown food. Under Labour, the family farm will wither and die unless the Chancellor can be persuaded to change her mind.
Food producers are at the heart of our communities and the Government should be doing everything they can to support them, not harm them, and to ensure food security in this country. The attack on our farmers is shocking in every way. The Labour MPs who voted for an inheritance tax on family farms simply do not understand where their food comes from. Labour is harming our farms, not prioritising our rural areas. It simply does not understand.
The Conservatives believe that good policy needs to be created in collaboration with the farming industry, rather than in isolation. We have always kept the Groceries Code Adjudicator under review since its inception and we urge the Government to continue to do so.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
If the Minister can leave a bit of time at the end for David Chadwick to wind up, that would be great.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Certainly, Mr Twigg. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this important debate.
Before I talk about hon. Members’ contributions, it is worth reminding the House of the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Hon. Members obviously have a great deal of understanding of what it does, but it is important to put on the record its limits, which a number of Members referred to. In primary colours, its role is to enforce the groceries supply code of practice by providing advice and guidance to suppliers and large retailers on matters relating to the code; arbitrating in disputes between large retailers and their direct suppliers; investigating issues to ascertain whether there has been non-compliance with the code; and imposing sanctions and other remedies for breach of the code.
The code applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, which have an annual turnover of £1 billion or more. Some Members spoke about changing that threshold—I would be interested to see what the effect would be—but it has been in place for some time. The competition measure is owned by the Competition and Markets Authority, and was put in place following a very detailed market investigation in 2008, which found that direct suppliers of groceries to large supermarkets faced unfair risks that adversely affected competition and, ultimately, consumers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and others mentioned, it was in no small part due to a great deal of campaigning from a number of groups and hon. Members that the code saw the light of day.
The code regulates designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers, which, as we have heard, do not include all the farmers and primary producers. Although it prevents the unilateral variation of supply agreements without notice, puts limits on seeking payments for wastage and requires retailers to pay for goods on time, it does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers, which is a commercial negotiation between the two parties. However, it requires that such negotiations be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA has been keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing prices with suppliers, and all the regulated retailers have signed up to them.
As we have heard, the GCA was established in June 2013, and since then there has been strong evidence to show that it has been effective in promoting compliance with the code and in changing retailers’ behaviour to improve fairness for direct suppliers. Improvements in retailer compliance with the code are evident from the annual survey. Average compliance with the code has increased from 75% in 2014, when the code was introduced, to 91% in 2024. It is also positive to see that among suppliers there is a high level of awareness of the GCA and the code itself, although I noted that the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said that there is a question about awareness among some farmers, and I am happy to explore that further with him.
Moreover, all three statutory reviews of the effectiveness of the GCA concluded that it has been a highly effective regulator. The next review will commence after 31 March, and will look at the performance over the past three years, from 2022 to 2025. Given what we have heard today, I encourage hon. Members and their constituents to contribute to it. The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the adjudicator’s remit and resources, and there will be an opportunity for him to feed those comments into the review.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned what he described as bullying by supermarkets. A number of hon. Members talked about a fear of reprisals for raising concerns, and we obviously take that very seriously. It is important to note that the GCA has a statutory requirement to maintain supplier confidentiality. It has relaunched the Code Confident campaign and a confidential reporting platform called “Tell the GCA”, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality. The 2024 annual survey reported that 82% of suppliers were aware of its commitment to confidentiality. That is a good report, but obviously 18% were unaware of it, and clearly there is a perception out there that matters can find their way back to the supermarkets, which is something we can look further into.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe and a number of others questioned why the GCA cannot instigate its own investigations. I am told that it can carry out investigations of its own accord if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a large retailer has broken the code or failed to follow a recommendation following a previous investigation by the adjudicator. It is for the adjudicator to determine how he uses his powers, and he has issued statutory guidance setting out his criteria for launching an investigation. The adjudicator’s four prioritisation principles ensure that he targets resources effectively and proportionately. Impact, strategic importance, risk and benefits, and resources are all part of those principles.
Andrew George
The Minister is certainly right, providing the investigation was on sound grounds. The worry was always that the investigation may identify a supplier simply by doing it, and that the anonymity intended when an intelligence-driven inquiry or investigation was generated may uncover that particular supplier. Therefore, a wider range of powers—not on the basis of being able to conduct fishing expeditions—to investigate on justifiable grounds is something that I hope the Minister will look at further.
Justin Madders
I hear what the hon. Member has said, and no doubt that is something that can be put in as part of the review. When I spoke to the adjudicator, he said that his approach is about ensuring compliance and helping to prevent problems from escalating in the first place, avoiding the need for formal investigations and dispute resolution. He has said that he is satisfied that his current powers provide the necessary tools to enforce the code and change retailer behaviour. He has also been clear—and has said publicly—that if he needs to instigate an investigation he is more than ready to do so.
That leads on to some of the points Members made about the resources of the adjudicator. My information is that there are actually nine staff rather than seven, but the overall point is that that does not seem to be a great deal, given the number of supermarkets and the purchasing power that we are talking about. But it is entirely within the adjudicator’s gift to ask for more resources through the levy. If he feels he needs more, he can also talk to the CMA about secondments—that is something that is entirely up to him. If there is a question that things are not happening because of resources, I am confident that the adjudicator would come forward and discuss that with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly referenced her leadership of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, and I am proud to associate myself with that group, having represented it on many occasions in my former legal career. I know how much it has done in this area, and how this area affects its members. My hon. Friend was right to talk about how that sector is often characterised by a race to the bottom, with insecurity and low wages. That is what we hope to tackle through the Employment Rights Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford also made a number of interesting suggestions about how we move forward, which I will not be able to respond to in detail today, but I note that the Business and Trade Committee has recently begun an investigation into pricing practices. It focuses primarily on dynamic pricing, but the evidence session I attended covered a range of areas where prices were an issue. That report is something I will look forward to reading in due course.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also referred to the use of private equity in the supermarket sector, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. He was right to reference other sectors where that has become more of an issue. The CMA has recently looked at that issue in the veterinary sector, so it may be that it has the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, should it wish to do so. My right hon. Friend mentioned a survey in which 13% of respondents had no access to sick pay. We think that that is absolutely wrong, and that is why the Employment Rights Bill will ensure that statutory sick pay becomes a day one right for everyone, regardless of their earnings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talked about how dairy farmers in his constituency would like the GCA to apply to their work. He may be aware that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 came into force in July last year, and will apply to all existing contracts from 9 July this year. I will pass his comments to the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see whether those regulations will assist in dealing with his constituents’ issues. DEFRA is also looking at powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 to see whether expanded regulations could improve fairness in the pig sector, as well as looking at the egg and fresh produce sectors. There are therefore a number of tools at our disposal to tackle some of the issues that Members have raised.
The dairy regulations are enforced by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, Richard Thompson, who was appointed last summer. We expect that in future he will deal with any fair dealing regulations in the other sectors that I have mentioned. It is important to note that ASCA and GCA are in regular contact to ensure that the two regimes operate effectively alongside one another. We will conduct a review to understand the effectiveness of the fair dealing regulations.
As I have already mentioned, there will also be the triennial review of the GCA. Hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge and passion about a number of issues that they would wish to put forward, particularly about the GCA’s remit and powers. I encourage them to do so, and we will see what the review takes forward. The points made about the importance of this country’s food security and fairness to consumers and producers are absolutely right. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe on securing the debate.
David Chadwick
I thank the Minister for his response and his particularly generous offer to listen to further contributions about how we can strengthen the GCA.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talked about the issues facing dairy farmers, which are also relevant in my constituency, and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the impact on the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union and people employed in that industry. That is a reminder of just how far-reaching the food system is for us all. It is particularly important for farmers and primary producers, but the importance of properly regulating those relationships extends further than just those areas.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for their contributions. I am sure that they will join me in commending Roger Williams, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, for the part that he played in securing the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
There is clearly broad consensus that the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator has been a positive step forward for British farmers. Fairness in the agricultural supply chain is essential and benefits us all, whether we are consumers, farmers or communities relying on local produce. It is still my firm belief that we must do more to strengthen the current regulations and improve the resources behind them. We cannot afford to sit back and allow the power imbalance between producers and retailers to persist. We need to ensure that bullying behaviour by large corporations becomes a thing of the past.
There is still so much work to be done, and I am committed to continuing, throughout this Parliament, to press the Government to introduce stronger measures to protect farmers and producers, who are the cornerstone of rural communities and the rural economy that they support. Let us continue to work together to create a fairer and more sustainable food system that uplifts everyone, from the fields to the supermarket shelves.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Groceries Code Adjudicator.