Westminster Hall

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 29 April 2025

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Murrison. At the outset, I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate this debate and all hon. Members, across parties, who supported the application. I also thank those constituents and members of the public who have been in touch in advance of the debate. Criminal injuries are, by their nature, not easy matters to discuss, so I am grateful to all the people who took the time to recount their experiences.

I am also grateful to all the Members present today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has already done much in this and the previous Parliament to highlight some of the problems that we will talk about in this debate. It is also good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I should make it clear that, I will be talking about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as it operates in Great Britain, but I am aware that different arrangements apply in Northern Ireland, and I am glad that that perspective will be represented today.

It is also important at this early stage to pay tribute to the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Nothing in the opening of this debate is intended as a criticism of them. They work within parameters that are broadly set by us in Parliament, and with staffing numbers that have fallen by 19% since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey reveals that they take pride and find purpose in their jobs, and I am grateful to them.

The question of how the victims of serious physical and mental criminal injury may be fairly compensated has occupied this House for many decades. We are, to the month, at the 60th anniversary of the introduction for the first full year of the original, non-statutory scheme, which was introduced in recognition of the fact that there will always be cases in which the perpetrators of serious violence cannot be identified or awards cannot be recovered from their assets or incomes.

In preparation for this debate, I was delighted to learn of a local connection: the guiding and determined force behind the original scheme was the Birmingham magistrate and first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who up to her death was a tireless campaigner for better support for the victims of crime and for the principle that perpetrators must, wherever possible, pay the cost of restitution. Those are principles that I am sure Members on both sides of the House will endorse today.

However, there is another, unhappy point of emerging agreement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it does not adequately serve the people it is meant to aid. As the Victims’ Commissioner put it in 2019, victims of violent crime reported

“delays, uncertainty about next steps and poor communication. To many, fairly or unfairly, the Scheme seemed calculated to frustrate and alienate.”

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling an incredibly important debate. I came upon this issue recently in dealing with the case of a 10-year-old boy in my constituency who was shot in a quiet residential street. It has taken five years to get him compensated for the injuries that he suffered, which will be lifelong. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the sheer length of time that it takes to get victims compensated, the bureaucratic and sometimes impersonal approach, and the inadequacy of the sums being received by people, particularly children, who have received lifelong injury?

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member raises what sounds like a truly shocking case. All my sympathies are with that child and his family. I agree wholeheartedly with the point she makes about timelines and the nature of communication through the scheme, which I—and, I am sure, other Members—will come on to in the course of this debate.

At the time, the Victims’ Commissioner further recommended that the Ministry of Justice

“examine the Scheme with a view to making it simpler and accessible to victims wishing to apply on their own behalf, reducing the reliance on legal representatives.”

Also in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of child sexual abuse reported that “almost all survivors” who contributed to its inquiry

“had a negative experience of applying to CICA for compensation.”

I recognise that some progress has been made in the last six years, which must be welcomed. The last Government retrospectively removed the “under the same roof” rule for crimes committed between 1964 and 1979. It had long been recognised that the rule prevented the awarding of fair compensation to victims of historical domestic abuse and childhood sexual abuse during that period. Progress has also been made more recently on reducing the paper-bound nature of the scheme.

However, we cannot reassure ourselves that the scheme is in good health. As has been said, victims of violent crime can face long delays before they access compensation. For residents in Birmingham, the average time between application and award is still more than a year. That average can be dragged upwards by the most complex cases, but even apparently simple cases can take many months to resolve. Applicants to the scheme are not effectively signposted to wider support or assisted to navigate the processes for accessing services, such as the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder through the NHS.

The reasoning that underpins the tariff system is hard to understand, and the apparently arbitrary limits to the scheme can produce outcomes that are, to the layperson’s eye, perverse. The two-year normal claim limit is out of line with the three-year limit for civil claims for injury.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally inconsistent to have a time limit of three years for ordinary personal injury claims, but a time limit of only two years for Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims? There is a reason why there are time limits—memories fade and evidence becomes less reliable—but does he agree that there should be consistency here?

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend is very learned and experienced in these matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. The discrepancy is hard to explain, especially as the pre-1996 non-statutory scheme explicitly aligned the criminal injuries time limit with that for civil claims.

There is some evidence that victims who have legal representation often receive greater compensation than they would have done had they acted alone. That is not a desirable outcome, especially when people with more limited means are more likely to become the victims of crime. The scheme’s tariff has not been updated since 2012, and its upper and lower bounds had been frozen for many years before that, despite inflation. Indeed, the lowest tariff of £1,000 has remained frozen since 1992—a real-terms erosion of 54%.

The process can feel cold and impersonal. As one member of the public with recent experience of the scheme who wrote to me in advance of this debate put it, the lack of “timelines or guidelines” means that

“victims are continually left in limbo and retraumatised by a process that is meant to help.”

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is setting out the problems with the scheme, which is something of a Cinderella service. As he said, the tariffs have not changed, and the upper limit has not changed for almost 30 years. What gives away the situation even more is the fact that, although the average sum awarded in the last year is about £8,000, the amount increased sixfold on appeal. That, and the fact that only 3% of injured victims of crime actually receive compensation, suggests that there are things wrong with the scheme.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, makes an important point. We must also consider the number of victims of crime who are so exhausted by the process that they choose not to appeal, even though they may have grounds to do so. His scrutiny in this area is very welcome.

Changes made to the scheme have an unhappy history in this House. Some Members may recall the very contentious changes made to it in 2012, with the express intent of reducing expenditure by between £40 million and £60 million a year. At the time, in the face of sustained scrutiny, including from Members on the then Government Benches, the Minister of the day, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), announced:

“a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.” —[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. , c. 14WS.]

That concession secured support for the relevant secondary legislation. The fund is still in existence, but its criteria are too tightly drawn. An applicant must be paid no more than £5,700 a year, the equivalent of statutory sick pay, and they must apply to seek it not within two years of an injury, but within two months of an injury, in order to qualify.

Far from the fund supporting low-paid victims of crime by £500,000 a year, the Ministry of Justice told me recently that only £4,100 has ever been paid out of it, and no payments at all were made in the seven years to 2023-24. I suspect that the very few workers who were eligible to apply were unaware that it exists. The hardship fund is a dead letter; it would be better to scrap it than to claim that special support is available to low-paid workers when, in practice, it is not.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend refers to low-paid workers; we know that retail staff are among the victims who experience a really shocking amount of violent crime within the workplace. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for the work it is doing to ensure that its members who are victims of violent crime in the workplace can access the CICA scheme?

[Laurence Turner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with her. USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, which has been running for many years and covers a number of important issues, including the importance of fair access to compensation, is to be welcomed, and USDAW should be congratulated on the changes that it has already secured in this House.

Another high-profile change was the tightening of the criteria, so that the scheme only applied to injuries caused by deliberate violence inflicted by a person. That change excluded most dangerous dog attacks, and in practice compensation for such attacks can only be secured if it can be shown that a dog was directed to attack by its owner. It seems to me a serious flaw that a child or postal worker might be mauled by a dog and left with life-changing injuries, and the keeping of that dog may itself be an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but there would be no route for the victim to claim compensation, especially if the owner of the dog cannot be identified.

The Communication Workers Union continues to campaign on this issue; ahead of this debate, it drew attention to figures showing that each year 200 Royal Mail workers lose a finger or part of a finger after a dog attack. I encourage Ministers to look again at this issue, especially in light of the growing number of animals belonging to new, and now-banned, breeds such as the XL bully since 2012.

As has already been said, compensation for criminal injuries is an important issue for workers in public-facing roles more generally, and I am grateful to USDAW, GMB and Unison, as well as the CWU, for their work to draw attention to the risk of violent assault to their members. And for the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to the support provided to my constituency party by GMB and Unison.

The changes to the scheme that I have referred to were made under the previous Government, but I wish to press the Minister on two further and more recent points. First, shortly before Easter the Ministry of Justice published its response to the consultations undertaken between 2020 and 2023. In that response, the MOJ said that there would be no immediate changes to the scheme, in part because of resource constraints.

The decision not to accept recommendation 18 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has understandably caused disappointment and reignited wider criticism of the scheme. The Government cited two factors: protection of universality, which means treating all applicants in the same way, and cost. If the scheme is not to be amended to provide different criteria for victims of childhood sexual abuse, what other steps will the Ministry now take, such as the provision of enhanced guidelines on the circumstances under which an out-of-time application would be accepted, taking into account our modern understanding of the lifelong effects of this horrendous crime?

On resourcing, will the Minister accept that although the nature of the scheme means that expenditure varies year on year, the cost of compensation has actually fallen on average—that is the trend—after inflation is taken into account. Although the number of applications has risen, that appears to have been driven by an increased number of ineligible claimants. The scheme overall costs less than it did before 2012—less in cash terms, I believe, than under the pre-statutory scheme—and, as mentioned, CICA’s headcount has fallen.

Reforms are needed, but I am concerned that we seem to be talking again about protecting the sustainability of the scheme. I know the Minister has a strong personal commitment to this issue and to enhancing support for victims of crime more generally. I hope she will be able to reassure us that any future reforms of CICA will seek to improve victim support, including in its compensation elements.

Our constituents expect us to bring our knowledge, our judgment and the benefit of our experiences to this place. Like some other Members of this House, my interest in this matter arises partly through my direct experience of the scheme. By their nature, such matters are difficult to talk about; if I stumble, I ask for Members’ patience.

Some six years ago I was on the wrong end of an attempted robbery. I was left concussed, my arm was dislocated and one of the joints in my right hand was shattered. I was physically unable to leave the house for a month, and I had a frozen shoulder for a year. There are long-term physical effects: I have premature arthritis and permanent loss of movement on my right-hand side. By any common-sense judgment they are serious and blameless injuries, arising from violence, but with one minor exception: annex E of the scheme does not recognise them as such.

There was—and is—also a psychological effect. An event of that kind changes a person. I am changed in ways that I still find difficult to talk about. I have learned that recovery is not some happy state that is one day achieved: it is a process that follows its own timetable at an uneven pace, towards a destination that can never be fully reached. In my case, the perpetrators were never identified. I incurred substantial costs because the assault happened almost on my doorstep. Although I would be unlikely to recognise the perpetrators, they would have recognised me.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the police referred me to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My experience of the scheme is typical of the delays and impersonal contact that have already been described, and does not require repeating. What I will say is that when a person is compelled to relive their experiences, within a system that they feel they have to fight against, the original injustice is continually visited anew.

At the conclusion of the process I received the lowest tariff award of £1,000. That was given because there was some post-surgical scarring—the only injury that qualified under the scheme. In truth, that aspect was the least consequential effect of the assault. The criteria felt—and still feel—arbitrary. I received an apologetic letter from one of the administrators of the scheme, and I remain grateful for that human touch. The award did not, as it does not for many, cover the costs of travel and accommodation for surgery or physiotherapy—but, three years on from the assault, I was just glad to have some official recognition and did not pursue an appeal.

I do not say any of this to attract attention or sympathy, or to suggest that my experience was in any way exceptional. The point is that it was not. Like many victims of crime, my hope now is that some good might come from adverse experience. In that respect, I agree with the Minister when she wrote:

“The clear message to me is that we need change, and I will be considering how Government can best provide the support that victims need and deserve.”

I hope we will hear more about those plans today.

I am encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clear and personal statement of support for victims of crime in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North last week. I am glad to have the opportunity next Tuesday to introduce to the House a ten-minute rule Bill that aims to secure the wholesale review of CICA and the scheme that the Victims’ Commissioner called for in 2019. The victims of violent crime deserve better, and I hope the Bill will secure cross-party support.

09:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for setting the scene. Nothing tells a story better than when it is a personal one, as his was, and he did it very well. It is never easy for someone to tell their own story, but well done to him.

This is an important debate. As the hon. Member said at the beginning, the system in Northern Ireland is very different from that in England, Scotland and Wales, but the principle of what the scheme is trying to achieve is the same. I thank him for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for debate. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I very much look forward to her reply to all the questions we will be asking her.

There is no excuse in today’s society for crime, especially violent crime, which can devastate lives both physically and mentally. We cannot always see the impact of crimes on somebody when we look at them, because some people hold their emotions in check internally. We often feel that we hear horrific stories every day of people who have fallen victim to violent crime. As the hon. Member stated, many will be aware that the legislation for Northern Ireland is slightly different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be great to add a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate, and I wish to do so.

The scheme provides compensation to victims and, in addition, to the families of loved ones who have since passed away due to the impact of violent crime. The hon. Member talked about the scheme that applies in England, Scotland and Wales; in Northern Ireland we have slightly different credentials for the scheme. According to the latest figures available, roughly 12,000 to 15,000 applications for criminal injuries compensation are received annually in Northern Ireland, so the number of people who go through the process every year is quite large. Historically, around 60% of those claims have been successful, while 40% were declined due to not meeting the eligibility criteria.

It is important to note that victims are often unaware of the grounds on which they can apply. With this speech I wish to raise awareness and ensure that those who do not know their rights or what they can do are able to apply as a result. One of the big issues is that the perpetrator does not actually have to be charged with anything for someone to be able to claim compensation. That is important to note. If someone feels threatened or has been abused visually, even if not physically, a compensation system is in place. Applications can still be made two years after the incident occurred, provided it was not reasonable for an application to be made at the time. It is important to record these elements of the system.

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

On the issue of entitlement, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those who feel badly affected by some abuse or attack know and understand the system, but at the same time the system has to bear down on the very small number of people who abuse the system, in deference to those who are quite entitled to and should seek compensation because of the attacks they have suffered?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the point that some people abuse the system. I have to say that I have not come across any, to be fair, so I cannot make a statement about that, but it is in the very nature of any system that there are always those who try to take advantage of it.

There have been ongoing concerns about and issues with the compensation scheme as it is. Many state that there is a complete lack of awareness about the scheme in general, and people are unaware that something like it even exists. I suppose my main question to the Minister is: what will be done to highlight the system to those who qualify, and to encourage those who should apply to do just that? This has to be addressed through raising awareness—“Know your rights” is how I would put it. People who have gone through harm are deserving of something. For those who have lost a loved one as a result of violent crime, no amount of money will take that pain away, but they are deserving, based on the trauma they have experienced.

Many victims may just wish for it all to go away, and I suspect that some may not want to pursue a claim even if they qualify. One of the big issues is that the process is undoubtedly traumatic for many. Having to relive their experience during an application can be retraumatising, as they have to live through the horror—the memories, the trauma and the pain—twice.

I want to talk about sexual or domestic violence crimes, and those reliving the passing of a loved one. In 2023, it was ruled that victims of non-touching sexual abuse are eligible for compensation under the CICS. Many people—especially young people—have fallen victim to that crime and have gone on to feel its effects for years and years. It is inconceivable how those young people deal with what happened to them. I look to the Minister for clarity. She has always been positive in her answers to those who have raised these matters, and I know she is very much on top of this subject, so I look forward to her response. The CICS applies in such cases in England, Scotland and Wales, so will the Minister kindly see whether, through the Department of Justice, our legislation in Northern Ireland can be strengthened along the same lines?

It is a sad reality that so many people are victims of crime that leaves a devastating impact, physically and mentally. The effects are the same for people of all ages. No amount of money can bring back a loved one or remove the mental torment of the past, but something can be done to ease the burden on so many. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s commitment to doing just that—it was never in doubt, by the way, but I look forward to her confirming that—not just here in England but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

09:57

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner)—I am proud to say that he truly is a friend—laid out perfectly the historical context in which the criminal injuries compensation scheme was devised and the economic, moral and financial case for change, given that it has failed to meet its objectives. I am one of the co-sponsors of this debate, and I want to support my hon. Friend’s core argument and lay out an aspect of the scheme that cannot be understood by those for whom it is an abstract point of law or procedure.

Rape and sexual assault have a conviction rate of a pathetic 1.5% or so, so vanishingly few victims ever get justice through the courts. Of course we need to use every lever of Government to bring down the number of offences and drive up the number of perpetrators convicted, but to focus entirely on the criminal justice element is to miss the point when it comes to supporting victims. CICA provides a twofold civil remedy. First, it provides a level of financial restitution for the experience. Secondly, and most importantly, it is state recognition of the person’s experience as a blameless victim of violent crime. That vindication is an important part of the process of closure for people who have been victims of the most hideous crimes, including where a perpetrator has not been apprehended or where a conviction cannot be secured.

A constituent who was a victim of rape told me:

“I’ll probably never know why the jury decided not to convict in my case. The compensation awarded wouldn’t actually cover the cost of a copy of the trial transcript. The process of closure for me began with that letter from CICA, that seeking justice hadn’t been in vain despite the enormous personal cost.

Beyond the nightmares I still have replaying that night, replaying the trial, the court room, replaying every indignity meted out upon me over a truly miserable three year period; it is there. In black and white. On the record. This happened to you. He is a rapist. We believe you. That’s what that piece of paper meant.”

Every victim deserves vindication, but among the largest barriers is the time limit. The Victims’ Commissioner —the indomitable Baroness Newlove, who is incidentally a constituent of mine—recommended to the Government back in 2019 that it be amended in her landmark report “Compensation without re-traumatisation”. We are still waiting.

The time limit pressures victims into choosing between pursuing justice in the courts and a civil remedy—lest the defence infers a financial motive for coming forward—leaving them with a high statistical likelihood of ending up with neither. However, if the expectation is that victims should pursue both at the same time, or even in close succession, that is wildly unrealistic given just how much the criminal justice system retraumatises a person and puts far too much onus on the victim all at once. That is not a reasonable expectation for us in this place to have of the dozens of constituents I have signposted and supported through this process. It is a huge thing to do, and we can never fully appreciate just how much it grinds a person down unless they have been through it.

The fact that many of those who apply will be turned away because of arbitrary time limits, or that many will be dissuaded from applying at all for the support that they are entitled to in the expectation that that will happen, leaves victims without the ability to get closure. It leaves them frozen. In Warrington, 349 victims have already made a successful CICA claim in the past five years; from the crime statistics for our area alone, I know that there is massive under-claiming. Then there are all the cases that will not show up in those statistics, including those dealt with in the family courts. Currently, no agency is responsible under the victims code for informing victims about the scheme; the expectation is that that falls to the police or local support services.

I know that the Treasury has anxiety about this, but if we get anywhere near our target of halving violence against women and girls, the scheme will pay for itself. Until such time, victims cannot continue to pay the price. While there is no amount that would ever make being a victim of violent crime worth it, surely the least that they deserve is the amount that was intended back in 2012—not a fraction of that, as its value is eroded further each year by inflation.

For all the things that successive Governments have seen fit to spend money on, it breaks my heart that none have thought this scheme worth consideration. While we work to improve victim support services generally, there will always be a role for CICA. Unfortunately, CICA is compensation for state failure to keep people safe and, too often, to deliver justice. That compensation should be significantly uplifted at the comprehensive spending review to ensure that its value is a fairer reflection of the debt that society owes to those victims that it has let down. Awards must be index-linked to inflation, so we do not end up having the same debate in 15 years’ time.

The time limit should be amended in line with the recommendations of the Victims’ Commissioner, and we should ensure that the framework aligns with the rest of our system, including with our increased understanding of the harms of non-contact sexual offences. I hope that all hon. Members will support the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield next week, so that we can start this vital reform. I look forward to the Minister’s response today.

10:02

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this debate, and on his powerful and personal speech. It is an honour to follow the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who was eloquent and forceful.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is an important fund of last resort for many victims of crime who cannot seek compensation through litigation. In the 17 years that I was a barrister, before I was elected last year, I represented many victims of crime at its tribunal. I saw the difference that it could make, but also the limitations and restrictions imposed on the scheme in 2012, which seemed more about saving money than ensuring that victims got compensation for the harm that they had suffered.

I rise to raise a specific concern related to a feature of the scheme that I think is indefensible, and one that the courts have sought to temper. Ultimately, the scheme itself should be changed so that it has a legally sound and consistent basis, and so that it makes sense. It may come as a surprise to many listening that the criminal injuries compensation scheme applies a different legal test from that applied in our criminal courts when it comes to consent.

Unlike our criminal law, the criminal injuries compensation scheme does not recognise that some people cannot legally consent. According to annex B, paragraph 2(d), only those who does not “in fact” consent can receive compensation. That means that if a victim says yes to sexual activity, even when under the age of 16, they are taken to have consented. A child abused or exploited over many years, who knows no better than to agree when an abuser proposes sexual contact, will not be taken to be a victim of a crime of violence because they consented.

If the House wants to be horrified by a legal principle that is still good law, it should read the decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called August from 2000. In that case, a 13-year-old boy, described by the then Lord Chief Justice in the criminal proceedings as “already corrupt”, was paid for sex by a 53-year-old man, but was held not to have been a victim of a crime of violence because he had allegedly consented.

It is true that in the years since the case of August, the courts and tribunals have sought to narrow the principle a bit. A few years after, the Court of Appeal found—some may consider unsurprisingly—that submission is not “real consent” and, in another case, it directed a focus on the applicant’s “relative vulnerability”, “subservience” and “lesser responsibility” as relevant factors, though many may be surprised that any responsibility in those circumstances was found. Far more recently, the Court ruled in the case of RN vs. CICA that sexual abuse causing non-physical injury is included within the scheme. However, the very fact that these sorts of workarounds have had to be introduced shows the indefensibility of the underlying principle. We cannot, and should not have to, rely on tribunals to apply legal rules creatively to seek to achieve just outcomes.

I understand that the Conservative Government left us with the public finances in tatters and public services on their knees, and I understand the concern about expanding the number of victims who might be eligible for compensation, but I hope that the Government will consider this clearly inconsistent approach between our criminal law and the law when it comes to compensating victims, and fix it.

10:07

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this important debate and on his moving and eloquent speech. The fact that he only received £1,000 compensation for the very significant injuries he sustained is an indicator of the inadequacy of the scheme.

Throughout my career as a personal injury solicitor before I became an MP, and now as an MP, I have tried to be a steadfast advocate for access to justice so that victims of injury, including victims of crimes of violence, can receive suitable redress. Compensation for injury does not just represent a recognition of the harm inflicted upon victims but provides the support and financial redress necessary so that victims of injury can start to rebuild their lives.

I would like to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said about the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It is a national asset. It is there to compensate people who have been physically or mentally injured due to a violent crime, and those whose loved ones have died as a result of a crime of violence. But the scheme clearly needs reform. Too often, the system is falling short, leaving victims unsupported and failed. Too many are blocked from access to justice by an arbitrary time cap, and many are left behind by the long and confusing claims process.

The tariff system for assessing compensation means that victims are simply not properly compensated, and the compensation that they receive is inadequate in comparison with the injuries that they have suffered. They then have the problem of lodging an appeal, which again is very time-consuming and difficult, and yet another barrier to justice.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend is making a very informed speech, as did the hon. Members who spoke before him. Does he agree that, with each year that passes without re-examination of the tariffs, the gap will grow between the award that someone may be able to secure—if a perpetrator is identified and the victim is able to bring a civil case—and the compensation that they may receive through the scheme? Will that not add to the sense of frustration and injustice that many victims feel?

[Warinder Juss]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remember dealing with criminal injuries compensation claims when they were assessed in the same way as personal injury claims. When the tariff system was introduced, it was apparent to us that it was simply inadequate.

The Government should commit to review the current two-year time limit, for the reasons I have mentioned. Often, police will recommend that victims wait to apply for compensation until after criminal proceedings have concluded so that trial outcomes are not prejudiced. That effectively means that the victim has no time to make a claim for compensation, because they are out of time by the time the criminal proceedings conclude.

The other problem that I hope the Minister will look at is that victims who have suffered traumatic injuries, or abuse such as child sexual abuse, do not come forward with their experiences until many years later, which means that they are automatically excluded from the scheme.

Another point that has not been raised so far in this debate is the requirement for the incident—the crime of violence—to have been reported to the police as soon as possible. In my experience, those working in hospitals and schools often report the violent incident to their line manager and believe that that is adequate for the matter to be reported. I totally understand the purpose of the scheme, in which the victim must co-operate with the police to secure a prosecution, but the requirement for the victim to report the matter to the police when the matter has already been reported elsewhere is a barrier. When I dealt with these claims, I often found that a claim was turned down because somebody working in a hospital or a school had reported the matter to their line manager, but not reported it to the police as soon as possible.

Although the system has an honourable purpose, it is not doing what it is meant to, because people are missing out on their chance to secure justice and redress for their injuries. In 2023-24, only 8% of injured victims of violent crime in the UK applied for compensation. Compensation for criminal injuries must remain an essential part of our justice system, but the current system is inadequate, slow and inaccessible for too many victims. It is clear that we need reform to ensure that those who suffer from violent crime are given the support and financial redress that they deserve so that they can move on and rebuild their lives.

10:13

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this debate.

There is an interesting paradox at the heart of this scheme. The fundamental eligibility requirements are that

“You must apply as soon as it is reasonably practicable“

and that

“this should normally not be later than two years“

after the incident occurred. That is the time limit for adults, which can be extended “due to exceptional circumstances”. If the person was under 18 at the time of the incident, an application must be received by their 20th birthday if the incident was reported to the police before their 18th birthday, or

“within two years of the first report to the police, if the incident was reported to the police on or after“

the person’s 18th birthday.

I was sexually harassed as a teenager—nothing that would have met a criminal standard—and it never occurred to me to apply for these sorts of things. That is not something that enters the head of someone aged 18, 19 or 20, let alone the victims of child rape and sexual abuse. First, we should accept and implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. That is a basic moral requirement. Secondly, we should look at the “exceptional circumstances” rules, which allow someone who did not manage to apply as soon as reasonably practicable, or within two years, to apply if

“due to exceptional circumstances an application could not have been made earlier; and the evidence provided in support of the application means that it can be determined without further extensive inquiries by a claims officer.”

That is a much tighter exception than most legal “exceptional circumstances” exception rules. It basically requires that there be no work to do on the part of the agency that would be required to investigate. I do not understand why whether people get compensation is determined by what inquiries a claims officer would be required to make. I do not think that represents justice.

Significant numbers of claims are being refused; in 2023-24, nearly 2,000 were refused because they were not submitted within the time limit, and another 765 were refused because of a failure to report as soon as reasonably practicable. What we do not have statistics on, as far as I am aware, is the number of people who do not apply in the first place because they know that they would not meet the eligibility criteria. I suspect that it is substantial. It seems to me that whether someone hears about the scheme in the first place, or can meet the requirements, is very much an accident of their life chances and various other factors. That is no way to determine whether people should receive compensation.

At the moment, we are listing Crown court cases for more than two years hence. The police can take more than two years to investigate a crime. About 21% of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme take more than two years to conclude; in fact, 2.8% of them take more than five years to conclude. We habitually accept, and have done for some time—although we may not like it—that it can take the state more than two years to deal with a crime, but we do not accept that it can take more than two years for a victim to deal with a crime. That seems, to me, a fundamentally irrational and indefensible position.

In this country, we let people make a breach of contract claim six years after the breach of contract occurred, but we will not let them take more than two years to process their trauma. That is not, in my opinion, the right position for the state to take.

10:17

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate. I commend him on behalf of my party, and I am sure everybody in this room, for the bravery that he exhibited in sharing his own story of victimhood and engagement with the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

Victims and survivors in Eastbourne and beyond deserve dignity, respect and meaningful support when someone has violated their safety, their rights, their property and the law that is there to protect them. While no amount of compensation can take away the damage that such acts cause to those victims and survivors, compensation can, as has been described already, represent a powerful acknowledgment from the state about what happened to an individual survivor, and the sum awarded—to be spent on whatever it might be—can contribute towards their healing. Often it is spent on trying to access court transcripts, even though they are extremely expensive, or on therapy to overcome some of mental impacts of the crime.

For too long, victims and survivors of crime have been trapped by not only the trauma of their experiences but a criminal injuries compensation system that fails to recognise their suffering in a fair and humane way, often retraumatising them. The criminal injuries compensation scheme has become a maze of bureaucracy, and is unknown to swathes of victims and those who support them. I think we can all agree that it is in urgent need of reform.

First, the scheme must be simplified in order to make sure that it is as accessible as possible to victims and survivors. When people like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) encourage people to apply if they feel entitled, there should be minimal barriers. Submitting a claim involves a lot of paperwork. According to the Victims’ Commissioner, 40% of victims feel as though they have to secure legal advice to apply for this compensation. That often means giving away a share of their relatively small amount of compensation, which has not been uprated in line with inflation. I would argue that, in cases where there have already been criminal court proceedings, even one additional sheet of paper to fill in is too many.

As a survivor of abuse myself, which I have spoken about in this Chamber, in the House and elsewhere, I personally found the prospect of the criminal injuries compensation scheme process too much to engage with.

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member is making a very informed speech. On his point about the complexity of the application, I recently had cause to see the application form for the pre-statutory scheme, and it was simpler than the form that victims have to fill out today. Does he agree that something has gone quite wrong here down the years, and that we should be looking to make the process as brief as possible, and leave those detailed checks to the Government agencies that have already dealt with the victim and crime?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more that the burden of bureaucracy should not be on the victim. Having spent almost two years going through a police process as a victim, and then a very traumatising Crown court trial, the last thing that I wanted to do was rush to fill in application forms for compensation before the imminent two-year deadline from reporting to the police, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) described, was about to be hit, so I did not apply.

For exactly the reasons that the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) described, it takes more than two years to process a crime. In my case, it took many decades, and I still process those crimes today. The system is not conducive to that healing process. A question that I asked was essentially, “Is this system for real? After dragging me through what is a shocking, adversarial and dehumanising criminal process, you’re going to ask me to jump through more hoops just to prove that what has happened to me has happened to me? You can go and take your paperwork and stick it where the sun don’t shine.” The sun shines in Eastbourne a lot, as many folks in this room know, so it did not have to go far.

In scenarios where a court case has happened, and where the evidence has already been presented once, it must be possible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme to access that evidence with the consent of the victim and make some kind of compensation assessment without dragging the victim through another legal ordeal from square one. I would be interested to understand what exploration the Government have undertaken in this area.

Inefficiency costs time, and, to the point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who is no longer in her place, no victim should have to wait years and years for their claim to be assessed, as is too often the case today. Alexis Jay, in her IICSA report, also suggested that, in cases where proceedings have already gone to court, there could be merit in empowering a judge to order the payment of criminal compensation from offender to victim. I would be interested to know what assessment the Government have made regarding the merit of that suggestion too.

Secondly, the scheme must be more visible, because so many victims are unaware of it. Fewer than four in 10 victims recall being told by the police about the scheme, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. Significant numbers of victims and survivors are therefore missing out on the compensation that they need to rebuild their lives. I was not told about the scheme by the police; I was first told about it by an incredible child abuse solicitor, Dino Nocivelli, who I was connected with through a friend of a friend. As has been said already, awareness should not rely on who someone knows. The system is failing victims and survivors by leaving them in the dark.

Thirdly, victims and survivors must receive the support they need to navigate the system. I have touched on some of the complexities, as have other hon. Members. In my case, although I did not end up applying, I discussed the scheme with my ISVA—independent sexual violence adviser—from SurvivorsUK, Alan Robertson, to whom I pay tribute. ISVAs play a critical role in giving survivors the practical guidance and confidence to navigate our justice system, of which the criminal injuries compensation scheme is a part.

One of my key concerns, which I have expressed several times before, is that charities report that their capacity to provide support is being diminished by the national insurance contributions hike and the cut to core funding for police and crime commissioners. Those are debates that the Ministry of Justice will need to have had with the Treasury. Some charities that provide such guidance and support to victims have told me, and said publicly, that these measures are tantamount to a 7% real-terms funding cut.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank the hon. Member for his speech and particularly for his reference to ISVAs and victim support. In the Warrington area, there is no support available through either the NHS or third sector organisations for people under the age of 18 who have been victims of violence. That is why the CICA scheme is so important: it gives victims the ability to get specialist therapy outside the NHS and the charitable sector. Does he agree that ISVA services need to be far better funded, so that they can offer much more bespoke support to victims throughout the UK, including child victims?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. As someone who has used an ISVA service myself—I am not sure that I could have gone through the process without it—I think that the value of those services cannot be overestimated. It is of great sadness to me that across our country there are what I would describe as ISVA deserts, where it is very difficult to access those services. This should not come down to a postcode lottery. People should not be victims of these terrible crimes in the first instance, but if they are, then wherever they are in the country, they should be able to access those critical services and support to help them to navigate their trauma, their survival and their recovery beyond.

I welcome the fact that the Government have taken steps to protect funding for organisations tackling violence against women and girls, but we know that there are victims and survivors beyond this cohort who will be left with less support at a time when they need more.

The test of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Right now, we are failing that test. Victims and survivors of crime deserve more than our sympathy; they deserve action. They deserve more than a criminal injuries compensation scheme that retraumatises those it is meant to help; they deserve a scheme that is fair, fast and fighting for them. The Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with the Government as they prepare the update to the victims code and forthcoming legislation, with a view to helping to achieve just that.

10:28

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be.

In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted.

However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards.

Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing.

Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria.

The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called.

Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why.

I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should.

On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion.

I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response:

“I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”

[Sarah Russell]

Does the hon. Gentleman see that there is some irony in his asking why our current Minister has not responded to a 2020 consultation, when his Government, which was in power for another four years, did not do so?

[Dr Mullan]

I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine.

It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that.

Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner.

We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service.

The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.

10:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part; the strength of feeling is palpable, and I have heard them all.

I was deeply moved by hon. Members’ personal stories about being victims of crime and the impact it had on them. I thank them all for their courage in speaking out about their experiences so eloquently. Doing so is powerful, and it illustrates their views on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and on the experience of applying for compensation. I commend their desire to see improvements to the scheme and its operation. I also echo the thanks from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield to the brilliant staff who operate the scheme so tirelessly for the work they do every single day to support victims of crime.

I have a long-standing commitment to supporting victims of crime. Since I took on responsibility for this scheme, I have been struck by the bravery of victims of crime who speak out about what they have been through and how it has affected them. Sometimes I am contacted directly by victims, and sometimes I am contacted by Members of this House. Other times, I listen to and learn from high-profile figures, including the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and the organisations that work so tirelessly to support victims. Whatever the medium for conveying individual stories, I am constantly reminded of the importance and responsibility of my role as the Minister responsible for victims and for violence against women and girls. This debate has added to my awareness and sense of purpose when it comes to doing all I can to support victims.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme has a long history, with the first non-statutory scheme launching in 1964. It has changed over time, including when it became a statutory scheme in 1996. However, its purpose has remained constant: to recognise the harm experienced by victims injured as a result of violent crime. The scheme is a last resort for compensation, where someone cannot obtain compensation from the perpetrator directly or via a civil claim.

Through the scheme, we meet domestic and international obligations. The scheme for Great Britain remains one of the most generous in Europe and the world. It pays compensation for physical, sexual and mental injuries and also for things associated with those injuries, such as loss of earnings and special expenses. It also provides compensation to families bereaved by violent crime, to acknowledge their loss and provide support to dependants.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the previous Government announced a review of the scheme in 2018. They held their first consultation in 2020. This was wide ranging, looking at various aspects across the whole scheme. There was a second consultation in 2022 on the scheme’s unspent convictions eligibility rule. The third and final consultation was in 2023 and considered the scheme’s scope and time limits. The second and third consultations of course included consideration of the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, often referred to as IICSA. The last Government did not respond to any of the three consultations before the election was announced last year.

One of my key priorities when I became Minister was to consider how to conclude the previous Government’s review. I saw how many individuals and organisations had taken the time—and, in many cases, expended a great deal of emotional energy—to respond thoughtfully to the issues considered in the consultations. They deserved to know the outcome following their contributions.

At the forefront of my mind as I considered how to respond to the consultations were the IICSA findings and recommendations. There is no doubt that sexual abuse and exploitation of children are the most heinous crimes. It takes a great deal of strength for victims to come forward, seek justice by reporting the crime to the police, and access support and compensation to aid their recovery.

Earlier this month, I published my response to the 2022 and 2023 consultations, which concerned the IICSA recommendations. As has been mentioned, I also wrote to the Justice Committee about the 2020 consultation, concluding that consultation and informing the Committee of my decision not to publish a substantive response to it.

My conclusion was not to amend the scheme at the present time. I have made no secret of the fact that that was a difficult decision to reach. In the same way that I have listened to and learned from hon. Members today, I learned from the respondents to the consultations. I understand and hear their calls for change, and I am considering how we can best support victims with whatever they need through an improved and effective service. Although my decision was difficult, it was the right one for the scheme and the victims of violent crime it supports.

I fully appreciate the basis for IICSA’s recommendations that the scheme be amended and expanded for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation. I also acknowledge that many of the consultation respondents called for change in the way that IICSA recommended. However, it is my belief that all victims can feel a need for their suffering to be recognised, no matter the nature of the violent crime that harmed them. That belief aligns with the core principle of the scheme: that it is universal. That ensures that all victims can equally access the scheme. We cannot have one rule for certain victims and one for others, who have experienced other, often deeply damaging, crimes. Payments are based on injury or bereavement arising from violent crimes, regardless of the nature of the crime. That is why I decided not to amend the scheme as IICSA recommended.

Importantly, the scheme continues to be subject to scrutiny. The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales recently proposed reform of the scheme’s time limits in her report on court backlogs. I responded to the report on 25 April, and I am considering the report of the Women and Equalities Committee, which recommended that the scheme be expanded to enable victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse to access compensation.

That leads me to explain a bit more about why I decided not to respond substantively to the 2020 consultation, which covered all aspects of the scheme as a whole. I appreciate that my decision means that the many people who responded to the consultation will not see change as a result of their contributions, and that the concerns they expressed will not be answered. The key reason for my decision is that the landscape in which the scheme sits has changed significantly since 2020. The questions were asked in a totally different context. Government provision and support for victims has developed, and at the same time demand for that support in all its forms has grown substantively. To put it simply, the context has moved on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and others spoke eloquently about their experience several years ago, but I am hopeful that some of those challenges would not arise today. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, has worked hard since 2020 to improve its service. For instance, all applications can now be made online, so there is no longer the need for the onerous paperwork that hon. Members described. All its staff have undertaken trauma-informed training, and it now has dedicated caseworkers for the most complex cases. It also runs awareness training sessions for stakeholders who support victims, including the police, ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisers. All those measures help to improve victims’ experience when applying for compensation.

There are of course other challenges, as we have heard today, and I assure hon. Members that we are not resting on our laurels. We are committed to continuously reviewing and responding to feedback from stakeholders. CICA undertakes user research, cross-agency work and outreach activity. That facilitates sharing experiences, learning and collaboration to improve its service. I also always welcome feedback from hon. Members, their constituents and victims about the service.

We are working hard for victims more generally. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 aims to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. It makes it clear that victims require services under the victims code, and it strengthens agencies’ accountability for its delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others asked how we raise awareness and ensure people know about the right to access compensation. The victims code includes the right to be told about compensation. We are now implementing the reforms in the Act, and we aim to consult on a revised victims code in due course. We await the report of Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, where we should be making it easier for victims to seek civil remedies directly from perpetrators.

[Sarah Russell]

If we create a right to be made aware of the scheme and a claimant can demonstrate that they were not made aware of it, could we amend the rules for exceptional cases reviews so that that automatically counts as an exception?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion, which we can of course consider. We will be consulting on a new victims code in due course. The Victims’ Commissioner meets me regularly to talk about compliance with the victims code and how we hold agencies accountable for their failure to uphold it, so that can be considered.

As well as compensation, the Ministry of Justice provides funding for vital victim and witness support services, including community-based services, in addition to the funding that we give police and crime commissioners to allocate on the basis of their assessment of local need. Across Government the financial situation is difficult, and we await the outcome of the spending review, but the Government will be considering how we can best provide the support that the victims of crime need and deserve.

As a proud Welsh MP, I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I am due to meet my counterparts in the devolved nations very soon to discuss how we can best support victims of crime wherever they reside in these isles.

I reassure hon. Members that they have all been heard today, in the same way that I have heard the respondents to the consultation. Their message to me is that we need change, with less consultation and less talk, because we need action. Listening to their experiences, views and suggestions will help me to consider how we can best improve the system, make it effective and workable, and provide victims with the justice that they long for and deserve.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for his contribution to this important debate and for all his work in supporting victims of crime.

10:47

[Laurence Turner]

I will not detain Members long, but I wish to thank everyone who has spoken in this debate for their informed speeches and for their tone. It is right that we scrutinise and criticise the records of Governments past and present—that is one of our critical functions—but all hon. Members have approached the subject with the seriousness and sensitivity that it deserves. We all share the common aim of having a scheme that delivers more for the victims of crime.

From the Back Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Although he described some of the differences in Northern Ireland, I was struck by the similarities with the frustrations experienced by victims in England, Wales and Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) made a speech combining powerful empathy with an acute reading of the technical challenges that still exist in the scheme.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Congleton (Sarah Russell), who enriched the debate with their professional experience and expertise. In particular, I was struck by the extremely important issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North highlighted, which needs remedying. It should be a matter of concern to us all that apparent dead letters in the law can be reanimated with a sometimes surprising lack of scrutiny.

From the Front Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who spoke for himself as well as for his party. He has described his own experiences before in this place and has used those experiences to bring forward his own legislation on related matters. I thank him for his speech.

We heard an account from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and it was very important that we heard such an account from the Opposition in this debate. He highlighted an issue that perhaps needs further scrutiny, which is the satisfaction rates that have been claimed. I have to say from my own experience of the scheme that I do not recall ever being asked to give a satisfaction rating. I wonder whether there are issues with how people are asked and what the response rate is; I must say that the 95% figure he cited is surprising to me.

The victims Minister set out an overview of the contributions to this debate. I was struck by her comment that changes to the scheme will not be made at the present time. It is important that if changes are made to the scheme, they are not driven by a short-term desire for cost-savings; they must be motivated by the improvement of the service for victims.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank my hon. Friend for his summing up. I want to pick up on that point. When the White Paper on changes to the scheme came out in 1993, more than two Governments back, the then Government said that the changes they wanted to make to the scheme were driven by a desire to “provide a better service” to claimants, although they admitted that the main aim was to cut costs. It is clear from today’s debate that it is important to ensure that change is driven by providing a better service, rather than by cost-saving measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be the core focus, above any other consideration from the Treasury?

[Laurence Turner]

I am delighted to hear a reference to a White Paper from 1993. I am a great believer in the theory that obscurity is a source of strength, and my hon. Friend has provided some evidence for that.

The Treasury takes a legitimate and necessary interest in annually managed expenditure. On the other hand, there is a real risk that changes made at relatively short notice, with curtailed time for scrutiny in this place, could deliver a worse service. That must be avoided at all costs, as we have seen from some negative experiences with past changes to the scheme.

Building on the Minister’s welcome commitment to continue to work with Members of this House and victims across the course of this Parliament, I hope that we can secure the positive changes that she wants to achieve. I thank all hon. Members who supported the application for the debate, including some who are unavoidably absent, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who gave notice that unfortunately they have been detained by other matters. This is the first debate on the important subject of criminal injuries in this Parliament, but I am sure that it will not be the last. I thank you for your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank everyone for their contributions.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Thank you. Contributions are always more powerful when they are rooted in personal experience, as we have heard today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.

10:53

Sitting suspended.

Recycling of Tyres

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Tessa Munt will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of recycling end-of-life tyres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Government have placed the circular economy at the heart of their agenda. The circular economy taskforce has been established and is expected to report back later this year. Adopting a focus on the circular economy means changing the way we think about so-called waste. We need to see things currently perceived as waste as a resource—a resource with an economic value that can be recovered and contribute to the economic growth that this Government so seriously seek. We also need to implement policies designed to maximise the economic value from these resources.

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

My hon. Friend is introducing a really important debate. A company called Tyre Renewals Ltd operates in Castle Cary in my constituency. Founded back in 1967, it specialises in tyre repairs and the shredding and granulation of used tyres to produce recycled rubber products. That prevents tyres from going into landfill and leaking harmful chemicals and microplastics into the environment, including waterways. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent Government investment in tyre recycling infrastructure is needed to tackle the environmental hazards posed by worn tyres?

[Tessa Munt]

Yes, indeed; I shall come to that shortly.

The previous Government talked a great deal about the circular economy, had their own circular economy strategy and brought forward consultations on a number of measures to close certain loopholes that created an opening for waste crime. Sadly, despite multiple commitments to taking action, not enough was actually implemented. This Minister knows that it is not sufficient to talk about the circular economy; she and her team need to take action to deliver the changes that have been talked about for far too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. We in Northern Ireland had a problem with tyres and bonfires—it is in the nature of what happens—but over the last number of years, councils have had a distinct policy to make sure that that does not happen, and it has not happened. Does the hon. Lady agree that local businesses must not simply take the easy option of sending their tyres to be recycled overseas, which seems to end in fires, and that they should be encouraged to send them to recognised recycling groups in the United Kingdom, where there are guarantees that the tyres will be completely recycled and the rubber, fibre and steel will all be reused?

[Tessa Munt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be the case. We need to tighten up the licensing regulation and how the whole process works, so that we can reduce the amount of damage that is done.

According to global trade data, the UK disposes of approximately 600,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. About 350,000 tonnes of those are currently shipped to India. Of the remaining 250,000, some are exported to markets such as Turkey and Morocco, where they are used in the manufacture of cement. Some are processed in the UK to create materials to produce asphalt, which has many benefits for road safety and for the environment, and which enhances the circular economy. I will return to UK processing shortly.

The fate of the 350,000 tonnes of tyres exported to India raises serious environmental and public health concerns. India, like other non-OECD countries, does not have the same stringent environmental emissions regulations that we have in the UK. However, most tyres exported to India are shipped as “green list waste” under the waste shipments regulations, which are contained in assimilated EU law.

Batches tend to be sent in the form of baled whole tyres, which creates two risks. First, some tyres exported in that way are then sold for refitting in India, leading to road safety issues. Secondly, when exported as whole tyre bales, most of the tyres are sent on to rudimentary batch pyrolysis sites. In Indian batch pyrolysis, tyres are commonly burned to produce a high-sulphur heavy fuel called tyre pyrolysis oil—which is typically burned, causing direct harm to the environment—and low-grade carbon black, which is often unsuitable for reuse. The process involves enormous amounts of energy and the flaring of syngas directly into the atmosphere, without filtering or scrubbing, in conditions that are hazardous to operator health, the local population and the environment.

The use of imported end-of-life tyres in India—both for refitting vehicles and in batch pyrolysis—is illegal under Indian domestic law, but there is a lack of even the most basic enforcement capacity to uphold the law. The reality of the uses of imported end-of-life tyres in India was the subject of a recent BBC documentary and, as the Minister will be aware, additionally the subject of a recent legal challenge against the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the campaign group Fighting Dirty. The challenge relates to the failure of the agency and the Department to take action to prevent the illegal use of end-of-life tyres exported to India.

It is important to note that this is not a historical waste crime, but one that is ongoing. Every single day, we ship around 1,000 tonnes of UK waste tyres to India. Investigators from the UK and Australia have used GPS tracking devices in several consignments of waste tyres shipped to India over the last few years, and have consistently evidenced that 100% of the tyres tracked do not reach their intended destination, with the majority being diverted to batch pyrolysis plants. What investigations has the Department undertaken to track consignments of waste tyres shipped abroad? Secondly, what conclusions has the Department reached in relation to digital waste tracking?

There has been growing concern that developed countries, such as the UK, are dumping their waste problems on developing countries and have continued to export their pollution over many years. International conventions such as the Basel convention seek to better manage waste internationally, and there is domestic law to give effect to such undertakings. What is the Minister’s view on a potential producer responsibility scheme for the UK’s end of life tyres?

In response to the legal challenge and the BBC documentary, the Government have announced that the Environment Agency will conduct a review into the issue. Today I seek clarification from the Minister about the scope of that review, and I have four questions at this point. Will the review be limited to an assessment of the enforcement of the existing legal provisions contained in the Basel convention and the waste shipments regulations? Will the review enable the Environment Agency to consider policy improvements? Will the review make policy recommendations to Ministers? How and when does the review intend to engage with the industry and interested parties?

The Environment Act 2021 significantly strengthened the powers available to the Government to manage and track waste exports. Section 62 of the Act added to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by creating further regulatory powers to better manage and track waste exports and the countries they pass through. It also established additional powers of direction for Ministers. As I understand it, those important new powers have yet to be used.

Will the Minister use her new powers under section 62 of the 2021 Act to take action to address the problems with waste tyre exports? Because end-of-life tyres are currently deemed green list waste under assimilated law through the waste shipments regulations, they are not notifiable and, as a result, are difficult to track. Will the Minister confirm that she will amend the waste shipments regulations to remove end-of-life tyres from the green list category and make such exports notifiable?

Under environmental permitting regulations, there are exemptions from the need to have a permit for a number of treatments. The so-called T8 waste exemption, applying to end-of-life tyres, has long been recognised as a problem. Operators can self-certify that they handle numbers below a certain threshold and are therefore eligible for an exemption. Marking your own homework is never a good idea: often those T8-exempt operators are exactly those who trade in baled tyres to India by undercutting our responsible operators who act within the regulated regime with a permit.

The Environment Agency identified the T8 exemption as a problem that made committing waste crime easier as far back as a decade ago. There were then various calls for evidence. Eventually, around three years ago, there was a consultation on removing this exemption, and the last Government confirmed that they would remove it 18 months ago. Then, nothing happened. Can the Minister confirm whether parliamentary counsel has drafted the necessary regulations and that, unlike her predecessors, she will lay the statutory instrument without further delay so that loophole can finally be closed?

As we seek to identify what makes up a circular economy, we might learn lessons from approaches taken elsewhere in the world. Australia offers a powerful case study to demonstrate what can be achieved through simple legislative tweaks to end-of-life tyre exports. Four years ago, recognising the environmental impact of allowing those tyres to be exported to countries such as India for use in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, the Australian Government introduced a new condition that waste tyres had to be shredded before they could be exported. That Government also created a new system of notification and licensing for exporters. The Act that created the provisions was the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, which had some similar objectives to parts of the UK Environment Act 2021. Subsequent regulations giving effect to the changes were the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Tyres) Rules 2021.

First, the new Australian provisions required operators to have a waste export licence to export waste tyres at all. Secondly, they required that tyres could be exported only in a form that had been processed to shreds or crumbs of no more than 150 mm—just under 6 inches. Those could be used in modern pyrolysis to create tyre-derived fuel for uses such as sustainable aviation, or for other purposes, but only under a scheme verified by Tyre Stewardship Australia’s foreign end market verification programme, so the fate of every export was known.

At a stroke, the export of whole tyres, which could previously be used illegally overseas, was ended. When shredded, tyres cannot be refitted illegally to vehicles, nor can they be used in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, since those systems require whole tyres as feedstock. In addition to taking responsibility for the country’s waste and removing an environmental hazard from countries such as India, the regulatory changes also created additional feedstock for the domestic recycling industry in Australia. That was a spur to the circular economy, creating confidence for investors to increase capacity in the domestic production of asphalt and to invest in a new generation of modern, continuous-feed pyrolysis plants that can use shredded tyres and have a more positive environmental impact.

Modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants maintain steady temperatures, and achieve about 250% higher throughput for the same energy input as batch pyrolysis. The syngas is captured and reused to heat the kilns through gas turbines, which removes carbon dioxide emissions. Such plants produce higher grade carbon black, which is pelletised and reused in tyre manufacturing, supporting the circular economy. Finally, the resultant tyre pyrolysis fuel oil is refined, undergoing further processing that would meet stringent UK environmental regulations.

The UK has dormant capacity to shred and process around 150,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. The reason why the plants are dormant is twofold. First, companies are unable to secure sufficient feedstock for plants because so many tyres are exported to India in baled form. Secondly, tyre collectors receive more money from India than the gate fees paid to companies who could recycle the materials here at home. The UK receives about £13 million in revenue from baled tyres sent abroad. A study by Fluid Ice and Imperial College assessed that if those end-of-life tyres were processed in the UK, even if the resultant products were exported, the revenue would be over £250 million. Several new businesses are seeking to invest in modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants in the UK but they will do so only if they have confidence in the availability of their UK feedstock. We know that the potential feedstock exists, but it is currently being exported for illegal use abroad.

I have three more questions for the Minister. If we are to adopt the circular economy agenda, should we not support investors who want to recycle end-of-life tyres here? Does she agree that we should take steps to ensure that UK companies have a domestic feedstock to give them confidence? Finally, does she agree that we should take responsibility for our own waste, process it here in the UK and maximise the economic value of that resource? The Australian model for end-of-use tyres seems good and effective, and we could easily replicate its impact and effect with relatively minor changes.

I recognise that I have asked 13 questions, to which I would like answers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on stopping the export of whole tyres to India, introducing better regulations and licensing, ensuring enforcement, and adopting a model parallel to that of Australia. I have provided her with a list of my questions, and I am happy to have her responses in writing, in the interest of completeness.

11:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. What a joy it is to be back in Westminster Hall to discuss everybody’s favourite subjects: the materials economy, waste crime, and how we are going to tackle waste crime, after a decade and a half of a lot of talk and very little action—as the Elvis Presley song goes. We will have a little more action under this Government. As part of our plan for change, we will clean up Britain, crack down on waste cowboys and close the waste loopholes. I am keen that we all work together on a cross-party basis to achieve that.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Waste cowboys have been a big issue around the villages of my constituency, as I have said previously. I appreciate the Government’s focus on the circular economy, particularly from the Minister, because I know that she is incredibly passionate about this issue. Does she agree that the focus on our circular economy is important not only for the environment, but to tackle the criminality around fly tipping and other areas of waste crime?

[Mary Creagh]

I do indeed. The amount of money and resources allocated to tackling environmental crime was steadily reduced over the term of the previous Government. There has been a sense that these are somehow victimless crimes. I listened to the “File on 4” documentary, and it was deeply upsetting to hear about the fire and the death of local people at that plant. There is always a victim. There is no such place as “away”. We have only one world, and we have to stop treating our rivers, lakes and seas as sewers, and stop outsourcing our material problems to other countries.

[Sarah Dyke]

In 2021, Natural England downgraded the Somerset levels and moors Ramsar area and the water quality there to “unfavourable declining”. Somerset Wildlife Trust has attributed the microplastics to worn tyres in the environment. It is obviously a really concerning pollutant. What steps is the Minister taking to make manufacturers take greater responsibility for the contribution that their products make to microplastic pollution on the Somerset levels and moors?

[Mary Creagh]

That is a really interesting fact, and not one that I have come across. I will take that away and look at it. As with many of these things, I am responsible for waste and materials and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice is the Water Minister, so things often fall between the gaps of segmented policy brief allocations, but we will look into that and get back to her.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate and other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. This Government want to be good stewards of our country and planet’s resources, our prosperity, and our economic and environmental resilience, so the loss of any of those resources concerns me greatly.

We have seen the damaging impacts that makeshift furnaces abroad have on people’s health and the environment, and the illegal batch pyrolysis of tyres is linked with other criminal activities that cause harm to the environment, people and communities. It is unacceptable that illegal exportation in this country is part of that supply chain.

We take the reports from “File on 4” and others very seriously. The Environment Agency is working with Indian counterparts to ensure that waste, including waste tyres, is recovered and recycled lawfully. That is a joint UK effort, and DEFRA works closely with all four UK regulators to ensure that there is a consistent approach regarding controls on the export of waste across the United Kingdom. Scotland banned the export of whole tyres back in 2018, so there is inconsistency. What has that meant? It means, possibly, that whole tyres in Scotland have come down to England and Wales for export, but who knows? It is hard to say what the flows are doing.

The Environment Agency is conducting an internal review of how it regulates the export of waste tyres. I and my DEFRA colleagues look forward to that review’s findings, and we will carefully consider its outcomes when it has been completed.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

Can I just finish this point? The EA is independent. It is important that we do not prejudice the ongoing review. My understanding from officials is that it will report at the end of June, and I look forward to discussing the outcomes of that review with them. I will ask them to write to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills with detailed answers to her questions on the scope of the review. And on digital waste tracking, we will launch that from April 2026 and will provide further details on the scope of that in due course.

With tyres, as with other waste, our priority must shift from throwing things away to reusing and recycling more. We will do that by breaking the linear “take, make, throw” model and by seizing the opportunity to become leaders in circular design, technology and industry. We will increase the resilience and productivity of the UK’s economy, create highly skilled new green jobs up and down the country, and help our economy to keep more of the critical resources on which it depends. In doing so, we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to reduce waste and to accelerate to net zero.

We have a Circular Economy Taskforce that includes experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to help us to develop a circular economy strategy for England. That is supported by sectoral road maps detailing the interventions that the Government and others will make to drive circular growth and enhance our economic resilience. The Transport Secretary will be responsible for one of those road maps, and the others will concern agrifood, chemicals and plastics, textiles and waste electricals. We have a lot of different sectoral road maps, and I urge the Tyre Recovery Association to feed into that working group.

We have lots of ideas about how to reuse materials for a different purpose and they are all coming to the fore. The problem is that some ideas will win and some will lose, and we are in the stage where we are not quite clear about what is the right thing to do, and there are lots of good counter-arguments.

In the case of tyres, the rubber crumb produced by recycling them has a range of applications. The hon. Member mentioned, for example, that it can be used to produce asphalt, but it can also be used as a surfacing material in children’s playgrounds. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) mentioned a responsible and long-standing business that is doing the right thing, but is looking around the landscape, thinking, “Hang on, why are we doing the right thing when the cowboys are undercutting us?” The principle of fairness is important, as is enforcement of the law as it stands—before we make new laws, we should look at enforcing the laws we already have.

We have a competitive market in the UK for waste management services. New people and innovators are always welcome to join the field. There are a lot of management options available to waste handling operators; they need to be selected according to market conditions and local needs. Operators need to look at the waste hierarchy and the need to ensure the best available outcome for the waste. I am very interested in the Australian model and the Australian experience. I know that my officials have been in contact with Australian Government officials.

[Sarah Dyke]

The Minister mentioned Tyre Renewals in Castle Cary. I would very much like to welcome her to Glastonbury and Somerton to meet Tyre Renewals so that the company can show her what it does.

[Mary Creagh]

I will do a deal: I will come as long as we can go to The Newt, which I understand is the sponsor of this year’s Chelsea Flower Show. I have been reading all about The Newt, so I have been looking up Castle Cary and seeing how easy it would be to get to—my private office will not be very happy with me for saying that.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister also meet Henry Hodge, who is part of Black-Ram Recycling and one of the people who informed me about this particular problem with tyres? That is in the constituency just next door, so it is an easy trip.

[Mary Creagh]

We can never spend enough time in Wiltshire, Dr Murrison, so we will see what we can do.

On the T8 exemption, we need to ensure that the UK’s house is in good order. The impact that waste criminals have on people’s lives is terrible, but poor performance in the waste industry is also a massive problem. It undermines the many excellent operators and responsible waste businesses in the UK, of whom we should be rightly proud.

We are determined to reform the way that the sector is regulated to mitigate environmental impacts, and we are considering plans. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills mentioned the review in 2015, and there was a consultation in 2018. I have been pressing my officials as to why, a mere seven years later, nothing has happened. But she will have noticed that I have not followed in my predecessor’s footsteps; inertia is not my middle name. I have been very demanding of officials on this issue and I recognise the importance of removing the T8 exemption for the industry and the wider benefits of doing so. I am happy to tell the House that DEFRA’s intentions in this area, along with our priorities in the waste and recycling space, will be announced very soon.

I will close by thanking the hon. Member for securing this debate—but let me just check that I have answered her questions. I have covered the review, digital waste tracking and the retention of the circular economy. She asked about the Environment Agency review. The EA is looking at its own regulation. As part of that review, it will check its understanding of its powers and legal duties and ask, “Are we doing the right thing?” It will look at how it manages information and intelligence received from third parties. If people have evidence of waste crime, I encourage them to report it anonymously through Crimestoppers—so people do not have to give their name and address and worry about reprisals. That intelligence sharing is really important.

That review might also make recommendations for amendments to the EA’s legal and regulatory powers. The hon. Member can be reassured that I will not sit around twiddling my thumbs when I get that report.

[Tessa Munt]

It is really helpful of the Minister to ask people to contact Crimestoppers, but I wonder whether the Department can do more to demonstrate how it is prosecuting people who break the law. Enforcement is incredibly important—

[Mary Creagh]

We are not the regulator; it is for the Environment Agency, as the regulator, to do those prosecutions.

[Tessa Munt]

We need to tell people when it is doing this stuff.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a very good point, but that is not the Department’s responsibility; we have the regulator and it is its job to do the prosecutions. There is a correct separation of power.

We have engaged with the Indian authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, to help to ensure that this waste is recovered and recycled correctly, because small-batch pyrolysis is also illegal in India. There will be a delegation to meet officials in the autumn to strengthen relationships and discuss this matter further—

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Black Maternal Health Awareness Week

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

14:30

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Black Maternal Health Week 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Before I get to the crux of this debate, I want to begin by saying that the UK is one of the safest countries in the world for a woman to give birth. I say that at the outset not to diminish the importance of this debate, but to move beyond that platitude—because in the sixth largest economy in the world, this should be one of the safest places to give birth. It is important that we move beyond that and focus on the real and persistent inequalities facing black and minority ethnic women in maternity care. While I am sure it is not the intention to focus on that, it can give the impression that, because the UK is broadly safe, the negative experiences of some women are exceptional and not matters that require significant Government attention. When we detail some of the harrowing experiences of women and hear that response, it can feel as though our concerns are being minimalised, so I hope the Minister will appreciate that I have got that part out of the way. While the UK is among the safest places to give birth, it is by no means perfect, and for many women it is deadly. As always, it is vital to lay out the current state of affairs.

The disparities in maternity care are evident not only in maternal mortality statistics, which show that black and mixed heritage women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth as white women, and Asian women twice as likely, but in many other areas. Miscarriage rates are 40% higher in black women, and black ethnicity is now regarded as a risk factor for miscarriage. MBRRACE-UK’s 2023 comparison of care for black and white women who have experienced stillbirth or neonatal death found that the majority of all significant issues were identified in antenatal care for 83% of black women, compared with 69% of white women; 67% of black mothers and babies had a major or significant issue related to pathology, compared with 46% of white mothers and babies; and 75% of black parents and 66% of white parents had significant issues identified during the follow-up or reviews of their and their baby's care.

Public Health England’s 2020 report found that prematurity is a major cause of long-term infant morbidity. Black mothers, particularly those of black Caribbean background, are twice as likely to give birth before 37 weeks. In Five X More’s “Black Maternity Experiences Report 2022”, 27% of the 1,340 survey respondents felt that they received “poor” or “very poor” care during pregnancy and labour, and postnatally. Forty-two per cent of the standard of care during childbirth was “poor” or “very poor”, and I sincerely hope that the findings of Five X More’s next survey, which is currently under way, will show some improvement here.

According to Bliss, many babies born to black mothers require specialist care after birth, particularly due to preterm birth or full term complications, yet significant inequalities persist in neonatal care, admissions, the quality of care received, and outcomes after discharge. Poor care received at such an early stage of life can have critical consequences and lead to long-term health complications for black babies and deepen trauma for their families. Post-natal mental health disparities are also significant; UK studies show that women from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to suffer from common mental health disorders, yet are less likely to access treatment.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The Caribbean and African Health Network CIC report reveals that the perinatal mental health services lack spaces where black women can feel safe, seen and supported. Does my hon. Friend, and indeed the Minister, agree that more inclusive, high quality and personalised care is required to meet the needs of all women in maternity care?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I re-emphasise the point that black, Asian and minority ethnic women are more likely to suffer from common mental health disorders, yet are less likely to access treatment. According to MBRRACE-UK’s “Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care” report from last October, deaths from mental health-related causes accounted for 34% of deaths occurring between six weeks and a year after the end of pregnancy. It is vital that all those who experience pregnancy and childbirth receive mental health support, even if they do not necessarily present as struggling with their mental health; but that is especially true of black, Asian and minority ethnic women, who are more likely to have a negative experience during pregnancy and childbirth. Some of these women’s experiences are deeply traumatic and scarring, and can lead to several mental health problems. Despite that, they are less likely to access mental health support, so they are left to try to recover mentally from the experience on their own.

That disparity exists beyond pregnancy and childbirth, and even before conception. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, black women are 25 times less likely to access fertility treatment, and NHS-funded in vitro fertilisation cycles among black patients decreased from 60% in 2019 to 41% in 2021. Black and Asian patients aged 18 to 37 had the lowest IVF success rates compared with white patients in 2020-21, and non-white groups also struggled to access donor eggs, with 89% of egg donors being white, 4% Asian, 3% of mixed heritage and only 3% black.

During the International Women’s Day debate, I highlighted the latest MBRRACE-UK data, which showed a statistically significant increase in the UK’s maternal death rate in the years 2020 to 2022, even when excluding deaths caused by covid-19. Put plainly, more women and babies of all races are dying in the UK now than in the past two decades. This is incredibly worrying, and it means that black women, who often face the worst care, are likely to experience even further deterioration.

When I was researching the latest statistics and figures for this debate, it became increasingly apparent that the data on racial disparities in maternity care is limited and scattered. The data I have cited comes from a collection of reports by various medical bodies and advocacy organisations. Racial disparities are often identified as part of broader studies but, as far as I know, to date there has been no comprehensive medical study dedicated exclusively to racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes, despite the statistics consistently showing how bad things are becoming.

The Lancet’s recent study on maternal mortality and MBRRACE-UK’s reports do include racial breakdowns, but they are based on the data that they have, not the data that they need. A single, dedicated study is yet to be conducted. The lack of comprehensive research makes it incredibly difficult to see a full picture of what is happening, so I hope that the Minister will address that point and highlight what the Government are doing to get a clearer picture of the state of maternity care.

There is no one driver of the racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes. The causes are multifaceted, but overwhelmingly they are the result of a combination of structural racism, unconscious bias, gaps in culturally competent care and socioeconomic inequalities. The first two are incredibly important to highlight. Without acknowledging that the NHS has an issue with institutional racism and unconscious bias, we cannot address the problem. Those issues feed into the quality of care being delivered for black mothers and their babies. The inaccurate and dog-whistle assumptions around black women’s pain tolerance, for example, can lead to women being denied pain medication during childbirth, or misbelieved when raising concerns about pain felt that signals a severe medical condition. Those beliefs are not taught in medical school or during training, yet so many black women have come across a nurse, midwife or doctor who holds them. They are a direct result of institutional racism in the NHS and have a direct impact on the care that women receive.

It is important to note that, although racial disparities in maternity care are experienced regardless of class, occupation, education or geography, socioeconomic inequalities are still a very important factor in determining health outcomes and experiences. Women living in the most deprived areas have a maternal mortality rate more than twice that of women living in the least deprived areas. Black and minority ethnic people are 2.5 times more likely to be in relative poverty and 2.2 times more likely to live in deep poverty.

The combination of socioeconomic inequalities and institutional racism in the NHS is having a dual impact on black mothers’ experiences of maternity care and health outcomes. Much of the previous Government’s work to improve maternity care was focused on co-morbidities and socioeconomic drivers of poor health. Indeed, it is crucial that those areas are addressed, but without looking at the structural racism and unconscious bias in the NHS, the problems will persist.

I want to recognise the campaign groups that are pushing the issue up the political agenda. In the absence of concrete Government or NHS action, advocacy groups have stepped in to offer their solutions and recommendations. Where they can, they also offer alternative care and training. First—always first—I commend Five X More, which established Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in 2019. Its work empowers black women to make informed decisions during pregnancy, and it advocates for systemic change. It is currently conducting its second national survey, building on its impactful 2022 research.

Five X More is calling for a measurable Government target to end racial disparities in maternal death, a commitment that the Labour Government support but have yet to implement. I hope that the Minister will confirm today whether such a target will be set, how it will be measured and when we can expect it. Five X More also advocates for mandatory annual maternity surveys focused on black women’s experiences, compulsory anti-racism and cultural competence training for all maternity professionals, and improved data collection on ethnicity and outcomes.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Given the complexities and interchangeable disparities that affect maternal health for black women, does she agree that without a national target or framework we are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again? This travesty needs to end, because no mother or child’s health outcome should be determined by the colour of their skin.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These figures have been circulating for decades, but it was only after a successful parliamentary petition launched by Five X More that we first debated them in the House. We are now five or six years on and we are still in the same situation. Things have to change.

I will continue to pay tribute to the amazing groups that have been pushing for decades to put the issue on the agenda. Mimosa Midwives is another remarkable group that offers culturally safe, continuous maternity care. It campaigns for a culturally appropriate care model in the NHS and for inclusive training in midwifery education to reflect diverse maternal experiences, because much of our medical training remains centred on white women.

The Motherhood Group is a social enterprise supporting black mothers with peer-led services, training workshops and national campaigns. Its annual black maternal health conference brings together researchers, clinicians and service users to tackle disparities. It also launched the Blackmums app to connect mothers navigating similar challenges.

Other charities such as Bliss, Tommy’s, Birthrights and the Royal College of Midwives also highlight racial disparities in their broader efforts to improve maternity care. Where the Government and the NHS have fallen short, they have taken the time to campaign and to step in.

I will, however, acknowledge the positive steps that the new Government and the NHS have taken. In response to my written parliamentary questions last month, the Government outlined some ongoing measures. Every local maternity system must now publish an equity and equality action plan that sets out tailored actions to reduce disparities, especially for ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas. I welcome the roll-out of version 3 of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, which aims to reduce stillbirth, neonatal death, pre-term birth and brain injury.

Maternal medicine networks are being established to ensure equitable access to specialist care for women at heightened risk. Those efforts are supported by the NHS equality, diversity and inclusion improvement plan, which was launched in 2023. That plan requires NHS organisations to tackle workforce discrimination, improve leadership accountability and foster an inclusive, harassment-free environment. I am also pleased to note that NHS England is developing a respectful and inclusive maternity care toolkit to support inclusive and culturally competent practice. Those are all really welcome developments, but much more is needed.

I will close with four questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to a statutory inquiry into racial disparities in maternity care, including testimony from affected families and frontline providers? Secondly, will the Government fund dedicated research into the medical complications disproportionately affecting black women during pregnancy and childbirth? Thirdly, will the Government commission a review of maternity training across all medical professions, to better equip practitioners in recognising complications and symptoms in black women and babies? Finally, do the Government acknowledge the presence of systemic racism within the NHS? If so, what steps are being taken to confront and eliminate it? It is good that in the past few years, the House has taken the time to acknowledge these issues and allow us to debate them, but even though the Government stated in their manifesto that a target will be set, we now need to see action. We cannot continue to see gaping inequalities in maternal outcomes.

14:45

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing today’s important debate. She has highlighted that black women often receive a worse standard of care and that their risk of maternal death is three times higher than for white women.

The situation in Nottinghamshire demonstrates why change must happen quickly. As some in the Chamber will know, there is currently an independent review into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust, led by Donna Ockenden. I first called for this review when I was a councillor after my experience of giving birth to my son in 2020. I knew then, as I know now, that women accessing services at NUH do not always receive the care they deserve, nor are they listened to when they raise concerns. Ahead of today’s debate, I reached out to Donna Ockenden and her team for their perspective on black maternal health in Nottinghamshire so that I could highlight it here today.

When the Donna Ockenden review was established in Nottingham two years ago, the Nottingham University Hospitals trust could not share a single named contact within the black community, nor did the trust have any meaningful engagement with the many groups across Nottinghamshire. It had no way of reaching into groups of black women who might have been affected by poor maternity care. The translated resources provided by the trust were also very limited. It is therefore unsurprising that trust between black communities and Nottingham University Hospitals trust was at an all-time low.

As Donna Ockenden rightly emphasised to me, that only increased the risk that women and their families would disengage from vital health services and be unable to give informed consent to treatment through their maternity programme. I am pleased to say that the review’s work so far is leading to some improvements in the NHS, and I believe it is important to acknowledge that progress even if there is still so much further to go.

Since the review began, Donna and her team have met many community groups across Nottinghamshire and attended numerous church services and meetings in the majority black-led churches. They have also appeared on the famous Kemet FM, a local community radio station that focuses on the music, wellbeing and culture of Nottingham’s African and Caribbean communities, broadcasting across the east midlands and the Caribbean.

Following that outreach, many black families have come forward to the review, and community engagement has strengthened as the review has progressed. I am pleased to report that these learnings are shared with the trust in bimonthly learning and improvement meetings, although it has taken years to build that relationship with local communities and to establish trust. That is essential not only in providing safe care that is reflective of the population’s needs, but in ensuring that the voices of black women are no longer ignored. It is clear that there had been little or no communication for so long.

However, it is important to acknowledge that not every trust has a Donna Ockenden. They do not have somebody reaching out to black communities and black women to find out what is happening and how they are affected by health services.

I know that the last 14 years have had a hugely detrimental impact on maternity services across the country. The only way we can begin to fix them is by tackling the underlying issues in the culture of the NHS. It is important to note, as I have just said, that not every NHS trust has a Donna Ockenden and the level of scrutiny that happened in Nottingham.

As the newly elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group on maternity, I am committed to working with the Government on a health strategy for maternity services that recognises how inequalities have a huge impact on the care that people receive. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that the experiences of black women are at the heart of any forthcoming maternity strategy, and that trusts are strongly encouraged to engage with communities so that their voices are no longer ignored. If inequalities are to be addressed, we require a national framework and a maternity strategy that is fit for the future.

14:50

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing today’s important and timely debate, following Black Maternal Health Awareness Week earlier this month. Her opening remarks were comprehensive and thoughtful. I am always pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a passionate advocate for improved maternity services in Nottingham and across the UK; I am pleased to serve on the APPG with her at the helm.

Women are at their most vulnerable during pregnancy, as they carry another human life, and they deserve the very best care. They have more touchpoints with the NHS than they will have for most of their lives. We engage with the NHS when we are born and when we need to access care at the end of our lives. When we are carrying a child, we have more moments in front of medical professionals than for the majority of our lives.

Following its inspection of 131 maternity units, the Care Quality Commission found that 65% were not safe for women to give birth, 47% required improvement on safety, and 18% were inadequate. The commission warned that it is concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity care. Those risks are particularly stark for women of colour in this country, for whom pregnancy continues to carry an unacceptable level of danger. As the Darzi report highlighted, black women are almost three times as likely as white women to die during childbirth, while neonatal mortality among the most deprived quintile is more than double that among the least deprived. That is nothing less than a national scandal.

Maternity care is an issue close to my heart, having had two very different experiences giving birth in my local hospital in Chichester. I tabled an early-day motion on maternity care and secured a Backbench Business debate in this Chamber on that subject just two months ago. Like the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest, I am in regular contact with Donna Ockenden, who produced the Ockenden report. Her findings, along with those of Dr Bill Kirkup, show that the problems identified at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust are not isolated incidents. The same issues are systemic and widespread across many NHS trusts up and down the country.

In preparation for the previous debate on maternity services as a whole, I spoke to families across the country who had experienced devastating failures in the system. They went into hospital expecting the joyful outcome of going home with a child, but instead they had to return without their baby, carrying the trauma of that experience for the rest of their lives.

As the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned, the MBRRACE-UK report for 2021 to 2023 confirms that inequalities in maternal mortality rates persist, with a nearly threefold difference among women from black ethnic backgrounds, and an almost twofold difference among women from Asian ethnic backgrounds, compared with white women. Women living in the most deprived areas continue to experience maternal mortality rates that are twice those in the least deprived areas. Care for black women who experience stillbirth or neonatal death is often inadequate.

Ethnicity is still not routinely recognised as a risk factor in, for example, the screening and prevention of conditions such as gestational diabetes. Births to black mothers are almost twice as likely to be investigated for NHS safety failings, and black mothers are twice as likely to suffer from perinatal mental illness compared with their white counterparts.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has long talked about these disparities. She introduced the Miscarriage and Stillbirth (Black and Asian Women) Bill in 2022, which sought to require the Secretary of State to lay annual reports before Parliament on efforts to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth rates among black and Asian women, but unfortunately it was not carried over into the next Session.

When so many of our conversations in this House and in the other place are about the economic pressure we are under as a country, it is worth reflecting that, on top of the enormous human toll of this issue, failure also has a financial cost. Obstetric claims make up just 13% of clinical negligence cases handled by NHS Resolution, but they cost more than £1 billion a year, which is nearly 60% of the total cost.

Across the country, families face unbearable grief and trauma because of failures in maternity care, and that burden is falling disproportionately on black women and families. We Liberal Democrats are committed to transforming maternity services to make the UK the safest place in the world to have a baby, and we fully support the work of Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in drawing attention to these critical issues. Our general election manifesto pledged to revolutionise perinatal mental health support, not only for those currently pregnant and for new mothers but for those who have endured miscarriage or stillbirth.

We have been clear that the Government must, as a priority of the highest urgency, implement all the immediate and essential actions recommended by the Ockenden report. It is deeply concerning that, years after the tragedies at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust, failures are still widespread and efforts to address them appear piecemeal.

When my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) recently questioned the Department on the implementation of the Ockenden recommendations, it was alarming that it could not confirm whether the actions had been implemented, nor did it appear to have a system for centrally monitoring the progress. The Minister pointed to the three-year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services as the Department’s main response.

Deeper analysis shows serious shortcomings. Many measures in the plan have no meaningful numerical targets, which makes real accountability for the difference made by the plan very hard to track. Targets for expanding access to perinatal mental health support are being missed, even as some improvement is noted, and staff satisfaction indicators remain worryingly low, with some measures still recording fewer than half of staff expressing confidence in educational opportunities or in their management’s response to unsafe practices.

The target set in 2010 to halve maternal mortality looks increasingly out of reach. Maternal mortality rates did not fall for a decade, and they actually increased between 2021 and 2023. Worse still, no updated data has been published for the last two years on the rates of serious brain injury, stillbirth, neonatal mortality or preterm birth. Without transparency and accountability, women will continue to be failed, and black women, who already bear the brunt of the disparities, will continue to be disproportionately harmed. That is why I ask the Minister to commit to reviewing these issues urgently, to meet me and my colleagues from the Liberal Democrat health team to discuss a more effective plan to improve maternity safety, and to set out a clear path to address the deep disparities in black maternal health.

Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cross-Government strategy, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, with annual progress reports on reducing miscarriage and stillbirth rates among ethnic minorities. We also call for increased funding for public health initiatives, with a portion earmarked to allow communities facing the worst health inequalities to co-produce solutions tailored to their specific needs. We propose the establishment of a health creation unit in the Cabinet Office to lead work across Government to improve health and tackle inequalities.

Black women have waited too long for their concerns to be heard, for the system to change and for justice to be done. We owe it to them and to every woman, family and baby in this country to get maternity services right. No woman should fear for her life or her child’s life because of the colour of her skin or the postcode that she lives in. We have to do better.

14:59

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing this important debate today. As she said in her opening speech, the UK enjoys some of the best outcomes in the world when it comes to maternity health, but there is always more work to be done to improve our outcomes further. I hope we can all agree that equal access to the best care, for all across our society, should always be our target. That should be based on excellence across the board as standard.

We are considering Black Maternal Health Awareness Week, which is part of National Minority Health Month, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic and exchange views with colleagues from across the House. Colleagues will know that as a clinician myself, I am always guided by data when assessing current healthcare practices and new policy proposals. A 2023 report by the maternal, newborn and infant clinical outcome review programme found that in the period from 2019 to 2021, 241 UK women died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after the end of pregnancy. That equates to a rate of 11.7 women per 100,000 giving birth. Each of those cases represents a tragedy for the woman and baby involved and their family and loved ones, and we must do all we can to prevent them.

The data does, as has been mentioned, also show that women from black backgrounds face a mortality rate much higher than the average; it is equal to 37.2 per 100,000. Women from Asian backgrounds also face a higher rate, at 17.6 per 100,000. Clearly, those figures present a pretty stark picture, but we must exercise care in the interventions that we make, and balance our desire to solve the problem with ensuring that we do that in a way that resolves the problem without risking creating others.

At the outset, it is crucial to ask what the Government are doing to understand the specific causes of these outcome disparities, because if we understand the causes, we will be better able to manage and treat them. The Kirkup and Ockenden reports have already been mentioned. What are the Government doing to ensure that those recommendations are fully implemented, and to develop a strategy to ensure that all women have the opportunity for a safe pregnancy and birth? What kinds of data held by the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care might cast light on other demographic, economic or geographical patterns that contribute to these numbers, which we may be able to help to resolve?

We know that the most significant factor in predicting death during the maternity period is a pre-existing medical condition, and we know that disparities exist in the incidence of some pre-existing conditions that are relevant between some ethnic groups in the wider population. For example, a 2018 research paper in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases found that rates of heart disease were 20% higher among the black community than those from white backgrounds, and rates of stroke were a remarkable 40% higher. Do the Government know how the rates of pre-existing conditions among ethnic groups are influencing the figures on maternal health, and how are they going to work to reduce the risks of such conditions among these groups to try to improve the care not just during maternity, but during the whole of black ladies’ or ethnic minority ladies’ lives?

Maternal mortality itself arises from a number of conditions and causes. In the period from 2019 to 2021, for example, 14% of maternal deaths were attributed to cardiac disease, 14% to blood clots, 10% to sepsis and 9% to epilepsy or stroke. What are the Government doing to understand the prevalence of those conditions among ethnic groups, how the conditions can be prevented, how they can be identified in black women—indeed, in all women—how they can be better treated to save lives, how they can be better managed to save lives, and what research can be done to ensure that they are, if possible, prevented?

Socioeconomic deprivation has also been mentioned, and it is important to consider the impact of deprivation. In the period from 2019 to 2021, 12% of women who died during pregnancy or in the year afterwards were at severe and multiple disadvantage. That included, in particular, women who had suffered mental health conditions or domestic abuse, or had a history of substance abuse. How do the Government understand these factors and their influence on mortality rates, and what are they doing to help to resolve those issues?

Closer to home, in February 2022 the NHS Race and Health Observatory published “Ethnic Inequalities in Healthcare: A Rapid Evidence Review”. The authors of that report noted:

“Tackling poorer care and outcomes among ethnic minority women and babies continues to be a focus within the…NHS England and NHS Improvement Maternity Transformation Programme Equity Strategy, which includes pledges to improve equity for mothers and babies and race equality for staff.”

The Government’s abolition of NHS England risks placing that ongoing programme of work, like many others, in jeopardy. Will the Minister tell us the current status of the maternity transformation programme and the implementation of the equity strategy under the NHSE and DHSC reorganisation? How is that work being prioritised, given the many other demands on the Department’s time and resources—not least from the reorganisation—that might previously have been spent on improving care?

The previous Government improved the number of midwives per baby and made progress towards the national maternity safety ambition of halving the 2010 rate of stillbirths, neonatal maternal deaths and brain injuries in newborn babies. When will the Government set out their ambition for the next decade? The Labour Government promised more than 1,000 new midwives in their manifesto last year. Will the Minister update us on how many of those 1,000 midwives are now working for the NHS?

The Minister for Care recently stated that the 41 maternal mental health services are now live and will be active in every integrated care system by the end of 2025-26. How will the Government ensure that access to those services can continue when ICSs face such high cuts in funding?

Colleagues have mentioned the possible influence of systemic racism or unconscious bias in maternal outcomes. The NHS has an employed population of 1 million, and it is likely that some bad apples will be found within that overwhelmingly brilliant staff cohort, but I dispute that the NHS overall is a racist organisation. I work in the NHS—I should declare that interest—and I have not seen evidence of structural racism.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that, as of 2024, 45% of obstetric and gynaeco-logical doctors identify as of a black, Asian or minority ethnic background, and 26% of births were to women of black or other minority ethnic backgrounds. Figures for midwives are harder to assert, because they are collated with nursing staff, but the proportion among nurses is 22%.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I just want to check whether the hon. Lady understands that structural racism is about not the number of people within an organisation, but the way the organisation is set up and treats different people. Does she understand that having a high proportion of ethnic minority people does not necessarily mean that an organisation such as the NHS—which, I might add, in its senior levels is run by people mostly not from ethnic minorities—does not discriminate against people in a certain way?

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I do not dispute that some women, men, boys or children have awful experiences at the hands of bad apples. That will happen within any organisation of that size—the NHS employs more than 1 million people. That is wrong and should be rooted out; it is absolutely clear that that should stop. However, I work in the national health service, and I think the vast majority of people who go to work in it do so to care for the patients in front of them as best they possibly can. Care should be provided on the basis of clinical need and should not be affected by the ability to pay or by any other socioeconomic, ethnic or other demographic data. Although I accept the point that some individuals will have experienced poor care, which is reprehensible, I do not think that is the majority situation by quite some margin. I think most people receive extremely good care in the NHS, and care that is delivered on the basis of their clinical need, not the colour of their skin.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, given that she is not of an ethnic minority and has not looked at the information given by a number of women from ethnic minority backgrounds who have experienced this, she is not really in a position to say that what they say they experienced does not exist?

[Dr Johnson]

That is not what I said.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I am just challenging her point. Just because for one or two reasons she may not have seen any institutional racism in the NHS, that does not mean it does not exist. Further, the figures for black maternal mortality are the same in the United States, which has a completely different healthcare system from ours, but they are not the same in countries in Africa or the Caribbean, where black women are the majority. Does she see why that can point only to institutional racism? It is a completely different healthcare system in United States. The only difference is that we are both living in societies where institutional racism is known to be a problem.

[Dr Johnson]

I think we can both agree that any examples of racism are reprehensible and should be rooted out and that, in the examples given, people are speaking truthfully of their perceptions and what they have experienced. No one is denying the experiences of individuals or groups who have experienced poor care and that that poor care should stop. I just do not think that that suggests the NHS itself is a racist organisation, because I do not believe that it is. That is our point of difference. I think the staff who work in the NHS are overwhelmingly not racist. They want to care for people on the basis of clinical need to the very best of their ability, regardless of any ethnic minority status.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I did not say that the people in the NHS are racist; I said the NHS has a problem with institutional racism. I hope the hon. Member will accept that there are distinctions between those two things.

[Dr Johnson]

I think we have both made our positions clear. I accept that some people will have received poor care and that the people who delivered that poor care need to be hauled over the coals. They need to be called out for what they have done and we must ensure that such care does not happen again. But I do not accept that the NHS is a racist organisation.

Another issue is language barriers. It is well recognised that it is difficult for people who have a language barrier to access health services. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help with that? In recent years in my medical career I have seen improvements in the delivery of language services, but when I was a more junior doctor an appointment needed to be booked in advance and an interpreter had to attend in person. Sometimes they were available and sometimes they were not. Sometimes other members of staff or family members would be used to interpret, which is a poor standard of care, relatively speaking.

[Michelle Welsh]

Is it possible for the hon. Member to highlight what part of the NHS she worked in? The reported experiences of interpretation and translation nationally are very different from what she is describing, which does not reflect the factual accounts and certainly does not reflect what has been happening in Nottinghamshire.

[Dr Johnson]

I did the junior part of my medical career in Nottinghamshire. I am describing what happened in the junior part of my career, which is about 20 years ago now. My experience 20 years ago was that it was very difficult to get interpreters, and that the people used to interpret were not proper interpreters and not the appropriate people. That should not be happening.

The service is still not perfect, but over time we have seen translation services improve. Many hospitals have instituted new iPad systems where one can choose a country of origin or the language that the person speaks, and a dial-up system of interpreters working from home is used to provide an interpreting system. That is much better—it is more available to the patient than the services we had in the past, which required someone in person—but it is still not perfect. We still see areas across the country where those services and that interpretation are unavailable to people. How will the Minister ensure that women who have difficulties with the English language are able to access interpreters when they need them—not just for appointments, but for out-of-hours emergencies? That is when interpreters are most difficult to obtain, particularly for languages spoken by fewer people in the United Kingdom.

I want to ask about the Government’s plans. The previous Government instituted a three-year plan, which comes to an end next year. When will the Government produce the plan? They talked about their 10-year NHS plan, which they said they would produce in the spring. I believe we are in the spring now—if we look outside, it is a beautiful day; the flowers are out and the lambs have been born. Where is the plan that the Government promised? What targets are they going to set, and when, to improve maternity care for all women, and specifically for black women?

15:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Before I begin, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for securing this important debate during Black Maternal Health Awareness Week. It is so important that we raise awareness of the disproportionate challenges faced by black mothers during pregnancy and after childbirth; debates in weeks such as this are critical to that.

I want to pay tribute to the charities that do so much vital work in this space: the Motherhood Group, Five X More, Black Mums Upfront, which is part of Bliss, and Ebony Bonds, to name just a few. I am taking this debate on behalf of the Minister for women’s health and patient safety, Baroness Merron. I also want to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I will seek to pick up and answer all their queries, but if they feel I have not done so by the end of the debate, I ask them to please get in touch and I can ensure we respond.

I want to thank the charity Sands for shining a spotlight on some of the most heartbreaking cases of baby loss in the UK, and for giving a voice to so many black and Asian women who have gone through the nightmare of losing a child. One such case was Amber Lincoln from Woolwich in south-east London. She was miscategorised as low risk when she was pregnant, and nearly died from undetected complications after her delivery. A series of individual and systemic failings led to cancellations and delays, and her twins, Anaya and Mael, were born and died at 22 weeks in November 2022, before she could access the care she needed. Amber said:

“If the NHS just listened to me. And just put my appointment through when I was constantly asking. If they had the notes there properly I wouldn't have been treated that way.”

She said the fact she was mixed race led midwives to focus on diabetes and high blood pressure rather than other high-risk indicators. I wish I could stand here and say that Amber was an isolated case, but her story will sound familiar to black women up and down the country, and it shows in the figures. The latest data from MBRRACE-UK shows maternal mortality rates for women from black ethnic backgrounds are more than double those for white women. Black women and their babies are also at higher risk of stillbirth, neonatal death and miscarriage. That should shame us in modern Britain.

Tackling inequalities and racism in maternity services is an absolute priority for this Government. Our manifesto committed to setting an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gaps. That commitment has not wavered—we are working hard not only to set a target but to set the actions that will help deliver it. It is crucial we set the right targets and ensure the system is supported to achieve them, which is why the Government are currently considering the action needed that would drive change on the ground, ensuring that targets set are evidence-based, and women and baby-centred.

Our ambition is not just to improve maternal outcomes; we want to improve black women’s experiences of maternity care too. We know that too often black women are not listened to and experience racism and bias. That is completely unacceptable. Importantly, our ambition must also extend beyond maternity services, so that we can tackle wider health inequalities, including the determinants of ill health. I know that health inequalities do not start at the door of maternity services, and nor do they end when women go home.

Here is what we are doing and where we need to go further. We are aware of calls for a national inquiry into maternity care, which we will carefully consider. There have been a number of reviews, inquiries and wider research in recent years that have provided a shared and clear sense of the issues in maternity and neonatal care. The most important priority must remain for us to target resources and efforts to address the existing issues identified and avoid any further delays. The focus must be to address inequalities and the action taken to do so for women and babies.

NHS England is now in the final year of delivering its three-year plan to improve maternity and neonatal services. Central to the plan is the objective to reduce inequalities for all in maternity access, experience and outcomes, and taking steps to tackle and address inequalities for black women. To achieve this objective, all local areas now have in place and are implementing their equity and equality action plans. Those plans detail local interventions tailored to population needs, in order to tackle inequalities for women and babies from ethnic minorities and those living in the most deprived areas. There have been some great examples of local best practice within those plans, ranging from targeted pre-conception health support to tailored support to ensure equitable access to care, and bespoke communications for pregnant asylum seekers and refugees.

As part of the three-year delivery plan, all local areas are working to implement version three of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, which provides maternity units with guidance and interventions to reduce and tackle the inequalities in stillbirths, neonatal deaths, brain injuries and pre-term births. Those local and national interventions are essential steps to improving equity and equality in maternity care.

In parallel, however, it is vital that we continue to work to foster a culture of safety, compassion, honesty and one that is actively anti-racist, which must be led by outstanding leadership. I am pleased that all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme.

For clarity, and I think particularly for the shadow Minister, we recognise that racism and unconscious bias need to be tackled, that they are unacceptable and must be tackled in the NHS.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Ashley Dalton]

I will finish what I am saying and then I will give the shadow Minister an opportunity to come back to me.

To clarify, this work is not only about the behaviours that we must tackle in the NHS; it is also about the systems that we create in the NHS and ensuring that those systems do not consciously or subconsciously discriminate against people on the grounds of their race. That is what we mean and that is why we are putting in place training for leaders in our maternity units. We will ensure that they are signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme, to ensure that those systems are as equitable as they possibly can be.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I think we all agree that racism is wrong and must be weeded out wherever it happens. Could she say, in answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) at the beginning of her speech, whether she believes that the NHS is structurally racist?

[Ashley Dalton]

The shadow Minister will know that that is not actually the question that my hon. Friend asked. She asked about systemic racism. We recognise that racism and unconscious bias can play a part both in the behaviours of some people, which must be tackled, and in the way that systems are structured. That is why the training that we are introducing will help to tackle racism. It is not necessarily the case that there is racism throughout the NHS, but we must do everything we possibly can to make sure that NHS systems are as equitable as they can be.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I confess that I thought I heard the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill say “structural”. However, if the word she used was “systemic”, does the Minister think the NHS is systemically racist?

[Ashley Dalton]

I think that we have to do everything possible to make sure that all the systems in the NHS are as equitable as possible.

We have set clear expectations for escalation and accountability through the three-year plan, and all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme. We are supporting staff to hold up their hands when things go wrong through the Freedom to Speak Up initiative. Our approach to tackling inequalities in maternity and neonatal care must be underpinned by evidence, research and—critically—working with women and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) pointed out, it is crucial that women’s voices, including black women’s voices, are heard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned funding for research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has launched a £500 million funding call that challenges researchers and policymakers to come up with new ways of tackling maternity inequalities and poor pregnancy outcomes. The NIHR has also invited applications for funding of up to £500,000 for a research project to understand how biases in medical devices used during the pregnancy and neonatal period might be contributing to inequalities for women and babies.

NHSE is working closely with the NHS Race and Health Observatory on the outputs of the learning and action network programme, which aims to address inequalities for women and babies from black, Asian and other ethnic minority backgrounds. Local maternity and neonatal voices partnerships bring together the voices and experiences of women and families to improve maternity and neonatal care. More than a quarter of the partnership leads are from ethnic minority groups. Women’s voices must continue to be at the heart of our improvements to care.

I will be frank with colleagues: although the measures I have set out are important, I do not believe they will be enough to meet the scale of our ambitions. The Government are committed to ensuring that all women and babies, regardless of their ethnicity, background or location, receive the high-quality, equitable care they deserve. Many of these initiatives began under the previous Government, and although there has been some progress across maternity and neonatal care—for example, good progress has been made in reducing the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths—we have much further to go to improve care and tackle inequalities.

Looking forward, we are clear that we want to see high-impact actions to tackle inequalities and racism in maternity services. Baroness Merron and the Secretary of State are working closely across the sector to identify the right actions and interventions to deliver the required change.

The shadow Minister asked about data collection. Data on women’s ethnic background is routinely collected by services at multiple points throughout maternity care. The data is used to disaggregate reporting of adverse outcomes, such as maternal mortality, by ethnicity. Differences by ethnicity are also reported as part of the Care Quality Commission’s annual survey, which asks a sample of pregnant women and new mothers about their experiences of NHS maternity services. NHS trusts are incentivised to collect this information through the maternity incentive scheme, which is a financial incentive programme that is designed to enhance maternity safety in NHS trusts. Safety action 2 of the maternity incentive scheme incentivises trusts to submit digital information, including ethnicity data, to the maternity services dataset.

Some of our processes will take time to implement, but we need to understand the immediate actions that can begin to deliver change here and now. I therefore reiterate our commitment to setting an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap. We must get this right. Targets must be evidence based, and that is why it is so important that the data is collected, as I have said, that our targets are women and baby-centred and, crucially, that the system is supported to meet the targets that are set. To this end, NHS England has undertaken a review of the evidence base and conducted extensive stakeholder engagement to identify the key drivers of inequalities for black and Asian women and babies—again ensuring that black women’s voices are heard.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister talks about the importance of setting an achievable target and working on how it will be delivered, but the Government have now been at this for 10 months, and it was a manifesto commitment. Will she at least commit to a date by which it is likely to be set? Nothing will happen until there is a target and a plan. The Government are spending time deciding when to make a target, and all the while women are waiting.

[Ashley Dalton]

We are working at pace, ensuring that what we do is right and that it is achievable. The shadow Minister will be aware that the Government are developing a 10-year plan for health, and women’s health, including maternity health, will be at the centre of it. We want to ensure that whatever we put in place dovetails with all the other interventions and actions that the Government are putting forward.

The areas identified for intervention so far include the improper management of existing conditions, racism and discrimination, and access to care. We are clear that we want to see innovative and high-impact ideas that will shift the dial. We want to make sure not just that we are coming up with some sort of plan, but that it can be delivered and will be impactful.

Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill that this issue keeps us up at night. I know that she will continue to hold us to account. I began my speech by referencing Amber’s story. She asked how she could put her trust in a system that let her down so badly, and I completely understand why she felt that way. It is our duty to make sure that women like Amber can trust the system with something as precious as their children, and to prevent what should be one of the most joyful days in their lives from becoming a tragedy.

15:30

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank all Members present in this afternoon’s debate for their thoughtful and balanced contributions. It is not very often in the House that we are generally in agreement, so I am heartened to be joined by Members from different political backgrounds calling for us to improve the state of maternity care.

I was grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan), who talked about the lack of spaces where black women feel supported and the importance of increasing those for all women in maternity care. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) pointed out the need for a national target and framework to challenge these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), the chair of the APPG on maternity, gave a fantastic speech on the significant concerns about the quality and safety of maternity services in the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust. She made very important points on tackling the underlying issues of culture within the NHS. I was also pleased to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), rightly pointing out that this disparity is a national scandal. We are at risk of normalising these issues, and it is so important that we continue to challenge them. Although I do not agree with the shadow Minister on much, she made a very good point about language services.

I thank the Minister for her response and for detailing the steps that the Government are taking to tackle this. I know that the Government have committed to setting a target to end racial disparities in maternity care, and I was pleased to see it as a manifesto commitment, but at times, it can feel as though the issue is being kicked into the long grass, as the target has not yet been set. We are looking forward to that, and there are several campaigns watching the debate this afternoon that will have rejoiced when they heard that the Government have committed to setting a target. Like me, however, they continue to wait in eager anticipation to hear what it is. I hope the Minister will take that on board, and that we will not wait too much longer for the target to be announced.

Should there be a national inquiry into maternity services, we would hope that black maternal health would be considered as a clear element of the problem, with stand-alone recommendations on what should be done to tackle the disparities. That would be extremely important. I also thank the Minister for acknowledging the need for anti-racism training, that systemic racism exists, and that there are various things that we must do to tackle it. One of the worst things that can happen to women in this situation is being gaslit into thinking that their experiences did not happen. Women not being listened to purely because of what they look like, where they are from and their ethnic origin, is causing so many problems and even leading to deaths. We must acknowledge them and, instead of burying our heads in the sand, tackle issues of racism and discrimination in our health service.

Finally, I thank all the campaigners listening to the debate today again for their hard work and tireless campaigning. Many of the women in the campaign are involved because of their own experience in maternity care or that of a loved one. Many who have dedicated their time to campaigning on the issue do so because they do not want anybody else to go through what they did. It can be exhausting to re-live past traumas and continue to push the cause, but it is through their hard work that we are having the debate today and that we have a Government willing to address the issues.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned the worrying findings from the recent MBRRACE-UK report, which revealed that the overall maternal death rate is increasing. That is outrageous. That should be alarming to all of us and should spur us into action. I say this each time we have this debate: improving the state of maternity care for black and ethnic minority women and babies will improve the overall quality of maternity care for all mothers and babies. I hope we can agree that that is certainly worth doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Black Maternal Health Week 2025.

15:35

Sitting suspended.

Antisocial Behaviour: Dudley

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I will call Sonia Kumar to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make only a very short speech with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of anti-social behaviour in Dudley.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss; I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on antisocial behaviour in Dudley.

Antisocial behaviour strikes at the heart of every community in the UK. In Dudley, residents are increasingly concerned about vandalism, intimidation, dangerous driving, off-road bikes, groups engaging in persistent disorder, theft, drug dealing and—my pet hate—fly-tipping. Antisocial behaviour erodes community confidence and makes people feel unsafe. It not only undermines trust among neighbours but hinders our local businesses and tarnishes our towns’ reputations as vibrant, welcoming places to work and live.

The impact on our high streets and businesses is significant. Some estimates show that the cost to businesses and individuals of the heightened fear of crime is in excess of £70 billion a year. That is simply unacceptable. We must be better at reducing the cost and consequences of antisocial behaviour.

Why do we have antisocial behaviour? It is a complex issue with social, psychological and economic factors. Poverty and deprivation are consistently identified as primary root causes. High levels of poor mental health, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress, especially among teenagers, can contribute to it.

This issue is not just for the Minister here today; it should be tackled cross-departmentally. If people in my constituency thought that they had a genuine say in their community and equal opportunity for jobs, housing and a better quality of life, they may feel differently.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I recently spoke to one of my Halesowen constituents who faced problems with antisocial behaviour. Somebody frequently smoked cannabis outside her property, and although she reported it to Dudley council and the police, little was done. In fact, it was only after my office became involved that something happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that although that might seem a minor incident to the authorities, it is really important for our constituents, and it is absolutely imperative that they strive to tackle antisocial behaviour?

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree. Many people have said to me that the smoking of cannabis and drug dealing across the constituency is causing them not to want to go out, and they are really worried about their children. It is also just wrong, and we need better rehabilitation services.

A question we should reflect on is why people have such high levels of antisocial behaviour. I would like to highlight the crucial role of prevention in tackling antisocial behaviour. Effective prevention is about not just responding to incidents after they occur but addressing the root causes and stopping them before they start.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We all have, in our constituencies, the antisocial behaviour issues to which the hon. Lady refers. Does she agree that the prevalence of antisocial behaviour throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland suggests that we need to do more to engage with the youth and give them a stake in the community? I believe that that is the thrust of her ideas. In my constituency, church organisations such as the Boys’ Brigade, the Girls’ Brigade, campaigners and other church youth groups have given young people routes to greater support to ensure that more young people are taught skills, thereby improving social cohesion. Churches have a role, and if we let them play it, we will all benefit.

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree. Engagement in all aspects of the community is important, whether we are talking about the church, the gurdwara, the mosque or the synagogue. It does not matter what the community forum is—it could just be the youth centre—but if youth are engaged in that, we should pursue those routes to get them to take a more active role in society.

Early engagement with young people in schools to address adverse behaviour before it escalates is paramount. We should look particularly at regular, high-visibility foot and vehicle patrols in hotspots to deter offenders. Close collaboration with local businesses and residents to identify persistent offenders and intervene early is essential. It is about building community cohesion and providing job opportunities and rehabilitation for people who have committed antisocial behaviour offences. Too often, there is a lack of outlets where our youth can enjoy safe and entertaining activities, including participating in sport.

Without sports, youth or activity centres, young people are left with limited options, which can lead to antisocial behaviour. This is why I am fighting to bring back Dudley Town football club and why community assets such as Sedgley library must be saved. These assets are essential for our community, and that is also why I oppose the closure of Meadow Road youth centre in my constituency.

I am hugely grateful to the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, for securing the west midlands as a youth guarantee trailblazer area, focusing on supporting young people who are not in education, employment or training. That programme is just part of the solution and will reduce antisocial behaviour over the long term. This is why I am fighting for it to be in Dudley.

There are other reasons why antisocial crime has proliferated in Dudley. Like much of the west midlands, Dudley has seen crime increase dramatically over the past decade. We have witnessed a 76% increase in crime locally, while the west midlands as a whole has seen an increase of 79%. That trend is deeply worrying. Chronic underfunding and a significant cut to police numbers over the past 14 years have hampered our police forces, with 700 fewer deployed police officers in the west midlands compared with 2010.

Despite these challenges, our police officers continue to do a fantastic job, and I want to take this moment to thank them for their unwavering commitment to keeping us safe, even under the most challenging circumstances. I firmly believe that by supporting our local police, we can turn those troubling statistics around.

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is delivering an excellent speech. Does she welcome the fact that 150 extra neighbourhood police officers are coming to the west midlands as part of the Labour party’s commitment to providing 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers? Will that not help us to tackle the antisocial behaviour we are seeing across Dudley?

[Sonia Kumar]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement of £200 million for neighbourhood policing as part of the wider £1 billion boost. This investment will reassure communities as they once again see local police officers patrolling our streets. By supporting our local police forces, we will turn around the worrying trend in crime statistics.

I was delighted to see locally that our police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, secured an extra 150 neighbourhood police officers for the west midlands, alongside a further 139 officers redeployed into neighbour-hood policing. Neighbourhood policing must be at the heart of our approach. The actions taken by the PCC are exactly what we need to ensure policing once again serves our community. That is part of the PCC’s new police and crime plan, which I wholeheartedly support, but we can and must go further.

We in this House must demonstrate that we take the concerns of our constituents seriously when it comes to antisocial behaviour and tackling crime in the 21st century. That is why I was delighted to support the Crime and Policing Bill on Second Reading earlier this year. The Bill introduces respect orders, which will allow police and local authorities to target persistent offenders through tougher restrictions. It extends closure powers to help to shut down premises that are a magnet for crime and disorder, and increases the penalties for repeat offenders, ensuring that those responsible for making people’s lives a misery are held to account.

Crucially, the Bill ensures that victims’ voices are at the heart of the process and are heard. When reporting incidents, victims can feel confident that authorities will act and take their voices seriously with the introduction of new reviews of antisocial behaviour complaints. That is particularly important for housing estates and high streets in Dudley, where persistent disorder can drive businesses away and disrupt families trying to go about their daily lives. The Bill will also support local authorities to search and seize vehicles linked to fly-tipping.

Antisocial behaviour in Dudley is an issue that I receive emails about every single day. One case that stuck with me happened on Oak Street, where a resident wrote to me about drug dealing, vandalism and threatening behaviour by gangs who frequently gather near Silver Jubilee Park. Residents became so worried that they remained in their homes, frightened to go out and complain for fear of retaliation. Sadly, when those issues were raised with the council, it refused to reinstall temporary CCTV. That was incredibly frustrating and disappointing. I hope that my Conservative council is listening and will change its decision.

Regrettably, that is not an isolated issue. In Upper Gornal, there are repeated incidents of joyriding on motorbikes late at night around the green, disrupting local residents and making roads too dangerous to use in case of an accident. Fly-tipping is also a constant issue for my constituents, with Kates Hill in Dudley singled out to me as a significant problem area for residents.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. This issue affects not just Dudley but the whole of Dudley borough, an area that covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and my Stourbridge constituency. Fly-tipping is absolutely prolific in the Lye ward of my constituency, and the council is really struggling to enforce against much of it because a lot of it associated with organised crime. Does she agree that we need to support and resource councils to tackle this antisocial environmental crime in collaboration with stakeholders?

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. We need to ensure that the local council is engaging with residents in community forums and working with local police, and that we have more police on our streets.

Car theft is another serious issue. In my area in particular, I am too often told by email about cases of car theft and burglary. People send me emails and Facebook messages saying that, time and again, those issues are not being properly reviewed. Constituents are frightened, and it adds unnecessary stress for local residents.

I could go on and list the issues that residents have raised with me through email and social media, whether that is racial slurs being shouted, public urination, vandalism of public gardens, drug dealing or roads covered by litter. It is entirely unacceptable, and that behaviour is a blight on the communities of Dudley. It causes terror, particularly for elderly and vulnerable residents, causes damage to our communities, undermines pride of place and breeds a culture and perception of lawlessness, which ultimately leads only one way.

I am grateful for the work that the Government have already done and their plans to increase police numbers and tackle antisocial behaviour. My concern, however, is that when announcements are made about resources being allocated to the west midlands, Dudley often does not get its fair share. Can the Minister reassure me that any extra police officers, resources for youth centres, and support for young people that are directed to the west midlands are fairly shared with towns such as Dudley? We can reassure residents that not just big cities, but our towns, get the funding, and that they will not miss out. Can she also reassure me that Dudley will have the opportunity to be home to a youth trailblazer?

Antisocial behaviour is a multifaceted issue that demands a comprehensive response. We must invest in prevention, support our police, ensure the fair distribution of resources and give our young people hope and opportunities. Only then can we restore pride, safety and confidence in Dudley’s communities.

16:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss—I always say that, but it actually is a pleasure. Let me start by thanking all the Members who have come today and contributed. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing the debate. As a fellow midlands MP, I am delighted that her constituents have someone fighting so diligently on their behalf.

Just because I have a bit of time, I have a good Dudley-related antisocial behaviour story from my childhood—or rather, from the ’70s, before I was born. My mum and dad lived in the Black Country at the time. When the younger of my two older brothers bit my elder brother, my mum said that if he was going to behave like an animal, he would have to go with them, and she drove him to Dudley zoo and left him there. It was the ’70s, Ms Furniss—things were different in the ’70s. He is fine, to be clear, but I like my mother’s direct action with antisocial behaviour, doling out immediate action to prevent it. I do not think he ever bit my brother again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and others have powerfully set out how antisocial behaviour remains a constant menace in communities around the country. Whether in Dudley or anywhere else, it has a damaging effect on people and places, which is why we are pushing strongly to tackle it. I know this is an area of focus for the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned her support for some of the efforts in the Crime and Policing Bill; the Policing Minister will currently be on her feet in that Bill Committee, which is why I am here today and not her—it is not just because it is a midlands matter.

Antisocial behaviour has a strong local dimension, which came through in various contributions from my hon. Friend and colleagues in neighbouring areas, and it manifests itself in different ways. I will come to specific points shortly, but before I do, I want to set out the national context, because it is such a widespread problem. We heard, as we so often do, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, that this is a problem in Northern Ireland, as it is in Wales, the west midlands and everywhere. We all know from our interactions with constituents that antisocial behaviour causes distress, concern and fear among residents, communities and businesses. It plagues town centres and neighbourhoods. It spoils people’s enjoyment of parks and other spaces.

Let us get it right: antisocial behaviour is not low level, trivial or minor. To minimise it in that way is an insult to the many people who suffer every day as a result of the selfish actions of others. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am not sure that anything is brought to me as much as antisocial behaviour. It could come from a neighbour—I especially like it when both neighbours come to me, although that is tricky to deal with at times—or from other people in the local community. This is genuinely a problem that can make people move out of their family homes. This not low level: it is incredibly serious. Antisocial behaviour eats away at people’s sense of security and local pride, and it needs to be dealt with as the serious threat that it is.

For too long, the response has been weak and ineffective, and this Government are putting that right. The Prime Minister has placed safer streets at the heart of his plan for change. Through that mission, we are determined to address the scourge of antisocial behaviour. We are backing up our words with action, including by restoring and strengthening neighbourhood policing, which has been badly eroded in recent years. We are also introducing the respect orders mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) mentioned cannabis. I am sure that everybody here has heard the same complaints about kids and adults constantly smoking cannabis outside their houses. That is why tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission to make our streets safer, to halve knife crime, to crack down on antisocial behaviour and to go after the gangs who are luring young people into violence and crime.

We know from the crime survey for England and Wales that people using or dealing drugs is among the top three antisocial behaviour issues that people most commonly think is a problem in their area. I have been door-knocking in streets not too far away from Dudley where people were openly dealing drugs. For quite some time it has felt like there is no deterrent, and that has to change. Half of crimes such as shoplifting and burglary are driven by drugs, which is why the Government are determined to crack down on ASB and drug misuse.

The police have a critical role to play in cracking down on drug misuse and antisocial behaviour, and when individuals are found in possession of drugs, they must face appropriate sanctions. We are working with the police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to support and increase voluntary referrals into treatment. We firmly believe that diverting those who use illegal drugs into interventions such as drug treatment services is the key to reducing drug misuse, drug-related crimes and reoffending.

We support the use of drug testing on arrest and out-of-court resolutions, to ensure that individuals who commit drug-related offences are given the opportunity to change their behaviour by diverting them to meaningful and appropriate interventions. The whole tone of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was not about demonising some of those who might perpetrate such crimes, but about recognising that this is a societal problem that requires a multifaceted approach. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are taking forward proposals to expand both the trigger offences that can lead to a drugs test and the range of drugs that can be tested for—I was in the Bill Committee as we discussed that this morning.

Beyond enforcement, we know that treatment works to reduce reoffending. Giving offenders greater access to treatment services helps to break the underlying cause of their reoffending and increases public safety. We are committed to ensuring that anyone with a drug problem can access the help and support they need, and we recognise the need for evidence-based, high-quality treatment. The prevention of drug and alcohol-related harm is vital for saving lives and making our streets safer. As my hon. Friend said, this work will not be done by just the Home Office—it has to be a cross-Government endeavour—and the Department of Health and Social Care continues to invest in improvements to local treatment services for children and young people, and for adults with drug or alcohol problems, to ensure that those in need can access high-quality help and support.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the need for hotspot policing. If we are to make preventing crime and antisocial behaviour a top priority, we have to put our money where our mouth is. That is why I was very impressed to hear about the great work being done through the hotspot action funding, such as deploying police and other uniformed presence to target areas with the hottest crimes in order to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and serious violence. As part of the Government’s plan for change, and to support making the country’s streets safer, £66.3 million has been available for hotspot policing action in 2025-26, and West Midlands police have been allocated £3.7 million of that funding. This will ensure an enhanced uniformed presence in the town centres and neighbourhoods across the country with the densest concentration of knife crime and ASB.

Young people were mentioned a number of times. I used to do some youth work in Upper Gornal, and I got really good at table tennis—I have lost the skills now, I am afraid to say. We understand that no single agency holds all the levers to tackle antisocial behaviour, and that effective multi-agency working is crucial. We are committed to intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime, and an essential part of achieving that will be carried out through the Young Futures programme. We will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships across England and Wales, to intervene earlier and to ensure that children and young people are offered support in a more systematic way, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities through the provision of open access to mental health and careers support.

My hon. Friend mentioned the trailblazers scheme. I, too, hope that it will come to Dudley and that the west midlands will be able to exhaust all the support we can. I cannot make her any promises about Sedgley library from the Dispatch Box, but I am with her in her campaign to maintain the library.

My hon. Friend also talked about respect orders. We recognise that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not currently go far enough, so we are putting that right by introducing respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill, to help to ensure that our communities are free from harm. Under the new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions, including bans on entering the areas where they have behaved antisocially, such as town centres or other public places.

On the questions my hon. Friend asked towards the end of her speech, in expecting the Policing Minister to respond to the debate and not me, I suspect she might have been more explicit in stating that Birmingham gets all the money in the west midlands. [Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position that that feels true to other people. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s diligent diplomacy because I am the Minister. It is funny: I spend a lot of time in my day job bashing London for getting all the money, so it is nice to get some just deserts. When it comes to the metrics that get used to ensure that funding is given out fairly, I can imagine what it feels like in a town next to a large city. When there is a behemoth like Birmingham next door, I imagine it can feel as though Birmingham gets the money.

While I am in the Home Office, I will always use my voice to stand up for extra resources for the whole of the West Midlands police force area. It is safe to say that the Home Secretary, a Member of Parliament who represents towns that surround a big city, is only too aware of the plight of towns. I absolutely hear the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although obviously I also think Birmingham should get some money for services. I am not suggesting we should get rid of all of our resources and give them to Dudley, but I am happy to share.

I will wrap up by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate, which has been yet another reminder of the strength of feeling around this issue and the harm that antisocial behaviour causes in communities across the country. It has been a pleasure for me to be among those who sound like me, which is not an experience I often get; it has been a pleasure to take part in this wholly west midlands-related debate. Whether in Dudley or anywhere else, decent, law-abiding people rightly want this problem gripped. The Government agree with them and we are determined to deliver the safer streets that they want and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

16:27

Sitting suspended.

Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Staffordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank everyone for their interest in attending this Westminster Hall debate. Staffordshire is a county where culture is carved in clay, sung on local stages and carried proudly in the stories of its people. Its legacy is rich and alive, and today I rise to champion our region and its contribution.

Our future links us to our past, but we are not bound by it. That future speaks to the potential of every single one of Staffordshire’s communities—from Stafford, my proud county town, and the vibrant city of Stoke-on-Trent to the quieter, more rural parts of the county such as Eccleshall, Derrington and Church Eaton. Much like our county symbol, the 15th-century Stafford knot, we are all interlinked.

I secured this debate to celebrate Staffordshire’s legacy and to mark Staffordshire Day on Thursday 1 May, which is another important day to vote Labour and champion our community’s future. The debate is an opportunity to discuss tapping into our heritage, building on our creativity and ensuring that our proud traditions and culture continue to be a force for positive change in Staffordshire and beyond.

Staffordshire is known for many things. It is perhaps best known for its ceramics, which I will leave to my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) to discuss in detail, and for its brewing, which I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) will discuss at great length.

Those are just the most famous examples of Staffordshire’s skilled craftspeople and their impact on our country’s industrial and creative landscape. As a pioneering industrial county, many of our more modern organisations—such as Bostik, which makes adhesives; Perkins, which makes engines; and GE Vernova, which makes transformers—have grown from roots in more traditional work with metal, clay, leather or textiles.

Much of Staffordshire’s history, which is encapsulated in archives, can be found at the new Staffordshire History Centre in my constituency. At that amazing new facility, over a thousand years of Staffordshire’s history have been brought to life in some fascinating displays. The archives include rare items such as Anglo-Saxon charters confirming the foundation of Burton abbey and a letter written on the eve of the American revolution. A key part of the centre’s collection is the rare books and manuscripts collected by William Salt. For anyone looking for more information about Staffordshire’s past after this debate, the centre is a very good place to start.

As a proud county town, Stafford has a key story to tell in Staffordshire’s cultural history, and it echoes through to today. In its town centre, people can stop for coffee and cake at the Soup Kitchen, which dates to the 16th century, enter the historic churches of St Mary’s and St Chad’s, and take in the interior and exterior of the Ancient High House, which is haunted by a ghost called George and is known for being the largest surviving timber-framed townhouse in England. We also have Stafford castle, which has dominated the skyline in Stafford for over 900 years.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre, I will also talk about theatres. There is the Stafford Gatehouse theatre, famous for its Shakespeare festival and for its hilarious pantomimes every Christmas, which bring audiences from across the county to Stafford. The Gatehouse also provides a space for actors, artists and writers to hone their craft with its hugely popular youth theatre. I was lucky enough to meet some of those actors, artists and writers last Friday before the opening night of “Carrie: The Musical”.

Across the county, we have other wonderful theatres such as the New Vic in Newcastle. It stands out as a theatre in the round and creates an innovative, immersive style of theatre that makes audiences feel as if they are part of the performance. There are also the Regent theatre and the Garrick theatre, which is in Lichfield. They host productions by flagship companies from around the country.

Of course, theatre is not always confined to traditional stages. The Claybody theatre company is based at the former Spode pottery works in Stoke-on-Trent Central. That is a brilliant example of how our county’s cultural history can inspire its present. Its work is fuelled by the stories of the area, and it regularly integrates members of its community company into its productions alongside professional actors. As well as performing in its current historic home, it uses found spaces such as Fenton town hall, which hosted its production of “The Card”, based on the novel by one of Stoke’s most famous sons, Arnold Bennett.

The connection with our past does not extend just to the theatre. Many of our communities come together to celebrate our history, with the Gnosall canal festival being a really good example. Centred on the historic canal boats, that event tells the stories of the village’s past, while bringing people together for live music, entertainment and more.

I also want to talk about the future. Although our past and heritage are a source of pride, Staffordshire’s culture is far from static. It is living, breathing and evolving every single day. Staffordshire remains a county of skilled tradespeople and of artists, and it is vital that we nurture and develop that talent. We must ensure that arts and culture are part of our everyday lives, because that is where we find connection, community and identity.

Last weekend, I spoke with Johny Todd, whose business in Woodings Yard Studios stands as a proud reminder of Stafford’s history in the leather industry. We discussed how artists today face many challenges and the opportunity that this Labour Government have to support our creative industries as a way of building community and supporting our local economies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for putting such a shine on Staffordshire, and she is right about the creative industries. It is important that those skills of our forefathers—our grandfathers and fathers—are passed on, but I feel that they are being lost. Does she agree that the Government should step in to ensure that a training system is in place so that those skills are not lost?

[Leigh Ingham]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: it is important to pass that skilled heritage on to new generations. That is exactly what Johny was talking to me about at the weekend—making sure that artists have the spaces to develop those skills, because without those spaces, as the hon. Gentleman says, the skills would be lost. We must continue to support the creation of new spaces, new opportunities and new partnerships that can nurture the next generation of artists, performers and thinkers.

Finally, I want to mention Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, which is based in my constituency as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). It is rated outstanding and is crucial to our local talent pipeline; Members will know how often I raise its excellent work for all our constituents. Very recently, I celebrated the news that Stafford college has been allocated £2.6 million of funding by the Government, which will be used to restore its Tenterbanks building in Stafford town centre. As I mentioned, we must look not only to our history but to our future, and it is by investing in our young people and restoring the crumbling buildings in which they will be doing their learning that we will build their future.

We have an opportunity to build on the strengths of Staffordshire’s past and invest in our cultural infrastructure for generations to come. I urge the Minister to stand behind our county, believe in our culture and invest in it.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

16:39

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and a pleasure to see so many of my county neighbours, not least those who border my constituency: my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I say “neighbours” because “everybody needs good neighbours”, as the song from the hit—[Laughter.] Hold on: there is a link. Those words were in fact written by Jackie Trent, who was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme and lived in Stoke-on-Trent. She penned the famous words that were on our television screens for so many of our childhood memories.

That sums up the diversity of cultural and creative activities that we have in Staffordshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) pointed out, we have a plethora of things to offer. I will not go into the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on breweries, but I will make special mention of Titanic Brewery, a brewery in Stoke-on-Trent with pubs across the area. It is named, of course, because one of the famous sons of Stoke-on-Trent was the captain of the Titanic. We do not necessarily want to parade that around too much, but it is a link to a historic event. More importantly, the tableware on the Titanic was also made in Stoke-on-Trent, and that has a much better story. The backstamps can still be seen at the Spode Museum in Stoke.

It would be remiss of me not to briefly mention ceramics. We in this House talk a lot about ceramics—well, I certainly do—and they are part of who we are. In many parts of the country, if people go to a high-end restaurant or a big hotel—or if Members go to the Tea Room—and turn over the plate, they will probably see something that was made by artisans in Staffordshire, most likely in Stoke-on-Trent, but also in parts of Staffordshire Moorlands, Stone and Stafford.

Those delicate pieces of tableware, the bricks that we see in our buildings, and the tiles on our roofs—indeed, the tiles in the Central Lobby of this Palace—have all been made from the sweat, toil and tears of Staffordshire artisans. It is those things of beauty, made from dirty clay, that I often think demonstrate the power and the ability that we have in-county.

We are more than a city and a county of ceramics, and we are more than just the sum of our parts and our pottery. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, the well-known author Arnold Bennett very pithily and wittily accounted for parts of public life in north Staffordshire through his books. One of his most famous works is “The Card”, which I saw when it was on at the New Vic in a wonderful adaptation. The fact that it had local people in the cast telling the stories of our history made it special.

One of Arnold Bennett’s other most famous works is “Anna of the Five Towns”, but of course everyone knows that Stoke-on-Trent has six towns. I do not want to mislead the House, but it is potentially true—I believe it to be true, so I am comfortable saying it—that Arnold Bennett’s mother-in-law lived in Fenton and apparently he was not a great fan of his mother-in-law, so when he wrote “Anna of the Five Towns”, he left out one of the towns as a long-lasting snub to her. I would not suggest any of us recreate that—I happen to be quite fond of my future mother-in-law—but those small bits of our history permeate through different literary and cultural activities. Many people around the country will not realise that they come from Staffordshire.

I want to talk about a couple of smaller things that are not ceramics. One of the things that I am most proud of relates to a name not well known to history. There was a gentleman called Oliver Lodge. He was from Penkhull, a beautiful part of my constituency, and he was a physicist. Long before it was publicly accepted, and long before Hertz, he discovered electromagnetic radiation. He was a pioneering physicist and scientist who, through his work in north Staffordshire, was able to identify some of the fundamental energy sources of our universe. Sadly, his name is lost to history in a way that Hertz is not. There is a Lodge Road and an Oliver Road in my constituency, which are of course testament to him. He is another Staffordshire-rooted individual who made a rich contribution to our scientific and cultural understanding.

On the other side, we have Thomas Twyford, who was born in Stoke-on-Trent. His contribution to our public life is somewhat more comical, some might say—he invented the first single-piece ceramic flush toilet, which revolutionised public hygiene in this country. It is a toilet, but it revolutionised the way that people lived their lives and the way they looked after themselves. It was a huge contribution to the reduction of unsanitary conditions in public areas and brought down disease rates. Again, it is something that happened in Staffordshire that changed the world, but sadly is now a bit lost to history.

Finally, not to test the patience of the House too much, I want to make a pitch for what comes next. Our contribution has not ended with the history of the things we have done. It is not about the litany of wonderful collective stories that we will all share about the great things that have happened in our county, but about what is coming next.

I want to highlight the fascinating and brilliant work that the University of Staffordshire is doing around gaming and game design. According to The Independent Games Developers Association it is the No.1 destination in the country for students who want to learn game design. I was told that one in five of those who now work in the industry in the UK are graduates of the University of Staffordshire. It is a huge piece of our creative history becoming our creative future, turning real-life ambition into good quality jobs for people, mainly from my city and my county.

While I know there will be more contributions to this debate, the fact that we have been able to come together in the spirit of comradeship and collegiality two days before Staffordshire Day is a wonderful thing. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on securing a debate that allows us to talk about the place that we love and call home.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I will have to limit speeches to three minutes, as so many Members have asked to speak.

16:46

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is an honour to stand before you, Ms Furniss, ahead of Staffordshire Day on Thursday, to talk about the hidden gems that make South Staffordshire such a unique and culturally rich area.

I will begin with Codsall, where the past and present meet beautifully. The charming high street lined with historical buildings offers a snapshot of centuries gone by. It is not just about history, however; Codsall has a lively arts scene, with the Codsall community arts festival buzzing with local performances and workshops. It is a place whose creativity flows just as freely as its heritage.

Next door, the village of Bilbrook offers a different kind of charm. It is a village where modern industry and natural beauty co-exist. The partnership between Jaguar Land Rover and the local community to protect Jubilee wood is a perfect example of how local heritage and industry can work hand in hand. A commitment to environmental conservation is a core part of the village’s identity and a fantastic backdrop for many of the cultural activities.

Swindon may seem small, but its contribution to our cultural heritage is anything but. Chasepool in Swindon was mentioned in the Domesday Book, and is now an important part of that industrial heritage. Swindon forge—originally a fulling mill and then a corn mill—was converted into a finery forge in the 1620s, producing the wrought iron that drove the early industrial revolution.

Then there is Himley—a village with a story to tell, which boasts the beautiful and culturally significant Himley Hall and Park, and holds a fascinating piece of British history: on the dark night of 5 November 1605, the gunpowder plot conspirators fled through Himley woods. In Kinver, we have something truly unique: rock-cut houses that have stood the test of time. These homes, carved into sandstone, are a testament to the resourcefulness of past generations and are now a major tourist attraction, with thousands visiting to step inside a piece of living history.

Enville is a quiet, yet rich corner of South Staffordshire. Known for the impressive Enville Hall and the Enville Brewery, this village blends rural charm with modern industry. The brewery’s award-winning ales are a nod to the past, while its ongoing role in the community keeps Enville firmly in the present. The village of Pattingham exemplifies how culture and nature can co-exist beautifully. Patshull Park was designed by Capability Brown. Trysull might be small, but its legacy is enormous. This village is home to the arts and crafts-inspired Trysull Manor, a reminder of the region’s creative spirit.

Then we have Bobbington, a village with a fascinating industrial past, and Lower Penn, with its surrounding areas offering a tranquil setting for outdoor enthusiasts. Perton is a village that has grown rapidly in recent years, but it has not lost sight of its roots. Finally, the village of Wombourne bridges past and present in the most remarkable way. Its roots go back to the middle ages, and it is home to some of South Staffordshire’s most iconic landmarks, such as the Bratch locks and the Victorian-era Bratch pumping station.

16:49

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages (Leigh Ingham) for securing the debate.

In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and the villages, we are proud of our heritage. My constituency links the city of Stoke-on-Trent with the rural villages of north Staffordshire. Staffordshire’s cultural contribution cannot be truly understood without recognising the leadership role that Stoke-on-Trent has played, not just as the beating heart of the county’s industrial past, but as a city of craft, creativity and resilience that is still shaping culture across the region and beyond.

Stoke-on-Trent is a city forged in clay and coal. Our pottery industry ships British products all over the world, and our famous tableware names have been household staples for centuries: from Duchess China, Wedgwood and Aynsley China, which sits in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), to the mills in the villages of Moddershall and Checkley, which ground flint and bone for the Potteries, the cultural links between town and country in my constituency reveal deep ties.

In Longton in my constituency, our iconic potbanks now form beautiful heritage sites; with the right investment, they could be repurposed as community spaces. Obviously, I must mention Gladstone Pottery museum, a working monument to our industrial history and now home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”. Urban Wilderness is reviving and regenerating Longton town centre with art, and also runs the Longton Pig Walk parade, which I recently led as a white swan. Today, Launch It Stoke-on-Trent has opened in Longton town hall. It will help entrepreneurs and young makers and creators continue to harness Longton’s creative energy.

In 2024, Stoke-on-Trent was awarded world craft city status, a sign that our city is recognised globally for its pottery. That is why today I ask the Minister to support our ambition for Stoke-on-Trent to be recognised as a UNESCO creative city for craft—or for design; there are options. Only one city in the midlands holds that prestigious title, and Stoke-on-Trent is uniquely placed to join it. UNESCO recognises cities that put culture and creativity at the heart of local development; with greater local powers and investment, Stoke-on-Trent can lead Staffordshire’s cultural and economic renewal.

I must also mention that our cultural legacy includes Belstaff, the Longton-born fashion house, and the famous Shelley’s Laserdome nightclub, which helped to define an era of British dance music in the late ’80s and early ’90s; it would be remiss of me not to mention Lemmy and Robbie as well. Thank you to everyone for listening to me—I will cut my speech short there because I am running out of time.

16:52

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

I congratulate my neighbour the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). It is a real insult for you to try to restrict us to three minutes, Ms Furniss—how can we get all the beauty of Staffordshire into three minutes?

Staffordshire is a proper county. It is not like the west midlands, Merseyside or Humberside, which is a late ’70s creation. It was forged in the Anglo-Saxon era when Queen Æthelflæd, the Lady of the Mercians, created the forts in Tamworth and Stafford. We forget that that was part of Staffordshire, as was Wednesbury, because what we see as the Black Country was all part of a great historical county of Staffordshire.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I have heard reports that the Staffordshire bull terrier may not be from Staffordshire because it is from Wednesbury. Can we confirm that Wednesbury has always been in the historical county of Staffordshire?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I can absolutely confirm that Wednesbury has always been in the great historical county of Staffordshire, and of course the Staffordshire knot comes from that great Queen of Mercia, although there is sometimes speculation that it actually comes from the hangman at Stafford castle: there were three prisoners and there was an argument over who to hang first, and to find a compromise he hanged all three at once. However, I think we all take the view that it is much more beautiful to think that it is part of the Queen of Mercia’s insignia that is used on our county flag.

We have a great cultural heritage in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. I always say that we have got the very best of everything in Staffordshire in my constituency, not the other constituencies that make up the lesser parts of Staffordshire. We have so much: Dunoon pottery, which makes some of the finest mugs to be found, and wonderful breweries—we draw our water from the great River Trent, River Penk or River Sow, so we have great brewers in my part of Staffordshire.

We have great cultural events and institutions. For me, Christmas is not Christmas if I do not go to the Wyrley Pretenders pantomime to see the amazing work that the volunteers do every year to entertain and bring the community together for Christmas. We have the newly opened Crown Wharf theatre in Stone, which is going to be there for generations to enjoy productions that I have no doubt will be far better than anything else put on in other people’s constituencies.

We are a source of inspiration to artists, such as Peter De Wint, who was born and grew up in Staffordshire. The Great Wyrley outrages inspired Arthur Conan Doyle to write his famous book about them. If I invade my former constituency, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and go down to Kinver, there are the Kinver rock houses, which he mentioned and which were the inspiration for the Shire in Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings”. We have so much to offer.

On 9, 10 and 11 May, people can come to the Stone food and drink festival. Stone is the food capital of Staffordshire, and people can truly appreciate that and enjoy an amazing day out there. I look forward to welcoming hon. Members to the great constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, and to welcoming so many people from around the country to our great county of Staffordshire.

16:56

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on the cultural contribution of Staffordshire to our economy and country. I am probably the only hon. Member present who has a constituent sitting in the Public Gallery, so I shall be on my very best behaviour. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham)—the county town, where my mother was born—on her excellent speech. She set herself up nicely to be the first honorary patron of the Staffordshire tourist board—run a close second by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).

On Thursday 1 May, people across Staffordshire will be marking Staffordshire Day, and I look forward to being back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme to mark this important day in our collective calendar with a nice cold drink at one of our wonderful local public houses—there are plenty to choose from—as well as getting out the vote with our excellent Labour candidates. In my maiden speech last July, I said:

“While some might look north of the Watford Gap and see a cultural desert, I see vibrancy.”—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1120.]

I went on to champion the wonderful New Vic Theatre, which attracts locals from far and wide, including hon. Members who have been seen walking through its doors. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about how wonderful the New Vic is. We have the wonderful Apedale museum and the light railway, which is an excellent day out. We have the fantastic Brampton museum, which tells the story of our ancient and royal borough. We have the award-winning Newcastle College, which has many brilliant young people engaging with arts and culture, as my hon. Friend said—we do share it, but I have the headquarters in my constituency.

Just a few weeks ago, I was at the Philip Astley Centre, which is in our town centre—a great community asset, dedicated to the memory of the creator of the modern circus, Phillip Astley, who was born and raised in God’s own community of Newcastle-under-Lyme. From eating to horse riding, and from walking to a brilliant higher education institution in Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme packs a punch.

This is an important year for the 1st Newcastle Brownies and Guides. The 1st Newcastle Guides is one of the oldest surviving units in the country, and the oldest in the midlands. The Brownie unit turns 105 years old this year and the Guide unit turns 110. As part of the celebrations, they are fundraising so that both units can open the eyes and ears of their young women.

Our faith groups do much for the arts. Just on Saturday, St Mark’s Basford, which is not far from my house, had a fundraising barn dance—I did not dance. Father Tommy, the vicar, is moving on to pastures new; we wish him well and thank him for his service to our community.

As we address the cultural contribution of Staffordshire, however, we must rededicate ourselves to the fight for our fair share of investment in housing, transport and, yes, the arts and culture. There is so much good happening in all parts of Staffordshire, as we have heard already, and today is an opportunity to touch briefly on that in the House.

I could speak about Newcastle-under-Lyme all day, and at times since my election I have tried to do just that, but I will not test hon. Members’ patience this afternoon, and will simply say this: Staffordshire is at the heart of our country, and Newcastle-under-Lyme is at the heart of our county. Long may that continue, and a happy Staffordshire Day to all.

16:59

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important debate in the week of Staffordshire Day. As a proud resident of Arnold Bennett’s Axe and the representative of the head of the River Trent, which gives my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and others such wonderful beer, it is an honour to take part in the debate.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who I will call my hon. Friend, talk about the contribution of the Minton tiles to Parliament, but I want to mention two other contributions that Staffordshire Moorlands has made to this Parliament. The first is a very obvious one: a big family that lives in Staffordshire Moorlands, the Talbots—including the Earl of Shrewsbury—had this very nice house at Alton Towers, and they had a house architect called Augustus Pugin, who designed and created many buildings in that area that are still standing today, including schools and the marvellous St Giles church in Cheadle. Anyone who visits them can see that they are the forerunners for what we see in Central Lobby and across Parliament.

Perhaps slightly lesser known is that Richard Norman Shaw—we know that name—is an architect who also operated in Staffordshire Moorlands. He was the architect of the All Saints church, Spout Hall on St Edward Street and, as we all know, Norman Shaw North and Norman Shaw South. We can all celebrate the fact that Staffordshire Moorlands, and Staffordshire, have played such an important role.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Of course, the Capitol building in the US has tiles made not in Maryland or New Jersey but in Staffordshire, here in the United Kingdom.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

Hear, hear—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have contributed not just to this Parliament but to Parliaments across the world.

Staffordshire Moorlands also contributed to much of our décor. The arts and crafts movement started at Leek college. William Morris lived and studied in Leek, and came up with many of his original designs there. We have the canals, because James Brindley, the creator and architect of the canals, was a resident of Leek, and it was the canals that allowed our pottery to get to market. If pots are put on the back of a horse and cart, quite a lot of them break, but the canals allow them to be transported to market. The very fine quality pottery that Staffordshire is famous for was possible only because of the canals that James Brindley created.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge said, three minutes is simply not enough time to talk about the whole of the cultural impact that Staffordshire Moorlands and Staffordshire have had in the United Kingdom. Culture is so important. I was a big advocate for Stoke-on-Trent when it was running to be the capital of culture, and it was a great disappointment to me that it was not chosen. I had to recuse myself from the decision. I was then the Minister who would have taken the decision, so I had to step aside and allow my deputy to take it.

I hope we can come together and build something more around culture. The cultural heritage and the feeling of place and belonging are incredibly important to us. That is why I was really pleased last year to run a year of reasons to visit Staffordshire Moorlands—not just Alton Towers, the biggest tourist attraction outside London, or the Peak Wildlife Park, with our fantastic polar bear residents, but the many artists, writers, food producers and others who contribute so much to our fantastic culture. That is why on 1 June I will be starting a year of the Moorlands village. I will not be doing 52 reasons; I will be focusing on a village and a parish every week. This week alone, I visited the Scrumbles cake shop up in Brown Edge, and then went up to one of our nature reserves. I went to see St Luke’s church in Endon, which has an incredible Burne-Jones stained glass window—a source of light of a kind that would not be seen elsewhere. We have so much to offer, and I want everyone to come and visit, not just to go on our rollercoasters, but to see the fantastic industrial heritage and the cultural impact that Staffordshire Moorlands has had. Happy Staffordshire Day.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I will now limit speeches to two and a half minutes.

17:04

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important debate. This week, we are celebrating Staffordshire Day, which gives us the perfect opportunity to reflect on the cultural contributions of our towns and cities. In my constituency of Tamworth and the villages, we are incredibly proud of our rich heritage—from its origin as the ancient capital of Mercia and the home of the iconic Tamworth castle to its pivotal role in the industrial revolution and the development of the modern midlands. We can all agree that Staffordshire is at the centre of the universe.

Tamworth stands as testament to centuries of resilience, innovation and historic significance. Cultural contributions from arts and heritage in Tamworth and across Staffordshire are essential in shaping our country’s identity, enriching our communities and supporting local economic growth.

As an arts graduate, I am proud that nationally the cultural sector contributed £35 billion to the UK economy in 2023 and supported around 700,000 jobs. I was saddened that under the previous Government, grants for the arts were cut in real terms, which made decisions challenging for arts organisations and cultural places. Despite those challenges, the sector has shown a remarkable resilience. Between 2019 and 2022, the arts and culture sector grew by 5% in real terms, which is more than double the growth rate for the UK economy.

The cultural sector also plays a really important role in promoting community cohesion, education and wellbeing across Staffordshire. In Tamworth, we launched a programme that focused on social cohesion with community-led initiatives, arts projects and educational programmes. Some took place at Tamworth castle alongside Community Together CIC, with heritage-focused workshops and a festival last year celebrating “Athelstan 1100”, which had arts exhibitions, live performances and heritage trails.

In conclusion, let me say how proud I am that Tamworth castle museum was awarded £1.7 million; as a museum, it needs funding to support it and the great work that it does. I am really proud to celebrate Staffordshire Day alongside my colleagues here in the House.

17:06

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate. In my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter we have given, and continue to give, so much to the world. When His Majesty the King visited in February, he saw two of our greatest exports to the world: beer and yellow diggers. Burton is, of course, the brewing capital of Britain, and my constituency employs more people in brewing jobs than any other in the country. Burton ales are famous around the world, and those words “Burton Ales”, or the iconic red triangle of Bass, can be spotted all around the world.

Following the closure of the National Brewery Centre in 2022, I am working with the council and the National Brewery Heritage Trust as they bring life to plans for a new brewery centre and experience that will open up the Washlands area, and allow us to tell that story of Burton’s importance as the brewing capital of the world once more. Not only do we have the global brewers of Molson Coors and Marston’s, but also important independent brewers such as Tower Brewery, Burton Bridge, Outwoods Brewing, Gates, and the Uttoxeter Brewing Company. Our local club, Burton Albion, is better known as the Brewers, because of our brewing heritage. We are home to pub companies Punch and Greene King, both of which support pubs and hospitality across the country. Pubs and hospitality are in desperate need of support and I hope the Government will move forward at pace with business rate reform.

Uttoxeter is where Joseph Cyril Bamford made his very first tipping trailer, which would go on to become the iconic global brand of JCB, that is headquartered in Rocester. We have the racecourse in Uttoxeter, where the Midlands grand national takes place in March. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many charities and voluntary organisations in my constituency. In particular, I want to highlight Burton Addiction Centre, which leads not only Staffordshire but the country for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Whenever I visit, I am amazed by the lifesaving work that takes place there.

Finally, I close by asking all of us to carry the motto of our county with us: “The knot unites”. Within our county and country there is so much hatred and division and, like today, we should remember the things that bind us together. Happy Staffordshire Day.

17:09

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing the debate. It has been a real pleasure to hear colleagues pay tribute to Staffordshire, from our world renowned pottery to our vibrant theatres, diverse festivals and creative talent.

Although I might be a little biased, Cannock Chase, my own perfectly formed slice of Staffordshire, stands out as one of our cultural gems. Not only are we fortunate enough to have the chase itself, but we also have countless fantastic businesses, landmarks, museums, theatres and schools. I have had the privilege of visiting many of our fantastic schools, which are nurturing future artists and performers who will go on to contribute to Staffordshire’s cultural landscape. Despite the disadvantage of the national funding formula, we must support a broad, inclusive curriculum that includes the arts, music, drama and design: such a culturally rich education is open to young people in many parts of our country but not as open as it should be to our constituents.

Cannock Chase has raised renowned talent such as the hilarious Steve Edge, and our Oscar-winning film-maker Chris Overton, who scooped the Academy award for the beautiful short film “The Silent Child”. In more recent news, Jenii Luperi, the vocal coach of this year’s Eurovision entry, also hails from Cannock. It is clear that Staffordshire has always punched well above its weight culturally, and we must ensure that it has the support and resources to do so for generations to come.

Young performers who are just starting out, seasoned performers, and Oscar winners all need venues to support them. The Prince of Wales theatre in Cannock, a cornerstone of our local cultural life, had its final curtain call on Saturday night, though it is hopefully not closing for good. The emotional evening involved eight fantastic local musical theatre and amateur dramatics companies, who all managed to get to the theatre safely despite Staffordshire’s notoriously potholed roads.

We have also, with great sadness, seen the Museum of Cannock Chase close its doors. Such venues are not just buildings but homes for local talent, heritage and the collective memory of our communities. Thousands of schoolchildren have come through their doors to experience the rich heritage of our area; they leave with a sense of pride in where they are from, inspired to shape its future. I am supporting two incredible charitable groups who have been working non-stop for the last six months to reopen those venues. We are exploring what support might be available to them from the Arts Everywhere fund. That fund was announced in the inaugural Jennie Lee lecture, named for our first Arts Minister, in whose footsteps as an MP I am privileged to follow. Staffordshire’s cultural contributions are about not just the past but the future that we want to build: a future where our children can grow their creativity in schools, local groups, grassroots museums, and on stages big and small.

17:12

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this important debate. Think of Robbie Williams, Josiah Wedgwood, Arnold Bennett, Alton Towers, “The Great Pottery Throw Down” and Rory Delap’s throw-ins, the Peak district, mile upon mile of canals, the area’s fascinating industrial past and present, and—who could forget it—the commentator’s favourite: “But can they do it on a cold night in Stoke?” The last is a cultural reference as old as some Members of Parliament in the 2024 intake. It dates to the bygone era of Tony Pulis, whose cultural contribution is perhaps best summed up by the descriptive Goldie Lookin Chain lyric in tribute to the man himself:

“Tony Pulis, one hell of a bloke;

Tony Pulis, he manages Stoke.”

Football hard men aside, Staffordshire has shaped the cultural texture of Britain for centuries, and not just with its famous ceramics, although I will start there. In the 18th century, visionary potters like Josiah Wedgwood revolutionised pottery, making Stoke-on-Trent a world-famous centre of excellence. Wedgwood was so good that he became known as the Queen’s potter, proof that even back then Staffordshire knew how to make a good royal impression. In literature, Hanley-born Arnold Bennett captured the working-class life of industrial Britain in a way that still resonates with readers. In the post-industrial era, Staffordshire has continued to enrich our culture. I am sure that Take That would never have reached such heights of success in the 1990s and 2000s were it not for Staffordshire’s own Robbie Williams.

Staffordshire’s cultural scene is alive and well today. The Lichfield festival continues to bring together music, theatre and literature in the county. Each year it draws crowds to historic venues such as Lichfield cathedral with world-class performances. Liberal Democrats are arguing for investment in extracurricular activities for children, such as sport, music and drama. Without that, we cannot expect the next Robbie Williams or Josiah Wedgwood to pursue a career in arts and crafts. Where will the next throw-in specialist come from if sports facilities in Staffordshire do not receive the necessary investment? We must recognise that much of our cultural sector is supported by local authority funding. Discretionary spending on culture is often the first spending to be cut, but that trend must cease if Staffordshire, and everywhere else, is to thrive culturally. We would protect the independence of arts funding so that it can no longer be exposed to political interference, as we have seen over the last few years, and we would introduce cultural creative enterprise zones to stimulate growth. Local authorities must be given the tools to protect their cherished heritage. In Staffordshire, that would mean protecting the county’s beautiful manor houses, mills, castles and so much more.

That brings me to tourism. Staffordshire’s theme parks offer a host of rollercoasters, including at Alton Towers and Drayton Manor, where my wife tells me she spent the best birthday of her life when she was seven. Thanks to Staffordshire, my annual efforts will never, ever be quite good enough. I am told that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) is particularly thankful for the contribution of theme parks to public life, although I understand that he has yet to visit Alton Towers—it is time to invite him.

These facilities are a major source of tourism for Staffordshire, and they support a considerable number of jobs in the local economy. The tourism industry needs and deserves proper support, so the Liberal Democrats would upgrade the Government’s tourism function with a dedicated Minister for tourism and hospitality. That would give a bigger voice in government to a sector that not only supports our global soft power, but contributes £58 billion to the economy each year.

With your indulgence, Ms Furniss, I will touch briefly on one telling contribution made by Staffordshire to the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are extremely thankful for the role played by the staff at Yarnfield Park, where we hosted a series of secret training briefings for our candidates between the pandemic lockdown and our successful 2024 general election campaign. If nothing else, that is surely a testament to how truly inspiring the culture of Staffordshire can be.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

17:15

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I wish you and every Member a very happy Staffordshire Day in advance.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing the debate, and I thank her for her opening remarks. She took us on an engaging tour of Staffordshire, as did a lot of Members from across the House. I particularly want to highlight the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who was certainly not shy about his passion for his constituency.

It is vital that we recognise the cultural contributions that the many counties of Britain have to offer, and Staffordshire has made a wealth of contributions to our industrial, artistic and sporting heritage. It is therefore a privilege to have the opportunity to bring attention to a number of those contributions.

As we have heard, Staffordshire’s recorded history can be traced back to the early medieval period, when the area was first settled by the Anglo-Saxons. With Tamworth as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Mercia, the area quickly rose to prominence as a frequent battleground between the Anglo-Saxons and the invading Danes, before being settled by the conquering Normans. Tamworth castle was built on top of the remnants of this royal residence, and it continues to stand to this day, having seen nearly 1,000 years of the county’s history pass through its halls.

It would be remiss of me not to mention one of Staffordshire’s most recognisable cultural contributions, which we have heard a lot about today: the Potteries. As the largest producer of ceramics in Britain, Staffordshire housed hundreds of family businesses making all kinds of pottery, from humble tableware to the most intricate of decorative pieces, many of which still remain to this day. Although the industry may not quite be at the heights that it once was, local people have worked tirelessly to keep the heritage of Staffordshire’s Potteries alive through the many museums and art galleries dedicated to ceramics.

Equally historic is the county’s brewery industry, particularly the many breweries of Burton-upon-Trent. The town’s brewing industry dates back to the founding of Burton abbey in the 11th century and the early efforts of local monks to brew beer. Burton ales grew over the centuries into a thriving export and a global phenomenon, with even the Empress of Russia, Catherine the Great, said to have been “immoderately fond” of beer brewed in Burton. The industry went from strength to strength in the industrial age, with one of the town’s largest beer makers, Samuel Allsopp & Sons, becoming the first company to export Burton pale ale to India in 1822.

Although ceramics and brewing are two of Staffordshire’s most famous cultural contributions, there remains a wealth of other historical treasures that the county can be proud of. Chief among these is the court of minstrels, a medieval institution dating back to the royal court of John of Gaunt in the 14th century that brought together travelling musicians from across the region. This musical legacy can still be seen in the county to this day, with Friends of Staffordshire’s Young Musicians and other organisations continuing to promote local musical talent. Of course, Stoke-on-Trent was the birthplace of the iconic Robbie Williams.

In sports, Staffordshire has a living history of cultural contributions. Two of the country’s oldest professional football clubs, Stoke City and Port Vale, were founded in Staffordshire, with Stoke City having been one of the founding members of the football league in 1888. The two clubs continue to uphold a healthy rivalry.

My staff member Greg Ellis, who is in the Public Gallery today and who helped me to write my speech, is a disgruntled Stoke City fan. He wanted me to put on record that, although Stoke City’s recent performances leave much to be desired—by contrast with those of Port Vale, who have just been promoted to League One —I can offer no opinion on such matters as a tortured Manchester United fan. Staffordshire can boast an equally impressive record in cricket, as Staffordshire county cricket club has won the National Counties Cricket Championship more times than any other county.

All these contributions, and many more, are valuable additions to our cultural heritage. Culture is a living thing and requires the care and dedication of local communities to keep it thriving, so I pay tribute to some of the local elected representatives who in recent years have made significant contributions to the regeneration of this historic county.

We see this in the £17 million secured for the regeneration of Leek town centre by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands in the £56 million secured for the regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent by former MPs Jonathan Gullis, Jack Brereton and Jo Gideon, and delivered under the leadership of Councillor Abi Brown; and in the delivery of over £50 million of regeneration in Newcastle-under-Lyme under the leadership of Councillor Simon Tagg. And that is to name only a few. I also pay tribute to the outstanding work of Councillor Alan White and his Conservative administration in leading Staffordshire county council to deliver efficient services without the eye-watering levels of taxation that we see in other local authorities.

However, it is not only the inhabitants of Staffordshire who recognise the county’s cultural heritage; it is also recognised by the millions of tourists who visit Staffordshire each year. The most recent data available shows that 2023 was the county’s busiest year since the pandemic, with 37 million domestic and international tourists visiting the area. Tourism generated £2.3 billion for the local economy—

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister to respond to the debate.

17:20

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury (Vicky Foxcroft)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.

I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I warned him that I might have to commit him to some stuff in responding to this debate. [Laughter.] At the moment, I am only committing him to writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) about Stoke’s bid to be a UNESCO city of crafts and folk art. I will make sure the Minister responds to her.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this debate and delivering a powerful speech that highlighted the wonders of Staffordshire. The number of contributors to this debate has also been extremely impressive.

Staffordshire is responsible for some truly significant contributions to the culture of Britain and beyond, both historically and in the present day. My hon. Friend gave a number of wonderful examples, and I will add to her reflections. The Staffordshire hoard, discovered in 2009, is the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold and metalwork ever found, which shows the region’s historical importance even in early medieval times.

Samuel Johnson, the influential lexicographer and writer, was born in Lichfield. His dictionary of the English language, the first ever compiled, was a foundational work. He also rewrote the plays of William Shakespeare to ensure that all discrepancies were written out, which I find extremely interesting as somebody who studied performing arts at college, and drama and business at university.

Staffordshire is world famous for its ceramics industry, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently described. Josiah Wedgwood revolutionised pottery in the 18th century with industrial methods and high-quality wares. His legacy is celebrated today at the Wedgwood Collection in Barlaston, which is operated by the V&A, one of our great national museums.

Perhaps more than anywhere else, Staffordshire, with its pottery, is a compelling example of how culture and creativity go hand in hand. This Government are committed to supporting culture and to making sure that arts and cultural activities are no longer the preserve of a privileged few. As part of our plan for change, we are committed to ensuring that the arts and culture thrive in every part of the country, with more opportunities for more people to engage with, benefit from and work in the arts and culture where they live.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I cannot get through the speech if I do; I am sorry.

That is why this Government are proud to support the arts and culture. Only recently, we announced more than £270 million of investment for our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector via the Arts Everywhere fund. And the £85 million Creative Foundations fund, which was announced earlier this year, will help arts and cultural organisations with varying scales of need to resolve urgent issues with their infrastructure.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The Minister makes a very important point about ensuring that areas outside London are able to get an important slice of cultural contributions. As the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism is not here, would she go back with representations on how we can bring some of those cultural institutions out of London to places such as Staffordshire—not just to Stone, Great Wyrley or Penkridge, but to many other communities across the county?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

The right hon. Member makes a really good point, and I will feed that back. I am missing out some of my speech and jumping ahead because I want my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to have the opportunity to respond.

After preparing for and listening to this debate, I am tempted to ditch my beach holiday and instead take a trip to Staffordshire. I could join my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for a pint at the Titanic brewery or the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) to learn about the origins of the gunpowder plot. I could join my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South at the Longton Pig Walk before watching a pantomime with the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). I could then join my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for some horse riding—maybe with the Father who is retiring.

[Adam Jogee]

When the Minister comes to Staffordshire, she will meet some very wise people, not least the folk who elected nine Labour MPs out of 12 at the general election. Many hon. Members had to scribble away half their speeches, so when the Minister goes back to her colleagues, will she encourage them to find Government time for a debate on these issues?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I will make sure I raise that point, and good on hon. and right hon. Members for pressing me to get the Minister to commit to many things.

I will then join the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for a history lesson in architecture. She also mentioned Alton Towers, where I have very fond memories of going as a child. And who does not love a castle? I will also join my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) in visiting Tamworth castle. By that stage, I will probably be ready for another beer, so I had better pay a visit to the brewing capital of the world—Burton and Uttoxeter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) convinced me that we need to secure funding for our theatres. I feel very strongly and passionately about theatres, and I know the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism does too. I am certain there is nowhere else we need to be on 1 May, but if there were, it would be Staffordshire. I wish everyone a happy Staffordshire Day.

17:27

[Leigh Ingham]

I thank all Members for attending and participating in this debate. I did not know everything about all their constituencies, so it was wonderful to hear about them.

I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), and the right hon. Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).

We are missing only two MPs, so today we have had great representation for Staffordshire from across the county. I think we have represented well the breadth of what is taking place, and our optimism for the future—for investing in our creative sector and our creative industries—has come through clearly. It is important that we nurture that talent and ensure that those of us based outside London, who have creative hubs in our constituencies, are able to cultivate it.

I thank the Minister for her response, and I appreciate the further responses she will provide. As I said, 1 May is Staffordshire Day—a day to celebrate. There are lots of things to do that day across Staffordshire, including going to the polling station. Thank you very much, everyone.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Staffordshire.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.