Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Good morning. Can I start by acknowledging the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House? We are investing in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and have committed more than £200 million to the next stage of rebuilding our biosecurity facilities at Weybridge to enhance our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond to and recover from outbreaks. That is in addition to supporting farmers through the animal health and welfare pathway, which includes veterinary visits to improve livestock health, welfare, biosecurity and productivity.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for his comments. The recent National Audit Office report was hugely concerning, and it was clear that the UK is at high risk of, and unprepared for, a major animal disease outbreak. Post-Brexit checks mean that only 5% of animals are physically checked as they come into the UK. We know that a lot of illegal meat is coming in through the ports, and our farm animal veterinary workforce is overstretched. Also, climate change and antimicrobial resistance are putting us at a higher risk of disease outbreaks. If a disease such as foot and mouth hits again, it will devastate British agriculture and rural communities, and have an impact on our food security. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are treating the issues that the report raises as a strategic national threat, and that its warnings will not be ignored until it is too late?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We take this matter extremely seriously. Sadly, it is not a new problem. We have had similar reports in the past, and I can assure him that we are giving careful consideration to this report. We will develop a plan to address it. He will be aware that there are a range of threats, and it is important that we balance our work. We have taken strong measures to restrict personal imports, given the threats on the continent.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
As the House will know, sadly the epicentre of the UK bluetongue outbreak was in my South Norfolk constituency, so biosecurity is a huge issue for my farmers. Will we look to lower our biosecurity risks by returning to checking products at the Bastion Point inland border security centre at the White Cliffs business park, which is closer to the border point, instead of products having to travel nearly 17 miles before they are checked?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour. He is right to raise the bluetongue issues, which have been dealt with effectively by our officials. His points about border controls and checks are under close consideration, partly as a consequence of our new arrangements with the European Union.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Many Welsh farmers in mid-Wales depend on being able to move their livestock back and forth over the border with England. Indeed, 550 farms straddle the border. The imposition of a veterinary hard border between England and Wales will be damaging for the farming community in my constituency and the local economy that they support. Farmers simply cannot afford to pay £70 a beast for testing, and apparently there is not even enough testing capacity for all the livestock that cross the border anyway. What steps is the Minister taking to address the situation, and to prevent Welsh farmers from losing out?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask that question. As I just referenced, the bluetongue issue has been serious and difficult. We have made a sensible decision for England, and the approach we have taken has managed to control the spread. The decision in Wales is obviously a matter for the Welsh Government, and I am sure that he would understand that I respect that decision. We are talking about how we can resolve the difficult issues that he has raised.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am deeply distressed that the Government are planning to extend the badger cull, because the evidence shows that with good testing and biosecurity, we can bring down rates of tuberculosis. I heard what the representative from Gatcombe farm said when they visited Parliament just a couple of weeks ago. Will the Minister look at the evidence? Before moving forward with a badger cull, will he look at biosecurity measures that could ensure that we really get on top of bovine TB?
Daniel Zeichner
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not extending the badger cull. We have a clear commitment to ending the badger cull in this Parliament, and I will visit Gatcombe with others in the weeks ahead. We are taking an evidence-based approach. We also have to make sure that we help farmers tackle a distressing and difficult disease.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This month, the National Audit Office’s “Resilience to animal diseases” report laid bare the startling reality about our biosecurity, stating:
“Defra and APHA would struggle to manage a more severe outbreak or concurrent serious outbreaks”,
and the risk of site failure at the APHA site at Weybridge is at its maximum rating. As I have raised 16 times in this Parliament, a fully funded and urgent rebuild of APHA in Weybridge is critical. It got no mention at all by the Chancellor in the spending review; it merely has repeated partial funding from the Department. When will the Government wake up, get a grip, and press on with this vital project as soon as possible, before disaster strikes?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman knows that I take this issue very seriously. I gently point out to him that this exact situation was pointed out by the National Audit Office during the last Parliament. The previous Government had 14 years to get the principles in place, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives. I can tell him that we have a £208 million investment this year; that is what was asked for. I can assure him that there will be funds in future, because we take biosecurity very seriously.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Chalk streams are not only a beautiful and iconic part of our precious natural landscape; they are symbols of our national heritage. The protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams is a core ambition in our overall programme of reform to the water sector.
Luke Murphy
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In Hampshire, we are blessed with several rare and irreplaceable chalk streams, including the River Loddon, the River Itchen and the River Test. The Minister will be aware of the campaigns to secure greater protection for these irreplaceable habitats, including during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I pay tribute to the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Greener Basingstoke, and Natural Basingstoke for all their work. Can the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to the protection of chalk streams, and set out what further steps they will take to restore these precious habitats?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is quite right: chalk streams are a source of beauty and national pride. Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting a chalk stream restoration project with Charles Rangeley-Wilson, who is a passionate campaigner for chalk streams. Under this Labour Government, water companies will spend more than £2 billion to deliver over 1,000 actions for chalk stream restoration, and will reduce their abstraction from chalk streams by 126 million litres per day.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The River Chess in Rickmansworth is one of the chalk streams that goes through my constituency. The volunteers at the Rickmansworth Waterways Trust are keeping our canal heritage alive, despite funding for the Canal & River Trust being cut. I believe the cut is short-sighted, because these waterways tackle water shortages, boost biodiversity and protect 2,500 miles of national assets for a modest cost. Will the Minister rethink the funding cuts and back the Fund Britain’s Waterways campaign, so that local champions like David Montague and his team at Batchworth lock are not left to sink or swim on their own?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say how important volunteers are in supporting our natural environment up and down the country. He will be aware that the decision to reduce the funding for the Canal & River Trust was taken by the previous Government, and that was extended under this Government. There will be a tapering off of some of the funding, but we continue to support water projects up and down the country. As I have already mentioned, the changes that we are introducing for water companies will help to protect not only our beautiful chalk streams, but all our rivers, lakes and seas.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
On 11 June, we committed to the largest ever investment in nature. Funding for the environmental land management schemes will increase to £2 billion per annum by 2028-29, and we now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, which we should all be pleased about. We are reforming the sustainable farming incentive to target funds fairly and effectively, and to ensure that, in those schemes, the user experience is absolutely prioritised.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Farmers in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset have had to deal with constantly changing information regarding the sustainable farming incentive. We welcome the news that the Government have allowed those who started their application between January and March to submit it now, but when it comes to sustainable farming and nature recovery, what support is in place for those who have not submitted or started their application?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady will appreciate that we inherited a scheme that did not have proper budgetary controls. Once the money was spent, none was available to people who had yet to come into the scheme. We have dealt with the administrative problem of those who had expected to benefit when they applied. We are planning to make an announcement in the next few weeks, in which we will explain the future scheme for people who are interested. We very much want to get more people in.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Lord Don Curry’s recent report on a sustainable farming model for the future was sent to the Secretary of State earlier this month. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister read it yet? Do they agree with me and Lord Curry that the UK is in a dangerously precarious position, given that we produce domestically only 55% of the food we need, and that we are therefore not food secure and need an urgent plan for food security? Will he meet me and the noble Lord to examine this industry-wide report, and start the process of putting Britain on the path to food security?
Daniel Zeichner
I think the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that when a report from Lord Curry arrives in my inbox, I read it. I did so, with great interest. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not food secure—the food security report produced at the end of last year explained this very carefully—but I am always willing and happy to discuss these issues with him and Lord Curry.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The fruit and vegetables aid scheme is an EU legacy scheme, and it closes in England on 1 January 2026. It is available only via producer organisations —that was an EU requirement—and only 20% of growers are benefiting from it; 80% get no benefit. All growers will continue to benefit from the farming innovation programme’s £63 million of grants, and the five-year extension to the seasonal workers visa scheme that we have announced.
Dr Evans
In my constituency, I have Busby, the biggest strawberry and raspberry farm in Leicestershire. It uses the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, which is due to run out at the end of 2025, in order to invest and innovate. The Government have been in power for one year; they wrote to me in May, saying they had
“plans to simplify and rationalise agriculture grants”,
but we have six months to go before the scheme ends, and Busby still does not know what its future funding will look like. What is replacing the scheme, so that Busby can carry on growing the finest strawberries and raspberries in Leicestershire?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise our fruit-growing sector. It has been known for a long time that this scheme is coming to an end, and I am afraid the truth is that it did not provide very good value for money. We will replace it as part of our new food strategy, and announcements on that will be coming down the line. However, I am slightly surprised to hear that he is so keen to preserve an EU-based scheme. Who knew that there were Opposition Members still hankering to be in the EU?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
This Labour Government have launched the largest ever crackdown against poorly behaving water companies. As part of this operation, Ofwat has hit Thames Water with a £100 million fine, which is the biggest in British history. I am delighted to confirm today that fines collected by regulators will be directly invested in projects, led by communities up and down the country, to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the Minister for her answer on the water restoration fund, but it would be good to know when it will come back into action. A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request found that Ofwat has failed to force water companies to pay any fines for sewage discharge cases since 2021, despite sewage being pumped into waterways for over 3.6 million hours last year alone. Meanwhile, water company bosses earned a collective total of £20 million in the 2023-24 financial year. The water restoration fund provided valuable funds to local communities to improve water quality and river health. When will the Government stand up to the water companies, make them pay for the damage they are inflicting on our environment, and ringfence this money for communities, so that they can protect and improve their waterways?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Lady, but with respect, the response was in my original answer. As I confirmed, the water restoration fund is continuing as planned. Successful projects have been notified, and money has been announced and given. As I have stated, all the money collected from water fines will be diverted into nature projects to help clean up our rivers, lakes and seas across the country—and yes, that money will be ringfenced.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The interim Cunliffe report on the water sector has highlighted weak, disjointed and reactive regulation by various regulators. If the commission’s final findings confirm the assessment of the regulators, can the Minister confirm that she will act swiftly and decisively to reform regulation of our water companies?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important work that the commission has been doing. I do not want to get ahead of any announcements the commission may make—it is not long to wait now, Mr Speaker; it is only a few weeks—but clearly regulation has not been working, so action is needed.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Fly-tipping sky-rocketed under the Conservative Government. This Labour Government will crack down on the waste cowboys in order to clean up Britain’s streets. We will support councils in seizing and crush their vehicles. We will use drones and CCTV to hunt down the fly-tippers, forcing them to clean up their mess, and we will bring in new prison sentences for those transporting waste illegally. I am delighted to tell the House that we are beginning the clean-up of the disgraceful fly-tipping in Hoads Wood site of special scientific interest, which happened under the previous Government. That work is ongoing.
Kevin Bonavia
I thank the Minister for her very strong answer. Recently, I have been made aware of a recurring incident of fly-tipping in Bedwell, in the heart of my constituency. The council is working very hard to clear up the mess and find those responsible, but the situation is being made worse by people picking up that rubbish and taking it to the nearby woods. Will the Minister offer extra support to councils like mine, so that together we can clean up our communities and crack down on criminals who think that they can dump their waste with impunity, wrecking the lives of constituent like mine, and making their lives a living hell?
Mary Creagh
I have the greatest sympathy for my hon. Friend’s constituents. I encourage Stevenage borough council to work with our National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which shares best practice on tackling fly-tipping. We are also taking direct action on some of the littered items, because once there is litter, people think that they can fly-tip, and then they think that they can dump. That is why we have banned the sale of single-use vapes from 1 June, and I stand ready to work with his council.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
When it comes to cracking down on litter and fly-tipping, I would welcome anything the Government do. However, during proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill, which passed through this place this week, Government Members had ample opportunity to accept various new clauses and amendments that would ensure stricter tackling of littering and fly-tipping, but failed to do so. What message does that send to those who go around tossing litter and fly-tipping, and, importantly, to the many volunteers in constituencies like mine who work day in, day out, to clear up that litter?
Mary Creagh
We have said that we will use existing powers to create clean-up squads, which will force the waste criminals to clear up their mess. It is a little rich of the Conservative party, after 14 years of failure, to attack us after just 10 months in government. We have said that we are changing the carriers, brokers and dealers regime to tighten up arrangements relating to who can carry and transport waste, because the Conservatives left us a paper-based system that is open to fraud.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished mountaineer and mountain guide, for his personal courage and bravery in climbing various very tall mountains, and for championing access to the outdoors. The Government are introducing the national youth guarantee and investing £1.5 million in bursaries to help disadvantaged young people to access the great outdoors. We cannot love what we do not know, so we are delighted to be introducing the new natural history GCSE, in order to build on the UK’s unrivalled history and research in this area.
Andy MacNae
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the power of the outdoors. I should say that I have failed to climb many more mountains than I ever actually got up. Many of the lessons I learned in the mountains are the reason why I am here today. The power of the outdoors in building confidence and resilience among young people is enormous. I am so pleased that 244 young people in Rossendale and Darwen are, right now, taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme; that is fantastic. For many, discovering the power of nature can be life-changing. Nationally, the evidence of the benefits of outdoor recreation is extensive and unarguable, yet for too many, access to the outdoors remains limited, and 20 million people do not live within 15 minutes of green and blue space. Do the Secretary of State and the Minister agree that a key ambition of access legislation must be access for all?
Mary Creagh
The Government are absolutely committed to extending access, which is why we have committed to creating nine new national river walks and three national forests, the first of which is the Western forest, which I had the pleasure of planting a tree in a couple of months ago. We are also designating Wainwright’s coast-to-coast walk as a national trail. My hon. Friend is right about the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, which my daughter will be taking part in this summer. We support the award, which aims to reach a quarter of a million more young people by next year.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The rivers and coastline in my constituency are treasured by local families and children, including my own, whether they are kayaking and paddleboarding on the Cuckmere and Ouse rivers or swimming off the beaches of Seaford bay, yet they are regularly blighted by sewage discharges courtesy of Southern Water. Will the Minister meet me to discuss our local campaign to secure bathing water status for the Cuckmere river and blue flag status for Seaford beach to reassure local families and visitors alike that we are taking water quality seriously, so that they can be confident that they can use these outdoor spaces safely?
Mary Creagh
I would be delighted to offer up the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to meet the hon. Gentleman on that issue. I would just say that the King Charles III coastal path will open up a quarter of a million hectares of open access land on the coast—I know that Lewes is very close to some of that spectacular scenery.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We have a strong ambition that half of all food purchased across the public sector should be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards. The new national procurement policy statement requires Government contracts to favour products that are certified to higher environmental standards, which we believe British producers, operating to higher standards, will be well placed to supply.
Rachel Hopkins
Both beef and crop farmers in my constituency tell me how important it is to produce high-quality food and contribute to UK food security. Can the Minister outline what conversations he has had with public bodies to encourage them to prioritise purchasing local British produce, and to maximise the social value of UK food production?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend and relatively near neighbour for her question. We are in constant dialogue to achieve exactly that objective. She will have noticed last week’s announcement on the extension of free school meals to everyone on universal credit, which is a key plank of our food strategy. It is exactly those kinds of initiatives that we think will benefit British producers.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Many GB-based horticultural companies, as well as other companies, want to supply British produce into Northern Ireland, but have difficulty with the bureaucracy and paperwork required by the procedures implemented some years ago. Will the Minister operate in concert with his colleagues in Cabinet and Government to eliminate the bureaucratic problems that are preventing those companies from supplying UK citizens in Northern Ireland?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is exactly why we wanted to improve our relationship with the European Union. We have negotiated and are undertaking further negotiations to improve those systems to very much help people to achieve that. We genuinely believe there are real opportunities here if we can eliminate some of the unnecessary bureaucracy.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
My hon. Friend will be aware that we inherited record levels of sewage pollution in our waterways from the previous Government. Since the election, we have launched the biggest crackdown on water pollution in history: unfair bonuses have been banned for water company executives, and water bosses who cover up pollution crimes now face up to two years in prison. We will also invest a record £104 billion of private funding to upgrade crumbling sewage pipes and reduce discharges by nearly 50% within five years.
Catherine Fookes
I remain extremely grateful for the £100 million of support the Government have given to the River Wye action plan—a pioneering joint effort between the UK and Welsh Governments—but we must do more, including using sustainable farming initiatives to support farmers to look at their stocking rates. I am concerned by reports of Thames Water seeking regulatory easements. Can the Secretary of State assure me that this Government will continue to crack down on water pollution from all sources, in the Wye, the Thames and all across the UK?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I understand her concerns. I reassure her that the Government will always act in the national interest on these issues. Thames Water must meet its statutory and regulatory obligations to its customers and to the environment—it is only right that the company is subject to the same consequences as any other water company. The company remains financially stable, but we have stepped up our preparations and stand ready for all eventualities, as I have said before, including a special administration regime, if that were to become necessary.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
As the Secretary of State knows, my constituency of North Herefordshire is very seriously affected by water pollution in the Lugg and the Wye. I confess that I am disappointed that, in both his answers to the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), he did not mention agricultural pollution at all. That is despite the fact that agriculture is the main source of water pollution in the country, as is shown in the report of the Independent Water Commission, which unfortunately was not allowed to look into it in any detail. I pay tribute to River Action, which this week won a court case forcing planning authorities to consider the cumulative impact of industrial agricultural development, and to Greenpeace, which last week pointed out the impact of toxic sewage sludge. Will he confirm whether he is updating the farming rules for water? Given that he has cut the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—
Steve Reed
The hon. Member will be aware that we are supporting work in the Wye catchment area to deal with those problems, but she is quite right in what she says. The environmental land management schemes support farmers to reduce agricultural run-off. We are making the announcement that she just mentioned today, and we are also supporting the ELM schemes, which help farmers to improve their soil quality so that the soil holds more water, and to use less fertiliser and pesticides, which reduces the amount of run-off. Therefore, we are taking action on agricultural pollution, and the announcement that she asked for is being made today.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Last week, the Minister for Water and Flooding and I attended the United Nations ocean conference in Nice. We announced that the Government will introduce a Bill by the end of the year to ratify the high seas treaty, delivering on our commitment to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030. This agreement will provide the first legal mechanism to create protected areas in international waters. The UK reiterated our commitment to agreeing an ambitious plastic pollution treaty in Geneva this coming August, and we have outlined our plans to ban bottom trawling across more of our English seas in marine protected areas. These measures will protect sensitive seabed habitats and important species from the destruction caused by this damaging practice.
Luke Taylor
The Beddington energy recovery facility has an outstanding request to increase its annual permit tonnage to 382,000 tonnes from the originally approved 300,000 tonnes when planning was approved. I know the Secretary of State is familiar with this, as the facility is a mere 100 metres from his constituency. May I ask him whether the Environment Agency will listen to local residents, including his own, and to councils across Sutton, Merton, Croydon and Kingston and refuse the permit expansion, as sufficient incinerator capacity already exists in London?
Steve Reed
As the hon. Member says, I do know of this situation because the facility is adjacent to my constituency as well. He will know that I cannot comment on what the Environment Agency is intending to do, because it is its decision. None the less, I certainly agree with him that the EA must listen to constituents and people living in the local area who will be affected by this decision.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We have announced plans to tighten up the regulation of those who transport and manage waste, moving them from a light-touch regime into a permitted system, which gives the Environment Agency a greater range of powers. It will also introduce the possibility of up to five years in prison for those who breach the new laws.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to cover for the shadow Secretary of State, who is speaking to farmers at the 140th Lincolnshire Agricultural Show. Having visited many such shows myself, including North Sheep 2025 and Cereals 2025 just last week, may I say how disappointed I am by the Secretary of State’s lack of attendance at these crucial farming events?
At a time when our farmers are going through some of the most extraordinary pressures in a generation, we have now learned that this Government have chosen to slash the farming budget. To make matters worse, Ministers have spent the past week trying to sell cuts of more than £100 million a year in real terms as a historic deal for farmers. If the Secretary of State has secured such a historic deal for his Department, where does DEFRA rank compared with others in terms of cuts in the spending review?
Steve Reed
First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I attended the Royal Cornwall Show with him just a few days ago. I am surprised he has forgotten that, because we sat together in the same tent and enjoyed a very pleasant lunch. I do not know what is wrong with his memory, but anyway.
The funding for ELM schemes paid to farmers will increase from £800 million in the last year of the Tory Government to £2 billion by 2028-29—that is a 150% increase under Labour compared with what the Tories were paying. No wonder the hon. Gentleman is so angry.
Robbie Moore
It is a shame that the Secretary of State did not do any media at the Royal Cornwall Show and pulled out of speaking events. I can tell him that DEFRA is ranked the third biggest loser of any Government Department in the spending review, and that is his failure. In reality, we are now looking at cuts to the farming budget of about 20% in real terms over the next three years, at a time when farmers need more support and certainty than ever. It gets worse: we now hear that the Government have issued further statutory guidance on farming rules for water, with more to follow, effectively aiming to ban—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have to try to get the other shadow Minister in. You went too low down the Order Paper—this is topical questions, not a full statement. I hope you are about to finish.
Robbie Moore
This is effectively going to ban the spraying of organic manures in the coming months. Is the Secretary of State categorically ruling that out?
Steve Reed
I am happy to send the shadow Minister the list of media coverage I got from the Royal Cornwall Show. He does not seem to be any better at googling than remembering who he sat down with at lunch. I am delighted that the spending review was welcomed by the environmental NGOs and the National Farmers Union as it funds activities that include the ones he referred to. It seems that everyone is delighted with the review apart from him.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The Government are, of course, strongly committed to ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I am aware that the Environment Agency is investigating this matter, so I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it in detail.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The National Audit Office report says that the Government really need to step up their border checks. As the Government have admitted in answers to me, 72,872 kg of illegal meat imports were seized between January and April this year, close to the 92,000 kg seized in the whole of 2024. With foot and mouth disease and African swine fever on our doorstep in Europe, I shudder to think how much potentially infected meat is slipping in undetected. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Will the Government act urgently to strengthen our biosecurity and our border checks before it is too late?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have acted with speed and haste to make sure that we are protected. We have banned personal imports, and we are absolutely committed to giving the Weybridge facility the support that it requires—we have given it what it asked for. The question is why we were in that position in the first place when we came into Government. What were his Government doing for all those years? These are not new problems.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Daniel Zeichner
I am delighted to hear that news. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking very closely at how we can use the co-operative model to boost the rural economy, particularly in respect of farming profitability, as we know that access to new private market opportunities is not always straightforward.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Mary Creagh
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady in great detail and at great length, but it is not something I can explain in 20 seconds.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Following last month’s Supreme Court ruling about wild camping on Dartmoor, will the Secretary of State confirm whether he believes that responsible wild camping should be permitted in the other national parks?
Mary Creagh
We were delighted by the Supreme Court judgment on Dartmoor wild camping and we understand the calls to expand it. However, we have no plans to extend it, as it does need to be balanced with landowner rights and habitat protection.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The gamekeepers employed by the military shoots on Salisbury plain are an essential resource in preserving that rare and special habitat, but DEFRA has given the rights to award licences to the shoots to Natural England, a quango that is ideologically opposed to shooting. Will the Minister take responsibility and ensure that the shoots on Salisbury plain get their licences this year?
Daniel Zeichner
I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman criticising Natural England in that way. It is a very responsible agency that does very good work on behalf of us all. We made the decision not to issue a general licence for gamebird releases in special protection areas such as Salisbury plain. We think it is really important that we help protect our internationally important bird populations from avian influenza, and I am sure he would share that goal.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
UK flour millers, including ADM in my constituency, are already contributing to our food security. However, there are fears in the industry that trade deals could curtail that progress. Will the Minister outline the steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the welcome trade deals struck by the Government do not undermine our food security?
Daniel Zeichner
The UK flour sector is really important. I very much welcome the work that that sector does for us. It is right to raise the point about trade deals. We are determined to make sure that we do nothing to undermine a very successful sector that helps keep food security at high levels in this country.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It was reported today that the Treasury may be planning to siphon money off from the water restoration fund for “unrelated purposes”. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that money in the restoration fund will be used to clean up our waterways, not to cover rising Government debt interest?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not recognise that report. The money from the restoration fund is being used now to fund projects up and down the country. As I have mentioned, the future money from fines will be ringfenced for environmental projects up and down the country as well.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Compensation has been given to Severn Trent customers in Norton and Packmoor who had suffered discoloured water supplies, and to another resident who had sewage flooding their garden. While I welcome recent investment to upgrade the pipes in Smallthorne, Burslem and Tunstall, will the Secretary of State please outline how he will hold water bosses to account, so that residents finally see real improvements?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is of course an outstanding champion for his constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North. During 2024-25, more than 800 compliance inspections were conducted at Severn Trent Water sites. The Environment Agency will be attending more minor pollution incidents and will continue to attend all serious pollution incidents. We have, of course, given Ofwat the power to ban the payment of bonuses to water bosses who damage the environment and let customers down. I congratulate my hon. Friend on supporting those tough new measures.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
This Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Despite the challenges we inherited, we have recently secured a record funding settlement for the Crown Prosecution Service, which will allow it to hire more prosecutors and play its part in rebuilding a criminal justice system that truly delivers for victims.
Catherine Fookes
I was glad to hear, after I raised this matter for the first time in November, of the launch of the west midlands pilot of the victims’ right to review scheme, which will give victims of rape and serious sexual violence an opportunity to challenge a prosecutor’s decision to drop their case. However, too many victims have already waited a huge amount of time to get any opportunity for justice, including those in my constituency of Monmouthshire. After being reported to the police, adult rape cases take an average of two years to complete in court. What work are the Government doing to reduce those waiting times?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I know from meeting rape charities, and indeed from meeting CPS units right across the country, how long waits for justice harm victims and sometimes mean that they drop out of cases altogether. The Government and the CPS are taking action to reduce delays, including by increasing the number of Crown court sitting days and the number of counsel available to prosecute rape and serious sexual assault cases.
Katie White
I declare that I am an ambassador for Leeds Women’s Aid. I welcome, as do my constituents in Leeds North West, the proposed changes to the victims’ right to review scheme that are being piloted, which will give victims a greater say in their cases. Will the Solicitor General outline the specific way in which those changes will help victims and what the impacts will be?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The victims’ right to review scheme is an important pillar of the criminal justice system. Through the CPS pilot scheme to offer victims a review prior to a decision to offer no evidence, victims will be empowered to challenge more decisions. That is likely to lead to better decision making, more victims staying in the system and, ultimately, more offenders being put behind bars.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Earlier this week, I was unsuccessful in trying to amend the Government’s proposed new spiking law to ensure that reckless spiking is an offence. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss the challenges of prosecuting violent crime towards women and girls if the Government are unpersuaded to ensure that reckless spiking becomes illegal?
The Solicitor General
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss that issue. He will be pleased to know—indeed, he may well already know—that we introduced a new offence for spiking and that we have included new spiking training for up to 10,000 staff in the night-time economy to ensure they have the skills to support victims and prevent such incidents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Solicitor General outline what support there is for the families of domestic abuse victims—specifically children who have witnessed and been traumatised by that abuse and who need support, which would also enable their parents to feel more confident in continuing their legal cases?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises a very important issue. It is incredibly important that victims of abuse of any kind, and especially children, are supported through the criminal justice system, both by police and then by the CPS.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government will always make the country’s national security our No. 1 priority. That is why we take any attempted activity conducted by hostile states on British soil extremely seriously. The CPS’s special counter-terrorism division works closely with police at the investigation stage to build very strong cases from the outset. That approach delivers results: last year, 98% of those tried for terrorism-related offences in this country were convicted.
Jon Pearce
Many of my constituents are concerned about state-backed terror, given the recent arrests in and around my constituency. Will the Solicitor General update the House on the implementation of Jonathan Hall’s report on state-backed terrorism and how that may help us to improve conviction rates?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend rightly mentions Jonathan Hall KC’s recommendations. As the Home Secretary announced, we are committed to taking forward the suite of recommendations made in Jonathan Hall’s review to tackle state threats, including the creation of a new proscription-like power.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I recently met Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Chloe Cheung, who reported being followed by men here in London after a large bounty was placed on her head by the Chinese Government. Despite providing copious evidence to the police, she received no follow-up at all. The lawyers of detained activist Jimmy Lai are also being harassed, while the plans for the new Chinese super-embassy, if built, could seriously increase China’s capacity for surveillance, intimidation and transnational repression against Hong Kong activists here in London. Will the Solicitor General please commit to looking into this issue urgently so that we can all have confidence in the UK’s ability to prosecute hostile state actors and protect those who live on UK soil?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important issue, and I will make sure that Home Office colleagues have heard the concerns he raises. Ministers have raised concerns of that nature with the authorities, including in Hong Kong and Beijing, and I want to be very clear: we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to harass or harm their critics on British soil.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member will be aware that the Law Officers’ convention prevents me from disclosing whether advice has been sought from the Law Officers, whether advice has been given and, indeed, the content of any advice.
Blake Stephenson
The Attorney General has recently been forced to apologise for his comments about those who believe the European convention on human rights is impeding efforts to tackle illegal migration. Does that not call into question the credibility of any advice given by the Attorney General and whether we can take the Government’s plans to stop the boats seriously?
The Solicitor General
As I said, the Law Officers’ convention prevents me from disclosing whether Lord Hermer advised on this issue or indeed any other. It does not, however, prevent me from saying that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about illegal migration, given the abject mess the Conservatives left the country in.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Counter-terrorism powers could optimise the effectiveness of the Border Security Command. Could the Solicitor General advise on how the Crown Prosecution Service is being empowered to tackle illegal migration and people smuggling?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises an important point and refers to a critical part of the Government’s plan to secure our borders. The CPS has recently received new funding to step up surveillance and prosecutions, which will mean that those who commit horrible crimes in relation to people smuggling feel the full force of the law.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
Nine of our European allies have written to Strasbourg, requesting a reset of the European convention on human rights to allow national Parliaments to remove foreign offenders who threaten public safety. Britain’s signature is missing. In fact, we were not even asked to join. Unfortunately, that says everything about the way in which this Government are viewed by others. Can the Solicitor General confirm whether the Government will now back that initiative, or will they leave it to others to defend the primacy of democratic lawmaking?
The Solicitor General
As the Lord Chancellor made very clear yesterday, the UK remains committed to the ECHR, but it is absolutely right that as the challenges facing modern democracies evolve, so must international law and, indeed, domestic interpretation of that law. This Government are taking a serious, considered and responsible approach, and we have a history of engaging constructively with the Court.
Helen Grant
According to press reports, Qari Abdul Rauf, a convicted ringleader of the Rochdale child rape gang, is still living in the town. That is nearly 10 years after a judge ordered his deportation. Repeated appeals under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to family life —have blocked his removal. What action are the Government taking to stop criminals abusing article 8 to defeat Parliament’s clear intention to deport them?
The Solicitor General
If you come to this country, you play by our rules. That is why since we came into office, we have been taking action to ensure that foreign offenders can be deported at the earliest opportunity. In the period since we have been in office, we have deported nearly 30,000 foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers. That is the highest rate of returns for more than half a decade. It is the right thing to do, it will save prison capacity, and it will save taxpayers’ money.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Solicitor General
In its recent report, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs highlighted the Government’s safer streets mission as a key vehicle to address the connection between drug use and criminality. The Government’s flagship Crime and Policing Bill will expand police powers to conduct more drug tests on more suspects upon arrest, which will help to direct more drug users into treatment and away from illegal drug use.
Siân Berry
As drug-related deaths are now at record levels, particularly because of the increase in synthetic opioids, I believe that we need to look again at supervised drug-consumption facilities, which are an evidence-based intervention that could save lives and public spending. Both the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Health and Social Care Committee support the idea. Will the Solicitor General consider facilitating a legal mechanism here, as in Scotland under the Lord Advocate, to enable local health and police authorities that wish to pilot such facilities to establish their efficacy to do so?
The Solicitor General
It is absolutely right that we ensure that those who fall into drug addiction are able to access adequate support, services and routes to rehabilitation. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing said to the Scottish Affairs Committee recently, the Government do not have plans to amend the law to permit the introduction of drug-consumption facilities. We are clear, however, that drug deaths are avoidable, and we are committed to supporting more people into recovery so that they can live healthier and longer lives.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Given that the independent sentencing review suggests that more use could be made of community sentences in such cases, but courts seem reluctant to use them as an alternative to custody, what can the Law Officers do to ensure that sentencers have confidence in community sentences, which have better outcomes than imprisonment in reducing reoffending?
The Solicitor General
As my hon. Friend knows, David Gauke has conducted a sentencing review that covers a wide range of these issues. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to have public confidence in community sentencing—that is important.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
The Government are taking the serious, robust and tough action needed to secure our borders. That is why we are giving the police counter-terror powers to deal with people-smuggling gangs. We have backed that with a funding boost to the CPS to enhance its capacity to prosecute cases involving these appalling cross-border smuggling networks.
Dave Robertson
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages want the Government to get a grip on people-smuggling in the channel after the previous Government’s dereliction of duty. Too many lives are at risk; too many people are making that dangerous crossing. Although it is great news that police are working hard, and have arrested dozens of people smugglers and seized almost half a million pounds of criminal cash, it is clear that we need to go further and faster. What steps is the Solicitor General taking to ensure that people smugglers face the hefty jail terms that they deserve?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is vital that police and prosecutors work together to bring people smugglers to justice, and that our criminal justice system sends a clear message that people smuggling will be met with hefty jail terms. I am pleased to tell him that an offender who played a leading role in an organised crime group that smuggled nearly 4,000 migrants was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment in May.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Solicitor General understand the frustration, annoyance and anger of many people in the United Kingdom about the fact that we are paying the French authorities many millions of pounds to do what appears—at the moment anyway—to be very little to smash the gangs that we keep being told will be smashed?
The Solicitor General
International partnerships are an incredibly important part of our plan to smash the gangs. Our recent work with the French Government in particular is bearing a great deal of fruit. In fact, we hope that the French will soon be able to address the situation that they currently cannot: when would-be migrants are in shallow water.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Solicitor General
This Government are fully committed to meeting our legal obligations. The rule of law is the bedrock of our parliamentary democracy. Not only does it underpin our legal and judicial systems; it provides the basis for the global success of our legal services sector.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Solicitor General for her answer. In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment defining sex in the Equality Act 2010 as strictly biological, and public comments from the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggesting trans individuals may not be entitled to privacy protections under article 8, what steps are the Solicitor General and her office taking to ensure that domestic law remains fully aligned with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly articles 3, 8 and 14? Do the Government intend to clarify or consolidate domestic equality law and the ECHR obligations, to avoid growing legal divergence?
The Solicitor General
As to the steps that the Law Officers are taking, I am afraid that I have to refer to the Law Officers’ convention. With regard to the hon. Member’s wider point and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the For Women Scotland case, the Government have been very clear that we will continue to support single-sex spaces, while also affirming the important rights that trans people have and continue to have under the Equality Act.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I want to ask about our compliance with article 14 with regard to the fast-track justice system. My constituent, a woman with schizophrenia, has been convicted of not paying her TV licence during mental health difficulties sparked by her mum’s mental illness. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss the single justice procedure and the way it is used in cases such as that?
The Solicitor General
I will indeed meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue. I believe that the Ministry of Justice has recently consulted on the single justice procedure, and I am more than happy to discuss it with him.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 23 June includes:
Monday 23 June—General debate on Pride Month.
Tuesday 24 June—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Education; the Department of Health and Social Care; and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Wednesday 25 June—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Ministry of Justice, in so far as it relates to criminal justice; the Ministry of Defence, in so far as it relates to the remit of the national armaments director; and the Department for Transport.
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 26 June—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill, followed by a general debate on Armed Forces Day.
Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 30 June will include:
Monday 30 June—Second Reading of the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect During Appeal) Bill.
Tuesday 1 July—Second Reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
Wednesday 2 July—Consideration of Lords message to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025.
Thursday 3 July—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 4 July—Private Members’ Bills.
Joy Morrissey
I would like to start by congratulating the right hon. Lady. This is the third time I have had the pleasure of responding to her at business questions, and they have proved to be remarkably fruitful encounters. At our first encounter, I asked her to press the Chancellor to U-turn on winter fuel payments. The Leader of the House is clearly very influential, because the U-turn on that shameful attack on pensioners came just a few weeks later.
At our second encounter, I asked the right hon. Lady to get the Government to U-turn on a national inquiry for the victims of the rape gangs, and this week the Prime Minister finally did the right thing and delivered a U-turn on that as well. The Prime Minister may be getting dizzy from all his U-turning, but I congratulate the right hon. Lady on listening to the Opposition, using her influence and securing those U-turns.
Let me turn to one of the most important tasks of any Government: getting people into and keeping them in work. On the Conservative Benches, we know that economic growth comes from the success of businesses and risk-taking entrepreneurs. The Labour party has never understood that, and we are now seeing it have disastrous consequences for our country.
Unemployment reached record lows under the Conservative Government. Labour Governments are always incredibly successful at driving unemployment higher. This Government seem determined to be the best ever at putting more and more people out of work. Last week, we saw the devastating impact of the Chancellor’s reckless national insurance tax raid, which businesses warned her would cost jobs. They were right: the UK unemployment rate is now at its highest level since the pandemic. Job vacancies have collapsed. Last month, there were 109,000 fewer employees on payroll. These are the direct results of a Chancellor and a Government who do not understand business.
It is about to get a whole lot worse. Businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Bill will cost more jobs. The UK’s leading business groups have collectively told the Government that the Bill will damage economic growth and jobs. The Government are giving people rights in jobs that they simply will not have. The truth is that this Government are beholden to their union paymasters and cannot listen to businesses. They are a Government who have taken a time machine back to the employment nightmare of the 1970s, when union barons gave Labour Ministers their marching orders.
While the Government and the unions try to refight the battles of the 1970s, the world of work is changing at a rapid rate because of artificial intelligence. AI brings many benefits, but it is also a clear and present risk to the stability of our labour markets and the livelihood of millions of people in this country. Despite their love of regulation in all other aspects of our life, this Labour Government have yet again delayed their Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, so AI is developing unchecked and changing jobs in ways that will have a long-term impact.
While businesses and workers grapple with the new reality of a 21st-century AI economy, the Government are determined to burden them with taxes and regulations from the last century, so will the Leader of the House use her considerable and proven influence to deliver a U-turn on the Employment Rights Bill before it is too late? If not, will she grant us a debate in Government time on the impact of their union-inspired tax and regulation policies on businesses? Will she bring her party back to the 21st century and grant us a debate in Government time on how we address the role of AI in the future of work?
The story of this Labour Government and their economic policies is now clear. If it moves, they tax it; if it does not move, they still tax it. If they can find a way, they send unemployment higher. If businesses warn them that things will get worse, they do not listen. If the unions want something, they give it to them. This is a Government fighting the battles of the 1970s and behaving like they are still student politicians. It is a Government making the people of this country poorer as each day passes.
Lucy Powell
I know the whole House will be following the unfolding events in the middle east carefully and with a great deal of concern. I assure the House that the Government are working with our partners to urge de-escalation and diplomacy, as well as continuing to engage very closely on the situation in Gaza, for aid to get in and for a sustainable ceasefire.
This week was the ninth anniversary of the murder of my and many other Members’ dear friend Jo Cox. This week we remember everything that Jo stood for—her values, her passion, and her commitment to building bridges and resolving conflict, and to international development. I send my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, to Brendan, Cuillin, Lejla, Jean and Gordon, and of course to Jo’s dear younger sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who I know Jo would have been incredibly proud of, especially in recent weeks.
It is a pleasure to be joined once again by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I have a great deal of respect for and enjoy working with. I am sure that she and I are happy to take whatever plaudits we can for the exchanges that we have at business questions, because I know that the Prime Minister and many others follow them incredibly closely. Her contribution is certainly an improvement on the normal exchanges that I have with the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is not in his place today.
I accept the hon. Lady’s invitation to say a little bit about child exploitation, but I do not accept her characterisation of there being any kind of U-turn. I thank her for her tone, which is really important in these debates, because in the midst of such unforgiveable injustices, it is essential that we come together across the House to lower the temperature, and to put victims and their experiences at the centre. As a Government, we have always said that we would leave no stone unturned to uncover the truth, get justice for victims and lock up the perpetrators, which is why the Prime Minister commissioned Baroness Casey’s review in the first place.
We never ruled out returning to the issue of a national inquiry; we have always been guided by what would be the most effective way of getting the action, truth, justice and accountability in the most effective way possible. Some of those measures, including implementing the recommendations in the Jay inquiry around mandatory reporting and the introduction of new aggravated offences for grooming offenders, were included in the Crime and Policing Bill that we voted on last night. I was surprised to see Conservative Members voting against the Bill, which strengthens those measures, so perhaps they can reflect on that next time they criticise the Government.
The hon. Lady raises job creation and the economy— I happy to debate that subject with her. She did not mention the three unprecedented trade deals that we have secured. The Conservatives were once the party of the trade deal and free trade, but they seem to have set themselves against the trade deals that are already securing jobs and investment. Since we came into government, economic activity has reached a record high; we have created half a million new jobs, moving people into employment; and real wages have grown more in the 10 months since last July than they did in the 10 years of the Conservative Government, so we are happy to stand by our record on job creation and the economy.
The hon. Lady talked about the Employment Rights Bill, which is absolutely not something that this Government will be U-turning on. We are incredibly proud of giving the biggest boost in a generation to workers in this country, and it is about time too. We are giving them rights on sick pay, abolishing exploitative zero-hours contracts for the first time, as called for by many Members for a long time, and introducing fair pay agreements and many other things. in a Bill that we are incredibly proud to be delivering for this country.
Finally, in this week of all weeks, Parliament has found itself at the centre of the national debate—a place where we should always find ourselves. There are big issues at stake, globally and here at home, which Members of Parliament from all parties have been grappling with and taking decisions on to the best of their abilities, whether about the conflict in the middle east, the publication of the Casey audit, or votes on abortion and assisted dying, among many other issues. I put on record my thanks to all those across the House who have approached those issues with the respectful, non-partisan tone that they deserve.
We are all elected to this place to make hard decisions, to represent our constituents with integrity and to work in their best interests. I know that every single Member of this House takes that job incredibly seriously. However, we also have a duty not to slide into personalised, over-politicised, clickbait attacks on each other which, if we are not careful, undermine us all and democracy as a whole, and threaten the safety of individuals. I was disappointed to see that members of the shadow Cabinet were doing just that this week, and I hope they will reflect and withdraw some of the dangerous attacks that they launched, particularly as we remember Jo Cox. We have a responsibility to take the heat out of the political debate—[Interruption.] Personalised political attack lines—exactly. We have a responsibility to approach these difficult challenges with the thought, respect and humility that they deserve, and I think the whole House will want to do its job without fear or favour.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
When I visited my Ukrainian Saturday school in Welwyn Garden City, many of the parents impressed on me the importance of having the option for Ukrainian children to study a GCSE in the Ukrainian language. As it stands, somebody can study Russian, but not Ukrainian, and I have promised to take up the cause. I have written to all the national exam boards, with some mixed responses, but I am determined to stay on the case. Does the Leader of the House agree that that would be a fantastic subject for further debate in this place?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that with me. He will know that GCSE subject decisions are taken by the independent exam boards, but he may be interested to know that the Education Secretary has recently written to the exam boards asking them to consider introducing a GCSE in Ukrainian. I hope my hon. Friend will continue that campaign, and I am sure that it will get wide support from across the House.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The outbreak of bluetongue and the subsequent announcement by the Welsh Government imposing a hard border for livestock between England and Wales leaves the livelihoods of many border farmers at risk. Their land often straddles the border, and farmers rely on moving livestock daily between both countries. According to the Farmers Union of Wales, by introducing mandatory checks the Welsh Government are creating a “wholly impractical” policy. I am reliably informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) that a large majority of ewes are on one side of the border, while the tups are on the other, which will make breeding rather tricky. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to bring forward a statement about any work they are doing to create a more joined-up approach between England and Wales to protect farmers in these border counties? While she is doing so, can we have a statement on whether the Government will create a funded vaccination programme to protect livestock and livelihoods in the whole of the UK?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the serious issue of cross-border breeding and the difficulties that she outlines. I know this is a very worrying time for farmers. I am sure she will be aware that disease control is a devolved matter, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working very closely with the devolved Governments on this particular matter. She is right to say that the restricted zone has been put in place, which is causing challenges for breeding, as she outlines. I understand that Ministers are in constant contact with their counterparts on this issue, and it was raised yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions. I know it is an issue of importance to the House, and I will ensure that the House is constantly updated.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
The UN ocean conference in Leeds last week marked a turning point, with countries coming together to accelerate action to protect and restore our seas, including the UK’s welcome commitment to end destructive bottom trawling in some of our most biodiverse waters. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating that progress and support those international efforts by providing parliamentary time to ratify the high seas treaty?
Lucy Powell
May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all her leadership on this issue, and for bringing representatives of both Houses together last week to watch the very moving documentary with David Attenborough? That has had a profound impact on many Members across this House. She is absolutely right that we have to take action to ratify the treaty, and we are committed to bringing forward legislation before the end of the year—I hope it will be sooner. I am really pleased that the British Government have taken steps to ban bottom trawling in our protected marine waters.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, including the estimates day debates. I hope she will use her good offices to ensure that there are no Government statements on that day and that you, Mr Speaker, will have a very high bar for urgent questions.
Bob Blackman
We have three debates on each day, and I hope that we will be able to get a good debate on each of those subjects. On Thursday 3 July, there will be a debate on a motion on financial redress for 1950s women impacted by the Department for Work and Pensions’ maladministration of the state pension, followed by a debate on mobile phone theft, a subject that is raised frequently in this Chamber. On Thursday 10 July, there will be a debate on children’s health, and we are awaiting acceptance of the other debate.
I understand that the sponsor of the debate on Down syndrome that was due to take place this afternoon in Westminster Hall has withdrawn that application because no Minister was available to answer it, so there will be no debate. I hope that you, Mr Speaker, will use your good offices to make sure that that debate takes place, for the benefit of the sponsor and, indeed, the subject.
Next week in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on Tuesday on the right to maintain contact in care settings. On Thursday, there will be a debate on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit during the second world war, followed by a debate on the BBC World Service. On Thursday 3 July, there will be a debate on the future of music education, followed by a debate on safeguarding children with allergies at school. The following week, on 8 July, there will be a debate on alcohol and cancer—which is a very topical subject during that week—and on Thursday, there will be a debate on state support for victims of terrorism, followed by a debate on London’s contribution to the national economy.
Not only is Saturday the longest day, but it is also International Yoga Day, and we are giving right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to practise yoga this afternoon. Those Members who are not in the Chamber or Westminster Hall can come along to Committee Room 10. I guarantee to provide a place for every single Member who comes along, so that we can practise yoga, which is India’s gift to the world and is helpful when it comes to having a healthy and a long life.
Mr Speaker
Can I book Jim Shannon in? [Laughter.] The hon. Member mentioned the debate this afternoon. It is disappointing that there was no Minister available, which is why it was better to withdraw it on the Member’s behalf.
Lucy Powell
First, may I say namaste to the hon. Gentleman? I am a regular attender at Iyengar yoga in Manchester. Were I not wearing high heels, I might show him my tree pose, but I will save that for another day, or perhaps at the session later on.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing the forthcoming business—it sounds like there will be a number of debates on topics that regularly get raised with me during these sessions. I am really sorry, Mr Speaker, about the unavailability of Ministers for the debate that was due to take place in Westminster Hall today. As I understand it, given that the Backbench Business debate in this Chamber is a health debate, that is occupying one Minister, and another Minister is involved in a Public Bill Committee, which has limited the availability of Ministers. However, we will ensure that that debate is rearranged. I offer my full apology to the House for the Ministers’ unavailability.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
With the lighter nights comes fear for some as antisocial behaviour upticks, causing real misery in some communities. I recently joined the Killingworth neighbourhood police team on a walkabout to hear directly from them how they are working with North Tyneside council to tackle this issue and support local people. Can we have a debate on how this Government will give Northumbria police and other agencies the powers they need to support our communities?
Lucy Powell
Antisocial behaviour is a blight on all of our communities. We are taking big steps to strengthen police powers in that area and introduce respect orders, and the Crime and Policing Bill, which had its Third Reading last night, contains many measures that I hope will support my hon. Friend’s police.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just to help the House, I aim to run this session for around an hour, so I am sure we can help each other by rushing through. Let us have a good example of that from Neil O’Brien.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although they did not mention it before the election, Labour is committed to abolishing every district and borough council in Leicestershire. It has also invited proposals to expand the city’s boundaries, and the Mayor of Leicester has put forward such a proposal. This is universally not wanted in Oadby, Wigston, Great Glen and the surrounding villages—in fact, thousands of people have signed a petition against it—so can we please at least have a debate in Government time on that proposal? Will the Leader of the House encourage the Local Government Minister not to allow this expansion of the city? It is not just the higher council tax; people want to keep their local identity. If the Government are going to go ahead with the proposal, will they at least allow people to vote in a referendum?
Lucy Powell
I know this issue is of great concern to many Members across the House and people have strongly held views on it. The hon. Gentleman is right that we set out a number of proposals in the White Paper. Those issues are being considered, and measures will be brought forward in an English devolution Bill shortly. Members will have ample time to consider them, but the proposals should be coming from local leaders—that is what devolution is about—not imposed by Government.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Just this week, we have seen further media reports of dangerous and unregulated cosmetic procedures ending in tragedy. In July 2021, the beauty and wellbeing all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, presented a report to the Government recommending an evidence-based policy framework to prevent such incidents occurring. Will the Leader of the House encourage colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to do what the previous Government failed to do, and act now to take control of these dangerous practices?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. When she takes up campaigns, she normally gets results. I am sure that she will get results on this issue, too, because we need to regulate these practices. We need to make sure that people are properly trained and accountable and that people can hold them to account when things go wrong. We are responding shortly to the consultation, and I will ensure the House is updated.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Elusive Brewing, a fantastic independent brewery in my constituency of Wokingham, brews Oregon Trail, which won best IPA at the Champion Beer of Britain awards. Can we have a debate in Government time on the steps that Ministers are taking to support the people of Wokingham in enjoying great local products, such as those from Elusive Brewing and Siren Craft Brew, in their local pubs? Perhaps the Leader of the House, and you, Mr Speaker, would like to join me for a pint from one of those excellent breweries.
Lucy Powell
I am always open to an invitation to have a pint, although I am perhaps less open to invitations to do a run. British beer, and our brewing industry, is one of the great prides of this country, and the Government have been taking steps to support our great brewing industry and cask ales and the like. I look forward to perhaps sampling the beer from the hon. Member’s constituency soon. I do not know whether he has already done so, but the bar here in Parliament offers the opportunity for local brewers like his to share their wares with Members.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
First, can I welcome the huge investment that the Government are putting into social and affordable housing? As I have already raised in this House, residents in my constituency, particularly in the towns of Hexham and Haltwhistle, have seen a rise in the number of derelict buildings, such as the former workhouse on Corbridge Road and cottages near Hexham train station. Despite landlords purchasing those properties and substantial demand for affordable homes in the area, those buildings are often left to deteriorate. Can we have a further debate in Government time to discuss solutions for inactive landlords actively defacing beautiful towns such as Hexham and Haltwhistle due to lack of development?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue again. He does it week in, week out, and it is obviously an important issue for his constituency. The Government are looking at how we can strengthen community right to buy in these circumstances, because we want to make sure that town centres and villages, such as those in his constituency, can flourish into the future.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
A constituent of mine, Yvonne, has led a brilliant community blister pack recycling initiative in Tattenhall. Through her efforts, the project has picked up pace and is now expanding to other villages including Tarporley, Farndon and Malpas. Hopefully it will get to Chester in the near future. Blister packs made of plastic and aluminium contain valuable materials but are not routinely recycled. The project highlights what local action can achieve and where national systems fall short. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on improving recycling for hard-to-recycle items?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Lady in thanking Yvonne and all the volunteers for what sounds like a really good campaign. I did not realise that blister packs are so recyclable, and it is so important that people do so. In bringing that to the House today, she has shared that with everybody else, and I am sure the campaign will go from strength to strength.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
In the UK, 2.9 million disabled women are of reproductive age. Tragically, disabled women are 44% more likely to have a stillbirth. As a disabled mother myself, I was devastated by the barriers that I faced at every point during my pregnancy. It was a pleasure to host Paralympians, disabled women and experts by experience at a summit here in Parliament to discuss what good, inclusive maternity care looks like. Can the Leader of the House advise on further opportunities to embed safer maternity care for disabled women in the Government’s women’s health strategy as part of the 10-year plan?
Lucy Powell
I have heard my hon. Friend speak very powerfully about these issues before, and we are always shocked at the stories that people such as her and others describe. The Government will be bringing forward a new maternity services strategy very shortly, and I will ensure that she has the opportunity to question Ministers.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On 28 June 1986, my constituent developed symptoms of ME, and he has lived with those same symptoms for 40 years, and the NHS remains unable to offer any meaningful intervention. Those who have lived with ME for decades—some bed-bound and in darkness—feel that no one in authority notices or cares. In 2022, the then Health Secretary started work on a delivery plan for ME, which finally offered hope. This Government promised the final delivery plan at the end of March and then put it off until the end of June, which is only seven parliamentary days away. Can the Leader of the House reassure the 1.3 million people living with ME and ME-related symptoms that they will not have to wait longer than the end of June for the Government commitment to address this huge intergenerational injustice?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know that those who suffer with ME and their families feel incredibly strongly that not enough has been done over many years, and the Government will shortly be bringing forward our 10-year NHS plan. I will ensure that she and others get an update on that, which will contain information about ME care.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a former miner and a current member of the National Union of Mineworkers.
Yesterday was the 41st anniversary of the Orgreave event. Page 73 of the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pledged an inquiry or investigation into what actually happened at Orgreave 41 years ago. I praise the Home Secretary for the consultation that she has had with the NUM, the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, lawyers and the Bishop of Sheffield, among many others, but can we please have a debate in Government time to try to push on with that pledge? People are getting older, and some are suffering from bad health. Can we please have a debate to discuss this very important issue?
Lucy Powell
I know that my hon. Friend has long campaigned on what happened at Orgreave, and that campaigners such as him and others want to see action, accountability and justice. Every community should have confidence in their police, but what happened at Orgreave still casts a very long shadow over mining areas like his and in Yorkshire. As he says, the Home Secretary is committed to resolving this issue and has met campaigners many times. We are working on a response as a priority, and I will ensure that the House is updated.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Shocking new figures have come to light, showing that white working-class children are falling behind in all but 21 schools across England. In places like Romford, families who have worked for generations are watching their children slip through the cracks. I understand that the Education Secretary has launched an inquiry into why communities like mine are facing this problem, but surely equality should mean that every child counts, not just those who fit fashionable narratives. Will the Leader of the House provide time to debate why this group continues to be neglected and, in some instances, marginalised?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are absolutely committed to reducing educational inequalities wherever they exist, which is why we have a mission to deliver opportunity for all. I do not know whether that means he now supports the education plans that we have set out—for example, reducing VAT on private schools in order to get more state school qualified teachers into the system. I know that the performance of white working-class pupils in our schools has been an issue for many years—in fact, it was an issue when I sat on the Education Committee when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government. I do not remember it ever being a priority for the previous Government, but we will reduce educational inequalities wherever they exist.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Earlier this week, the Department for Transport increased the costs of using the Dartford crossing. That will impact Gravesham residents and businesses, which do not get the resident discount scheme. With the announcement this week of the funding for the lower Thames crossing, will the Leader of the House please schedule a debate on river crossings between Kent and Essex and their impact on Gravesham?
Lucy Powell
I know that this is an issue of great concern to Members with constituencies close to the Dartford crossing. My hon. Friend will be aware that, unfortunately, the last time the charges were increased was in 2014. Since then, demand has grown massively, which is why we had to introduce these small increases in the charges. I know that it is a concern for such Members, and I am sure that, were they to apply for a debate, they would get a popular response.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Electronic travel authorisations were first introduced in Northern Ireland just six months ago. Despite having put down several written parliamentary questions, I cannot seem to establish from the Home Office how many people have not had a valid ETA in the past six months. May we have a debate in Government time to establish the veracity of the numbers of ETAs that have been issued and of those who have not had them in the past six months?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry that the hon. Member has not had adequate responses from parliamentary questions, and I will ensure that they are forthcoming. I do not have the figures to hand, but I see that Northern Ireland questions are coming up soon, as are other opportunities. In the meantime, I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Yesterday I visited the Refugee Council, which is proudly headquartered in my constituency. From supporting those fleeing for their lives to finding employment for them, it is helping people rebuild and become part of the community in Stratford and Bow. The constituency is also home to other excellent organisations that support refugees, such as the Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London, Praxis and the Magpie Project—to name but a few. Both Tower Hamlets and Newham are sanctuary boroughs, and Newham is home to London’s largest Ukrainian population. Would the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Refugee Week and recognising the valuable contribution made by these groups and others across the UK in supporting refugees to integrate into communities and play their part in national life in Britain, which they can now proudly call home?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging Refugee Week. This country will always play our part alongside others to help those fleeing persecution. We have a long-standing history of welcoming refugees, particularly those from Ukraine, as she says, and Hong Kong in recent years. When they are here, they make a valuable contribution to our community.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Daniel was a very happy and full-of-life 13-year-old boy in Fylde until, just over two years ago, he was diagnosed with a serious brain tumour. With multiple surgeries, a 70-week chemo treatment and, very sadly, a stroke while going through that treatment, Daniel has now been in hospital for over two years. He cannot move without assistance and requires assistance to breathe overnight. The local authority and the NHS have been working together with his family to help design how he can move home and live with his parents, but there is no funding available. He is falling through the cracks between different policies for the funding to pay for those changes, which the family simply cannot afford. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that no family falls through the cracks in such a way and that children are not left inevitably in hospital, and on how to get Dan home?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about Daniel’s situation, and my heart goes out to him and his family at this difficult time. I know from my experience of brain tumours in my own family that it is a very difficult disease from which many people do not recover. We need to go much further in the research and treatment of brain tumours, because too many people die too quickly of them. I am really sorry to hear that he is falling through the cracks between different policies, and I will raise that with Ministers. The hon. Member may want to know that we have the national cancer plan coming later this year, and we have relaunched the children and young people cancer taskforce to ensure that services are joined up in the way he describes.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the appalling recent epidemic of antisocial behaviour in Spennymoor, which has seen shops attacked, playgrounds vandalised and public parks damaged? Does she agree with me that the measures we have been voting on this week, to introduce respect orders and put 13,000 police officers back on our streets, are desperately needed, because we must retake control of our streets and our town centres?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the antisocial behaviour in Spennymoor, which sounds really disruptive and unacceptable. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Crime and Policing Bill will do more to tackle this issue than anything that we as a country have done in a very long time, such as: introducing respect orders, getting more neighbourhood police on the streets, and giving the police the powers to seize and crush some of the off-road vehicles that are often involved in such antisocial behaviour.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
There are newspaper reports this morning that the Attorney General has provided the Government with legal advice against engaging in the war between Israel and Iran. I am sure the Leader of the House recalls that the last time a Labour Government were contemplating joining the Americans in a middle east war, the Attorney General’s advice was key. Will the Government publish the advice so that the House can be clear on the legal basis for any future British involvement?
Lucy Powell
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware, but Governments have always had the policy that we do not comment on what advice the Attorney General has provided, or indeed whether he has provided any advice at all. That ensures Ministers can get the advice they need to carry out Government business and make decisions without fear or favour.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Just 40% of MPs have been called to speak in this Chamber on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill ahead of Third Reading tomorrow. Many colleagues on both sides of the House have tabled amendments to the Bill, but have not had the opportunity to speak to them. The Bill is hugely significant and many vulnerable people are looking to us to give them the safeguards they need. Will the Government give more time to the Bill to ensure that the public have full confidence in the process?
Lucy Powell
I know there are very strong feelings about the Bill on both sides of the House. I am sure we can all agree that Parliament has shown itself at its best when discussing these issues in a thoughtful and considered way. As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is not a Government Bill. It is a matter of conscience. As a private Member’s Bill, it is not given Government time because it is not a Government Bill. It will follow the usual process for a private Member’s Bill. It is for the House to decide how long the Bill is debated. The House, through such things as closure motions, can decide to give the Bill longer to debate it, if it so wishes.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster passed this year without the long-awaited Hillsborough Bill. The lawyers working on the Bill have said that if it does not include the statutory duty of candour or legal parity for bereaved families, then it is not a Hillsborough law. Can the Leader of the House call on a Justice Minister to provide an update for the families, the bereaved and the survivors on whether those two aspects will be included in the Bill?
Lucy Powell
First of all, the Government remain absolutely committed to fulfilling our commitment to the Hillsborough families on bringing forward and enacting a Hillsborough law, which, as my hon. Friend says, includes a duty of candour. That is because the Hillsborough families have spent decades fighting for justice and we do not want to see that continue. It is important that the Bill reflects the range of views, concerns and experiences, and meets the expectations of families. That is why we are working at pace with the families on the Bill, and we will introduce it when it is ready.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is important to celebrate awards given to hon. colleagues, so will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating both the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) on winning the award in their respective categories as Britain’s sexiest politicians on that well-known website illicitencounters.com? Does she recommend that they have dinner together?
Lucy Powell
I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has a very full diary; she will be washing her hair and the like, so it might not be possible for her to have dinner with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
The battle of Bamber Bridge in my constituency, 82 years ago, was a powerful moment in history when local people stood in solidarity with black American soldiers against segregation. I am hugely grateful to councillors, like the wonderful Chris Lomax, who have worked so hard to keep the memory of this special moment in history alive. I know that the community will have a great time celebrating the anniversary this weekend with a proper American barbecue. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the Bamber Bridge community a wonderful celebration at the Ye Olde Hob Inn this weekend, and will she consider holding a debate on the long history of our British values of bravery and inclusion?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in wishing the Bamber Bridge community all the best with their barbecue this weekend, and their celebration of the stand that people took against racism all those years ago.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Last week, I was heartbroken to hear of the loss of Norma Burton, one half of the much-loved social media duo Jess and Norma. Norma captured the hearts of millions with her warmth and humour, and her amazing bond with her granddaughter, Jess. Can we have a debate on the vital role that grandparents play in educating the next generation, and will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Norma, who was a remarkable and inspiring woman?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in paying a warm tribute to Norma Burton, and I am sure the whole House will want to do so, too. Her partnership with her granddaughter Jess was great, as I am sure many would agree. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the importance of intergenerational relationships, and of always respecting our elders and doing exactly what they say.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
My constituent Owen Sutton is 26 and living with a rare brain tumour. He has undergone four major surgeries, had proton beam therapy, and suffers frequent seizures, but despite that, he has raised thousands of pounds, as well as awareness, as an incredible young ambassador for the Brain Tumour Charity. Owen and the charity are calling for a review of research funding, so could we have a statement from the Government on plans to better fund this vital, lifesaving research?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Owen Sutton for all his fundraising. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), brain tumours really are the worst kind of diagnosis for anybody, as I know well from the devastating news in my family last year. The debate we had recently was well subscribed, and this Government are committed to ensuring that we have the very best research and treatment available for brain tumours. I am sure that if we had another such debate, it would also be very well subscribed.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a complicated and difficult condition that currently has no agreed medical treatment pathway. Children with FASD are disproportionately represented in the care system. Tragically, since the covid lockdowns, the number of cases is on the rise across the country, but particularly in the south-west. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate on this important issue in Government time?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the early years—from conception to the age of two; what is known as the first 1,001 days—are absolutely vital to child development, and development later in life. A disproportionate number of those experiencing the consequences of exposure to alcohol during pregnancy end up in the care system, and are affected in many other ways as well. That is why the Government are committed to preventive and community healthcare, especially in the early years, and to joining all these things up through our mission-led Government.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The Queensway Gateway roadworks are causing chaos for my constituents. East Sussex county council and Southern Water have not answered my question of why the moving of a major water main was not planned for before these works began. The need to do so is delaying those roadworks indefinitely. As the Leader of the House knows, I raised this matter with her six months ago. With works still dragging on and causing chaos, will she join me in calling on Conservative-run East Sussex county council and Southern Water to get a grip and explain who is responsible for this chaos?
Lucy Powell
I am shocked that six months after my hon. Friend first raised this issue with me, the road to nowhere is still going nowhere fast. She is absolutely right to call out the inaction of the Conservative-run East Sussex county council and Southern Water, both of which I know she challenges day in, day out. I hope she gets some answers.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The BBC reports that overnight, President Trump approved a plan to attack Iran. There is potentially a very small window of opportunity before he decides whether to escalate this war, so I was concerned yesterday when, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Deputy Prime Minister did not give me a direct response when I asked her to confirm whether the Government would explicitly seek Parliament’s consent for any military support for Israel in this war. Can we have assurances from the Leader of the House that there will be a debate and a free vote in those circumstances? Given the Attorney General’s reported concerns about the legality of Britain’s potential involvement in the crisis, it is critical that we get that opportunity, and I would be grateful for a clear yes/no answer on this issue.
Lucy Powell
The most important thing that the British Government are calling for in this situation is de-escalation and diplomacy; that is our first priority. Any other conversations do not meet those ends. As for the principle of the issue, we have been very clear about our position: where there is sustained military action in which our troops could be involved, that would of course be a matter for the House to consider.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
New Hope Care, a private company owned by Patrick Cheza, was operating in my constituency of Stockport. It failed its staff and exploited vulnerable workers, some of whom were migrant workers who feared speaking out about their mistreatment and neglect, worried that it could impact their visa status. Regardless of their immigration status, people should be compensated for their work. My office has more than 20 cases on this issue. I am told that the company has received payment on its contracts, including from Stockport council and customers, yet it is withholding vital wages from its staff. Many of them have not been paid for four or five months and are experiencing significant financial hardship. It is my understanding that the owners are based abroad. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on enforcing compliance from private social care providers, such as New Hope Care, that fail to pay wages?
Lucy Powell
This is a shocking case, and the Government are committed to tackling these issues. In November, we took the first steps to ban rogue employers from sponsoring overseas workers. The immigration White Paper sets out the next steps, including ending overseas recruitment for adult social care. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a ministerial response on this case.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Oswestry livestock market in my constituency serves not only North Shropshire, but Mid Wales, and its operations are under threat because of the hard border introduced as a result of the bluetongue protection zone. I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for a statement on how we can effectively manage this concerning situation. May I also ask the Leader of the House to consider whether 40 minutes for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions is sufficient, given that a fifth of the country live in rural areas, and there is very little time under the current allocation for those of us who represent those areas to question Ministers?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning that matter, which was raised earlier. I am sorry to hear of the impact on the Oswestry livestock market. As I said earlier, Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working closely with devolved Ministers to try to resolve this issue. Obviously, people want to hear an update via a statement from Ministers, so I will look into that. She also mentioned the length of DEFRA questions, a matter that is raised with me and others regularly. We look at how many people apply to ask questions, especially on Thursday mornings, so if colleagues want that question time to be longer, they need to get more people to take part in the lottery to ask questions.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Mountain rescue teams are responding to an increased number of incidents, including fatalities. Emergency responders think that the massive increase in people coming to the mountains without sufficient preparation is due to people seeing beauty spots promoted on Instagram and TikTok. The ability of local agencies to do anything about this is limited, because people are coming from outside the area. I would be very grateful if the Leader of the House could advise me on whether this issue should be brought to the attention of a Science, Innovation and Technology Minister, and if so, could she assist me in raising it with them?
Lucy Powell
This matter has been raised with me before, and it is concerning. We want people to enjoy the countryside and, specifically, the great countryside in her constituency. It is great that people on social media are advertising it, but if they are not also telling people what steps they need to take to keep themselves safe on our mountains, then that is a challenge. I will certainly raise that point with Ministers for my hon. Friend.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Government’s English devolution plans are intended to simplify local accountability. The reforms could be critical to improving democratic accountability for our integrated care boards and unlocking the delivery of much-needed healthcare facilities, such as a GP surgery in Wixams in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House make time for a Minister to update the House on why integrated care boards covering Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Milton Keynes, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are being merged, despite there being no plans at all for a mayor to cover the area and hold that body to account?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member raises a good point. We have been looking at the efficiency and effectiveness of ICBs; that is why some of those steps have been taken. He is right that we are strongly in favour of devolution, and of making sure that organisations such as ICBs are accountable to their communities. I will look into the specifics in his area and get back to him.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
For many people in Wirral West, their church is a hub where they can practise their faith and put their values into action. That was evident to me at a recent meeting with representatives of St Luke’s church in Hoylake, West Kirby Methodist church, Wirral’s Methodist churches, West Kirby United Reformed church and Saints Catherine and Martina Roman Catholic church. Can the Leader of the House set out when we might have a debate to celebrate the work of churches across our communities?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the valuable work that churches do as the centre of our communities, and particularly his in Wirral West. I know that there is sometimes a challenge in applying for debates about church matters and the Church of England. This has been raised with me, we are looking into it.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It was reported yesterday that two thirds of south Gloucestershire schools will be in the red next year, which will have a massive impact on our children’s learning. As I have said to Ministers, under the current school funding formula, south Gloucestershire schools are the second lowest funded in the country. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House on how she will fix this funding unfairness?
Lucy Powell
We are boosting schools funding significantly, whether that is funding for special educational needs, or funding to support teachers in doing their work. I will ensure that the hon. Lady and the rest of the House are kept up to date on how that money is distributed.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I recently met the British Transport police, whose Scottish headquarters are in my constituency, to discuss their text service for confidential reporting of non-emergency incidents on the rail network. Earlier this year, I attended a Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association event, at which the union was launching its “Keep transport workers safe” report, which highlights the abuse and harassment faced by staff across our transport systems. Given the vital role that transport workers play in keeping passengers and infrastructure safe, will the Leader of the House give us a debate in Government time on recognising their contribution, and on how best to protect them?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing us to put on record our thanks for all the work that our transport police do, day in, day out. He is right that it is completely unacceptable for them to face abuse and be unable to do their job properly, and I think that would make a very good topic for a debate.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The town of Camelford in my constituency has been left in limbo for decades over the future of the proposed Camelford bypass. I raised this with the Minister responsible for roads, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in a meeting in March, and a follow-up letter was sent in April, but I am yet to receive a response. Will the Leader of the House please urge Transport Ministers to finally give Camelford’s residents an answer on whether the bypass will ever get built?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member has not had a response to his correspondence and questions. I do not have details about the Camelford bypass in my folder, but I will certainly take that up with Ministers and ensure that he gets a response.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday I had the pleasure of hosting people from York Foodbank, one of many food banks in my constituency. It told me that last year it handed out emergency food parcels to 8,700 people in my constituency. That number has doubled since covid, and numbers continue to rise, yet the food supply does not. The assessment is that as a result of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, about 400,000 adults will be pushed into further poverty, so will the Leader of the House ensure that food banks have the support that they need to support our communities?
Lucy Powell
We are all concerned about the rise in food poverty in recent years. It is a blight on our country and communities, and we want to put it right. This Government are committed to eradicating child poverty. That is why we have the child poverty taskforce, and we are looking at a range of measures. Just a couple of weeks ago, we introduced an extension of free school meals to all those in receipt of universal credit. That will transform the food poverty issues for young people across our country that my hon. Friend describes.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Last month, I met more than 20 business owners in the hospitality trade in Leicester city centre. They tell me that, due to the rise in national insurance and hikes in business costs, they are on their knees. That is compounded by antisocial behaviour, rising crime and a lack of parking. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the future of our city centres?
Lucy Powell
As the MP for a rival city centre in Manchester, I am well aware of concerns of the type raised by the hon. Gentleman. We do support our hospitality sector, and we are taking a number of steps to support growth in our economy and to support employment. We had to take tough decisions in the Budget to ensure that our NHS and other public services have the resources they need to ensure that we have a healthy workforce to work in that sector, and that has meant a national insurance rise for businesses.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I have raised concerns about the rise in the number of houses in multiple occupation in Portsmouth before. This week, the council confirmed that it would take 12 years to house all families currently on the four-bedroom home waiting list without adding a single new family, because we are not building enough homes. Meanwhile, family homes are being converted into HMOs to fill the gap—homes in Balfour road, Chichester road, Cardiff road and three on Laburnum—yet residents cannot get up-to-date information because the public HMO list has not been updated for 15 months due to technical difficulties. Can the Leader of the House advise me how I can get the council to publish that list, and will she make time for a debate on the national rise of HMOs?
Lucy Powell
I know that the issue of HMOs causes a lot of concern for communities and for Members across the House. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: local authorities must establish and maintain a register of licensed HMOs in their area. In the Renters’ Rights Bill we are strengthening rights to ensure that HMOs are held to account by communities and local authorities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Can we increase the tempo to ensure that there are fewer disappointed colleagues?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to raise the urgent situation facing Christians in Nigeria, where militants recently carried out a co-ordinated attack, killing some 200 people and burning accommodation over three hours. That followed a surge of violence in a predominantly Catholic area, with over 100 killed and 5,000 displaced. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Office to update the House on its assessment of this violence, and ensure that the Foreign Secretary acts with Nigerian authorities and international partners to protect vulnerable communities, provide humanitarian aid and hold perpetrators to account?
Lucy Powell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. The UK Government continue to monitor events in Nigeria closely. We are working with Nigeria’s security forces to tackle violence against civilian communities, especially where it is religiously based.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
The town of Barrhead in my constituency is full of extraordinary young people, which is why my Scottish Parliament colleague Paul O’Kane and I have reinstated the Barrhead Young Citizen of the Year award. However, after years of Tory and SNP neglect, Barrhead is also blighted by youth-led antisocial behaviour. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate that issue, so that we can put pressure on the SNP Government in Edinburgh to give the hard-pressed police in Barrhead the resources they need to tackle this problem, and so that those young people are not left behind and Barrhead is not left paying the price?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the antisocial behaviour in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is absolutely right to say that, as a result of decisions this Government have taken, the Scottish Government have one of the most generous budget settlements they have ever had. They now have the power to tackle these issues, and they really have no excuse not to do so.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House knows, I have consistently raised in this place the support that our ceramics industry needs. This week, however, I come bearing good news from Stoke-on-Trent. Our iconic Moorcroft Pottery, adored the world over, has been saved from liquidation following its acquisition by Will Moorcroft, the founder’s grandson. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Will, and does she agree that support for the sector must feature in the upcoming industrial strategy?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a real advocate and champion for ceramics in his constituency and beyond. I am delighted to hear that, after this issue has been raised with me a number of times, Moorcroft Pottery has been saved by Will Moorcroft. I thank him for doing that. My hon. Friend will not have to wait very long at all for the industrial strategy.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Sam is a trans man who has been out for eight years. He recently told me about his long-term avoidance of public bathrooms, and due to his lowly place on the gender recognition certificate waiting list, Sam could not marry his fiancée before her father passed away last year. We committed in the Labour manifesto last year to removing indignities for trans people by modernising the law. When do the Government intend to legislate to that effect?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of that story. Everyone deserves dignity and respect in our society. We committed in our manifesto to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Our immediate priorities for the trans community are a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and strengthening the protections from hate crimes, which we discussed in the House yesterday.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is Care Home Open Week, and in the last few days I have had the pleasure of visiting Muscliff nursing home and Highview care home in Southbourne. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending our carers across Bournemouth East and Britain and the vibrant communities that they help to shape? Will she consider setting aside Government time for a debate on social care?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking our carers for all the work they do. This Government have taken a number of steps to support our carers, with the biggest increase in carer’s allowance in generations and many other measures. I am sure that we will debate social care many times in this House in the coming months.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Earlier this month, Johnstone Burgh football club in my constituency brought home the Scottish junior cup, its first such win since 1968. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Johnstone Burgh football club, its manager Murdo MacKinnon, the players and everyone in our community who supports the club on their historic victory?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Johnstone Burgh football club on its historic win—the first in 57 years.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last Saturday, I was at the first ever national care leavers’ championship cup competition, which was held at Molineux, the home of Wolverhampton Wanderers football club in my constituency of Wolverhampton West. Care-experienced young people from all over the country came to play football. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those young people, as well as EFL in the Community, City of Wolverhampton council, the Wolves Foundation and Spectra, a multidisciplinary social impact company in my constituency, all of which sponsored the event? Does she agree that recognising and celebrating the potential of our young people in that way, many of whom got up at 4 o’clock in the morning to come to the event, can empower them to thrive for themselves and our communities?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved in that important event: EFL in the Community, the local authority, the Wolves Foundation and Spectra. We are proud as a Government to have brought forward the Football Governance Bill, which completed its passage in Committee just this week. It will ensure that football is on a sustainable footing and can therefore undertake more activities like the one he mentions.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The evidence of the detrimental impact of smartphones on children’s mental health and wellbeing is overwhelming. Will the Leader of the House therefore join me in praising the more than 30 Basingstoke primary schools, including St Mark’s Church of England primary school and its headteacher Charles Applegate, for the smartphone-free Basingstoke initiative? They are taking action to ban smartphones from coming into schools and to help parents understand the impact of smartphones on their children. Will she allow a debate in Government time on smartphone-free childhood?
Lucy Powell
As the mother of a number of teenagers, I recognise the importance of schools being smartphone-free. I know that many are taking steps to achieve that and they have the powers to do so. I am therefore pleased to hear that schools in Basingstoke have prohibited the use of smartphones and are educating parents on their dangers.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Can we secure some time to discuss the emerging risks to the bioethanol sector, which faces job losses across the north? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has been lobbying hard for Government support on that issue.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issues facing the bioethanol industry. We are working closely with the industry to find a way forward and I will ensure that the House is updated.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
My constituent Lynne recently wrote to me about a new car purchase. She paid £190 for a full year’s road tax, but then discovered that the tax expiry date was set for the first of the month, not the 29th—the date she bought and taxed the vehicle. When she queried that with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, she was advised that the tax was applied by calendar month, meaning that she effectively paid a full month of tax for just three days. As Lynne said to me, 12 months’ tax should mean 12 valid months. This outdated system is clearly unfair. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the need for a fairer vehicle excise duty system?
Lucy Powell
I know that road tax raises lots of issues with our constituents. I was not aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises, but I will ensure that she gets a ministerial response.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Falmouth is a thriving town in my constituency, but it is struggling with a deployable neighbourhood policing team that is at only 44% of the minimum recommended capacity. Tregony has just had its police office shut—the only one in a large rural area. This Government have invested heavily in our neighbourhood policing guarantee, but I am concerned that that funding is not flowing through our police and crime commissioner to the places that need it. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the progress of the improvement in neighbourhood policing?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the crime and antisocial behaviour in Falmouth and across my hon. Friend’s constituency. She is absolutely right that we are committed to our neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put 13,000 more police officers into our neighbourhood policing areas. I am sorry to hear that the funding is not being directed in the way she would want, and I will ensure that the Minister gets back to her about it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday was National Thank a Teacher Day—an opportunity to thank teachers across the country, including in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking teachers across the country for all the work they do to give young people the best possible start in life?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking all teachers for the amazing work they do. I hope that I will still be saying the same after my daughter’s year 10 parents’ evening later today.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Last week, I marked Loneliness Awareness Week by holding a reception for community groups looking at different ways to tackle loneliness. We heard from multiple groups, ranging from Oaklands health centre to the WizeKap team. Tackling loneliness in the UK is vital in improving the mental health of many and fostering stronger communities. Will the Leader of the House set out what the Government are doing to address loneliness in society?
Lucy Powell
As we mark nine years since the murder of Jo Cox, I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of loneliness, which was an issue dear to her heart. She did much work to raise awareness of the issue. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the link between loneliness and health and wellbeing, and that is why the Government will continue to support those who want to tackle loneliness.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Constituents, particularly those from Cutthorpe, Old Brampton and Ashover, have raised concerns about the behaviour of drivers passing horse riders on our roads. The guidance is to pass at least 2 metres wide and at speeds of no more than 10 mph. What more can we do to spread this message and ensure that our roads are safe for all users?
Lucy Powell
The Government continue to work with the British Horse Society to help deal with those issues. My hon. Friend will be aware that the highway code was updated a few years ago to include the hierarchy of road users, but we will continue to work with the British Horse Society and others to tackle these issues.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I attended the New Park Village end-of-season football awards—a fantastic celebration of local talent with hundreds of girls, boys and young people. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Joe Jackson, who for over 28 years has led community football and truly transformed lives, and everyone who supports the NPV family? Will she make time for a debate on how the recent spending review will support community grassroots sports initiatives like this one?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Joe Jackson and all those involved in NPV football. We are committed to grassroots football and grassroots sport, and I am sure that the House will be updated soon on some of those issues.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The very best thing about this job is the people we meet. Last Saturday, I met Lisa Fleming and her team at the opening of the House of Hope in Edinburgh South West. It is Scotland’s first breast cancer wellbeing and support centre, and it is absolutely amazing. It is a sanctuary for people facing a diagnosis but also for their families, which is important. It is a place of community, healing and, most importantly, hope. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Lisa and the team on delivering on the scale of their ambition and wish them well for the future, and will she thank people right across the UK who are supporting people facing a diagnosis?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Lisa Fleming and all those involved in the House of Hope for supporting those with breast cancer at some of the most difficult times in their lives, providing support, hope and all that they need.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The programme launch for this year’s Bloody Scotland—the country’s leading crime writing festival—took place at the Golden Lion hotel in Stirling. It is the 13th annual festival and this year includes events programmed by Scotland’s king of crime writing, Sir Ian Rankin, and takes place on the weekend of 12 to 14 September. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the success of the UK’s incredibly talented crime writers, many of whom will be in Stirling in September, and will she join me at one of the many excellent events? Tickets are on sale now!
Lucy Powell
It is really no mystery why the UK leads in the crime writing genre. Leaders like Sir Ian Rankin build on the legacy of many others, including Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie. I will certainly join my hon. Friend in celebrating all our crime writers.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Almost 300 residents in West Lothian, which covers a large part of my constituency, and many others around the country will be affected by the shortage of galantamine capsules, which are used to treat Alzheimer’s. As a result of the shortage, local pharmacies are scrambling for provision, and some patients rely on twice-daily short shelf-life medication, which is more difficult to administer. Given the unique vulnerability of those with Alzheimer’s, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the security of our medicine supply chains?
Lucy Powell
We are working hard with industry and health leaders to resolve issues with the supply of those capsules. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a full update.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Young people from the Citadel youth centre in my constituency have been shortlisted for an Into Film award for their animation “Can we talk about Mental Health?”. The group will be here in London next week for the award ceremony, and I will be pleased to welcome them to Parliament. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the group good luck, and will she schedule a ministerial statement on supporting young people from across the UK to get involved in the creative industries?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in wishing the group good luck with the award ceremony and their visit to Parliament next week. We want to see many more young people enjoy the creative industries. That is why our curriculum review is happening at the moment: it is vital that young people get involved.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Across my constituency, grassroots sports clubs do an incredible job of promoting physical and mental wellbeing. Eccles RFC does wonderful work to deliver parity for its girls’ team, ensuring that rugby is an open and inclusive sport, and Boothstown FC has done a fantastic to enable boys and girls to benefit from football. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending Eccles RFC and Boothstown FC for their efforts to promote women’s and girls’ sport, and will she consider a debate in Government time on the centrality of physical activity, both inside and outside school, to young people’s wellbeing?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those at Eccles RFC and Boothstown FC on all the great work that they do. Grassroots sport is often raised at business questions, so I am sure that it would make a popular topic for debate. We are committed to the “This Girl Can” campaign. I am sure that girls’ grassroots sport would also be a popular topic for debate.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to thank a teacher called Chris—[Laughter.] No, not this one! Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Chris Leeding of Newhall primary academy in Harlow on achieving a Pearson teacher of the year silver award for his clear dedication and passion for supporting children in Harlow, both in classroom teaching and in encouraging them to write to their local MP?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Chris from Harlow—not him, but the teacher he mentions. As we have heard, teachers do amazing work for all our young people, and we send our gratitude to them daily.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
On Monday evening, two reckless individuals had their vehicles seized in Aylesbury town centre due to antisocial driving. I am really grateful to Thames Valley police, who acted quickly against them, and I am pleased that the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will give the police stronger powers in this area, removing the requirement to issue a warning before a vehicle can be seized. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Thames Valley police officers for their dedicated work and join me in welcoming this Bill?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I have seen at first hand what a big difference it can make in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour when these powers are used to seize and crush vehicles that are being used for antisocial behaviour in our communities. I thank my hon. Friend for voting for that important Bill last night. We look forward to getting it on the statute book.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
As has already been said, this week the Minister for Future of Roads announced an increase in the Dart charge, which is the toll that all road users pay to use the Dartford crossing. Residents in Dartford are extremely disappointed and frustrated by this rise, and I aim to take the matter up with the Minister. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the use of tolls for infrastructure and how we can keep the costs down for users of infrastructure like the Dartford crossing?
Lucy Powell
As I said previously, I am sorry; I know that the small increase we have had to make to the Dart charge is of concern to people. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the last time the charges were increased was 2014, but he is right that the issue of toll bridges, toll tunnels and tolls for infrastructure is of great importance to this House and comes up many times. I am sure that if he were to apply for a debate, he would secure one.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Two of my constituents were recognised in His Majesty the King’s birthday honours list at the weekend. Anne MacDougall, for services to volunteering in the community, and James McLaren of Golden Friendships, for services to people with disabilities and older people, received British Empire Medals. Does the Leader of the House agree that they both are very well deserved, given their dedication to improving lives in West Dunbartonshire, and showcase their remarkable service? Will she join me in congratulating Anne and Jim?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Anne MacDougall and James McLaren on their honours. I am sure the whole House would agree that our honours system is an opportunity for us to thank and reward all those in our communities who do the work that Anne, Jim and many others across the country do.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In Colchester, we have been celebrating the 20th anniversary of the discovery by local archaeologists of Britain’s only known Roman chariot racing track: the Colchester Roman circus. Dame Mary Beard, no less, recently visited the site with me and declared it to be absolutely amazing. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the anniversary of the discovery of this nationally significant site and commending local residents who want to see more made of it in the light of future developments, and will she find time for a debate on scheduled ancient monuments?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in recognising this important Roman site in her constituency, which chariot racing took place on—how fantastic. I know that she and her constituents are proud of their rich heritage, and I am keen to see what the future holds for them.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I was thrilled to see the Coo Shed in Parliament this week, getting special recognition for its farm-to-fork family-run coffee shop in my constituency, but poor local infrastructure has been a drain on its success. Road closures on the A77, which for years has been neglected by the Scottish Government, have cost it dearly. Will the Leader of the House agree to time in the House to debate the importance of well-funded infrastructure to help businesses, particularly in rural areas, thrive?
Lucy Powell
Road closures can be a blight on local businesses, local communities and footfall on the high street, and they are obviously affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents. I am sorry to hear that the Scottish Government seem to have mismanaged these roadworks, and I hope they are listening today and get on with the job.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Arts and culture are booming in north Wales, and I am delighted to say that next month, we will see both the formal reopening of Theatr Clwyd in Mold and also Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod in my constituency of Clwyd East. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the contribution of both to our economy and our arts sector, and will she make time for a debate in this House about how we can further grow opportunities for the arts and culture sector?
Lucy Powell
Arts and culture play a huge part in all our communities and can play a really important part in economic regeneration, as they are doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I join her in celebrating the reopening of those facilities and look forward to visiting soon.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Although many of us are enjoying the hot, dry weather, it does increase the risk of wildfires. In the past month alone, firefighters have been called to 20 wildfires in the Peak district. All too often, these fires are started by the irresponsible use of disposable barbecues. Locally, we are doing everything we can to prevent this. I have written to all local supermarkets asking them not to sell disposable barbecues. Will the Leader of the House hold a debate in Government time on how we reduce the risk of wildfires in our national parks?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the irresponsible use of disposable barbecues can have devastating consequences like those he describes. Local authorities have existing powers to apply controls to restrict or ban the use of such barbecues in certain areas, but I will ensure that he gets an update on how we can take this further.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Rural Activities Garden Centre in my constituency is a vital resource for adults with learning difficulties, providing jobs, training, support and the ability to make lifelong friends. The service users and their families I met last week were horrified that, despite this, the council is proposing to close the service next Thursday. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending a message of support to the families affected, and make time for a debate in this House about the vital role that these services play for adults with learning difficulties?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his area, and I am incredibly sorry to hear that his Conservative local authority has decided to close this valuable local garden centre, which does so much for his community. We have given local authorities one of the biggest boosts in local funding that they have had for some time, so they really have no excuse.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Across the UK, volunteers give their time, energy and care to support our communities, and we could not do without them. One such champion is my constituent Doug Smith, who founded Volunteers Count, a campaign asking organisations to record volunteer hours so that we can finally put a number and a value on the enormous contribution of volunteers. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting the Volunteers Count campaign, and make time for a debate on the value of volunteering to our country?
Lucy Powell
What a great initiative by Doug Smith to set up Volunteers Count; I am sure we all recognise that it is a really good and important way of collecting this data and information. The subject of volunteering gets raised with me every week, and I am sure that a debate, probably on the Floor of the House, to celebrate our volunteers would be very well attended.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of Unite. Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity for the House to recognise the vital work of our elected trade union representatives across the country? In particular, following his funeral last week in Glenrothes, will she join me in paying tribute to John Gillespie, chair of Unite Scotland—a tireless and hugely respected campaigner for social justice who will be deeply missed, not only in Fife but throughout our labour and trade union movement?
Lucy Powell
I pay tribute to John Gillespie, the former chairman of Unite Scotland. He sounds like someone who did a great deal to fight for people’s rights and for social justice, and a great, trusted leader for his union and the wider workforce.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
In Rossendale and Darwen we have real concerns about rural crime and its impact on our farms and village communities. We have excellent, hard-working rural crime teams, but they cover vast areas with limited resources. One team with a single vehicle between six officers covers three local authority areas. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the rural crime strategy, and the resources required to deliver it?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Our rural and wildlife crime strategy will be published in due course, and I will make sure that he and other colleagues have a chance to discuss it with Ministers.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The Health Secretary has rightly described Norfolk as
“the Sahara of dental deserts”—[Official Report, 23 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 506.]
I very much welcome the 700,000 extra dentistry appointments since Labour took office, as well as the money for supervised toothbrushing, but East Anglia is the only region of England without a dental school, and consequently it struggles to recruit and retain dentists. Would the Leader of the House support a general debate on dental care so that we can discuss funding for dentistry schools, and what more can be done to improve access to dentistry across the UK?
Lucy Powell
We still have far too many dental deserts in this country, and I am sorry to hear of the situation in East Anglia. My hon. Friend is right that the Government are committed to creating more dental appointments, but it is also vital that we have dentistry schools to make sure that we can train and retain the dentists of the future.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Thanks to Government investment in Royal Shrewsbury hospital, we are doubling the size of our A&E and adding 120 extra beds to our wards. While the construction site is taking up space in the car park, my local trust has arranged a free park-and-ride bus for NHS staff. Does the Leader of the House agree that my trust’s best practice example could lead the way for other hospitals to encourage modal shifts by providing free bus passes to NHS staff, leaving parking spaces for patients?
Lucy Powell
I am pleased to hear that Royal Shrewsbury hospital A&E is doubling in size and about the initiative that my hon. Friend describes to provide a park-and-ride scheme. The issue of hospital parking, particularly for staff, is vexed, and I am sure that we will continue to debate it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Slinger to ask the final question.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Some 96% of UK prisoners are men, most wars are started by men and most war criminals are men. As we work for a better future here and abroad, where conflicts and unilateral actions are sadly gaining the upper hand, does the Leader of the House agree that we must do more to bring the perspectives of women to the fore, as we did earlier this week? Does she further agree that while the majority of men are not the problem, some key problems are largely caused by men, so it is vital that we better educate boys and young people, and detoxify masculinity, so that over time we might reduce violence at home and abroad? Can time be found for a debate on this topic?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that important final question. I am strongly in favour of women being far more involved in decision making; when they are, those decisions are often better ones.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025
Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
When this Government came to power, we were elected on a promise to deliver a decade of national renewal, and from day one, we have worked to fulfil that promise. Less than a year into the job, we have already started to see the results: the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of the year, interest rates cut four times and real wages rising more in the first 10 months of our Government than they did in the first 10 years under the Conservatives.
However, we are under no illusions about the challenges ahead. We will be going further and faster to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and mismanagement from the Conservative party, and to deliver the decade of national renewal that we promised. That is the backdrop against which I present this strategy to the House today. I put on record my thanks to everyone whose input has helped to shape the document, including those involved in the review I led when in opposition, which resulted in this strategy and the creation of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, about which I will say more shortly.
Infrastructure is key to unlocking growth across the country. Our roads, railways, airports and digital infrastructure connect people to businesses, public services and one another; our energy, water and housing infrastructures create and support communities; and our schools, hospitals, prisons and social infrastructure provide high-quality public services and help to keep us safe. But good infrastructure means improved productivity and efficiency in our economy too: increased resilience to shocks, stronger public services, more jobs and ultimately higher wages for working people.
From the development of the railways to the 2012 Olympic games, we have a proud history in Britain of innovating, developing and building high-quality infrastructure, but the reality is that we have now fallen behind many of our international competitors. Too many investors now question our intentions and our capabilities. When we say we will build something, they will often ask if we will and whether we can. That is because for too long the Conservatives cut capital investment, promised major projects one minute then abandoned them the next, and left the public estate to crumble for 14 long years, from the roads we drive on to the schools we send our children to. They wasted money, time and effort, saw a decline in productivity and wages, and there was stagnant growth and an increasing belief that politics cannot change things for the better. However, with this new Labour Government, we will prove once again that change is possible.
The spending review last week set out how our Government are investing in the renewal of Britain, allocating an additional £120 billion of capital investment over the course of this Parliament, with new road and rail projects to connect our towns and city regions. That includes £3.5 billion more for the trans-Pennine route upgrade to reduce journey times between Manchester and Leeds, benefiting communities along the train line. We are also investing in the next phase of the midlands rail hub to strengthen connections between Birmingham and the wider midlands to the south-west and Wales. In Wales, we are investing £445 million in new rail projects in north and south Wales over 10 years to connect cities, towns and manufacturing hubs, with two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales. We will set out further details on our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks.
This is not just about transport. We are delivering the biggest roll-out of nuclear power for half a century, with a £30 billion commitment to our nuclear-powered future. We are providing £39 billion for the affordable homes programme over the next decade, which is the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years. We are backing British industry in its pioneering work in carbon capture, usage and storage, including with support for the Acorn project, with benefits felt right across Scotland.
The task before us now is to ensure that this investment is spent effectively and efficiently—a real change in approach from the Conservatives’ time in government—and to plan for not only the next five years, but the long term. That is the driving force behind the 10-year infrastructure strategy. Crucially, it is our hope that this long-term approach will give investors and businesses the confidence to invest in skills and their workforce, hire more apprentices, create more jobs and improve wage rates in every part of the country.
The strategy is by its nature thorough and detailed, but I will draw the attention of the House to five key elements today. First, we will provide certainty and stability through increased capital investment. We are committing to funding at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade, ensuring that infrastructure spending continues to grow in line with inflation after the current spending review period. At the spending review, we committed detailed capital spending plans for each Department until 2029-30. To provide further certainty and confidence in our plans, we are also confirming funding for the school rebuilding programme to 2035 and for the prison expansion programme to 2031. This long-term certainty needs to be translated into real jobs in every part of the country, so ahead of the summer recess we will publish a new online infrastructure pipeline. It will provide up-to-date information about what we will build and when, and where we will build it, giving industry and investors the confidence they need to invest in highly skilled jobs in every part of the country.
Secondly, for the first time we are bringing economic infrastructure such as transport, energy and waste together with housing and social infrastructure, including schools, hospitals and prisons, into one overarching Government strategy. In doing so, we will expect stakeholders to think more strategically about the communities they are creating, not just the specific piece of infrastructure they are building. For example, as part of our review of the Green Book, we have decided to pilot place-based business cases, which will ensure that there is proper co-ordination between Departments when bidding for funding from the Treasury. I know that will be a huge relief for communities across the country, which have relied too often on poor planning on infrastructure and community benefit. That is the difference it makes to have Labour MPs who show up and listen and a Labour Government who get it.
Thirdly, we are taking steps to address the soaring maintenance backlog in our public estate, which is estimated at more than £49 billion. I am today announcing a new maintenance fund to provide at least £9 billion per year over the next decade to improve our public services and save money for the taxpayer. That includes at least £6 billion per year to maintain and repair our hospitals, so that our loved ones can get the best possible treatment when they need it; £600 million per year for our courts and prisons, so that justice can be served; and almost £3 billion for our schools and colleges per year by 2035, so that every young person gets the best start in life.
Fourthly, we will leverage the private capital needed to deliver this strategy. That means matching capital to individual projects and using Government debt and equity to invest alongside the private sector. We will also work with industry to explore the targeted use of new public-private partnerships where they can be shown to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. Any new model will learn lessons from the past to secure value for money into the future.
Lastly, we have established the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. Based in the Treasury, NISTA brings oversight of infrastructure strategy and delivery together, and integrates assurance, design and delivery assessments into Treasury spending decisions. It will ensure that the strategy is implemented effectively across the whole country, including through formal reviews of progress every two years, aligned with the spending review cycle. It will also work across Government to provide expertise and support to delivery partners.
By design, this 10-year infrastructure strategy is a technical policy document, and we will continue to work with businesses, investors, workers and trade unions, and local leaders to drive up ambition and improve delivery. However, the strategy is much more than that. Alongside our modern industrial strategy, it will provide certainty and confidence in Britain as an investment destination, and will establish the framework needed to deliver the step change in infrastructure investment announced by the Chancellor in last week’s spending review. Done properly, it will result in tangible improvements to the fabric of our country: our local roads and high streets renewed so that communities are even better places to live; our public transport more available and more reliable, making it easier for people to get around and access opportunities; our schools, hospitals and GP surgeries fit for the future, to deliver for generations to come; and a country that will be stronger and more resilient. Communities will see the difference as this Labour Government deliver on the promise of change and a decade of national renewal. On that basis, I commend this statement to the House.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement, and for providing early sight of it.
Our ability to invest in public infrastructure is a positive for individuals, communities and the country as a whole, and it is right that the new Government set out their strategy. The last Government had to deal with a series of economic disruptions, including the impact of covid, the unwinding of quantitative easing across all advanced economies, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The global impact was disrupted supply chains, increased inflation and raised interest rates. Notwithstanding those shocks, under the last Government, public sector expenditure on capital increased in real terms, from £81.7 billion in 2019-20 to £117.8 billion in 2024-25—an increase of 44%. Today, the Chief Secretary has confirmed expenditure of £725 billion, but has provided very little detail. There is no project pipeline today; will he commit to coming back to this House when it is published?
In 2024, the last infrastructure pipeline analysis included an investment pipeline of 660 projects over a 10-year period, commencing from 2024-25. The Chief Secretary’s last statement to the House was, in very large part, a restatement of the investments in local transportation projects that had already been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Will he confirm how many of the 660 projects in the previous pipeline will be retained? Will he advise the House which major projects are being abandoned, and give some insight into his reasoning for doing so?
Translating a pipeline into reality requires a labour force of sufficient size and with a range of skills—in construction, project management and engineering, for example. Again, the 2024 analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board indicated that that project pipeline would create labour pressures in many of those skills areas. Since coming to office, this Labour Government have increased national insurance and are proposing new regulations on employment, both of which will disproportionately affect the construction sector. Does the Chief Secretary have any concerns about the impact of those changes on the availability of labour? Will he advise the House what assessment he has made of skills pinch points and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate them? Fulfilling these plans will require investment by taxpayers and private capital. Will the Chief Secretary advise the House on whether there has been any significant change in the mix of private and public investments—within discrete sectors or overall—compared with the last pipeline analysis in 2024?
The Government created the National Wealth Fund, and said that it was their principal investor—a critical part of the Government’s growth strategy for infrastructure. The Chief Secretary has given the National Wealth Fund £7 billion, but has made no mention of it today. Why has there been no mention of the National Wealth Fund?
We are moving through an era with a rapidly accelerating pace of change, in which the period from technological innovation to obsolescence can be vanishingly short. The risk that public investment in new technology solutions will become redundant is increasing. While being forward-looking, the Government should also be careful to nurture both existing technologies and new but proven ones, so what are the Government’s priorities for technology choices in the energy sector, and what actions will he take to protect taxpayers from technology redundancy risk?
The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced by this Government, includes a reserved power for the Government to mandate the investments of pension schemes. Has the Chief Secretary had any discussions about—or had the Treasury do any analysis of—the use of mandation powers to provide financing to the capital investments he has announced today? Have the projects announced today been assessed according to the revised Green Book rules? If not, will they be reassessed at some point on the revised basis, and what assurance can the Chief Secretary provide that these projects will give value for money to taxpayers? As this Government have stated, and as we acknowledge, when pressures on public expenditure increase, it is frequently capital expenditure that suffers. What actions is the Chief Secretary willing to take if finances are tight to protect the budgets for the projects he has announced today?
Investment in infrastructure benefits from a stable economic background, a clear set of priorities, efficient delivery, and optimal returns for taxpayers and investors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss the Chief Secretary in his old guise as Chairman of the Business Select Committee, when there was less of the rhetoric and the partisanship. These big decisions need open communication and critical analysis if we are to improve value for money and get projects delivered on time and on budget. In those endeavours, the Chief Secretary will always have our support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As Mr Fuller knows, there were three of us on that Committee back in those good old days.
Darren Jones
I remember them very fondly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your support, and for that of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his statements today. He has asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn.
The first question was about detailed spending allocations between Departments. Today, we are making a commitment to a minimum level of investment in infrastructure— £725 billion over 10 years, which is rising in line with inflation. The detailed spending plans per Department get allocated at the spending review. We have returned to longer-term, multi-year spending reviews, which are obviously different from the annual allocations done under the previous Government; capital is now allocated at a departmental level until 2029-30. We will do the subsequent five-year detailed allocations in 2027 at the next spending review.
The pipeline will be published in a couple of weeks, in mid-July. The reason for a small delay between the strategy and the pipeline is that we wanted to integrate the data from last week’s spending review, and it takes a little time to do so. We have worked in partnership with industry, skills providers and others to develop the pipeline, which—as I say—will show on a map of the country which projects we are procuring, when, and where. That will give investors and businesses long-term confidence about the jobs that are going to be available, so that they can invest in their own workforce. The shadow Chief Secretary is right to highlight that skills is a constraining factor in the UK economy. We have the strategy and the money from the Chancellor; we now need to work through the industrial strategy with the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Transport and with private sector partners, to do all we can to create the great jobs in every part of the country that will enable us to build the infrastructure we have set out today.
The shadow Chief Secretary asked me about the role of private capital. The strategy set out today contains a whole chapter about the role of private capital and the different mechanisms that we use with private investors. There is a commitment to use private capital for economic infrastructure where there is a revenue stream, and some of the approved methodology for looking at those options. Further work will be done between now and the autumn Budget on some very targeted potential applications of private capital for social infrastructure but, crucially, only where that provides value for money compared with it being funded by the state.
The shadow Chief Secretary also asked me about the Green Book. The Green Book review was published last week as part of the spending review, and it will be applied on a business case basis as projects come through to the Treasury for spending approval. There is nothing in the strategy set out today that pre-approves a business case, so the new Green Book will be applied to business cases as they come through in the normal way.
At a couple of points, the shadow Chief Secretary asked me to explain the difference between this Government and the last Conservative Government. To put it simply, it is failed promises from the Conservatives, and promises delivered by the Labour Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement and in particular the focus on housing and transport, because Glasgow has a real housing crisis. In my constituency, the busy Bridgeton train station does not even have lifts for disabled people. All taxpayers are concerned about value for money, particularly given the huge overspend and utter chaos of HS2 under the last Government. In Scotland, there is the absolute scandal of the Arran ferry. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and set out the steps that the Government are taking to ensure value for money in this infrastructure spending? Will he commit to sharing the learnings with the Scottish Government, who desperately need help on that?
Darren Jones
The key thing I will point my hon. Friend to is the role of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority sitting in the Treasury. The assessment on delivery, assurance, design and commercial capabilities for projects will be part of the advice now coming to me as Chief Secretary and to the Chancellor, and it will be aligned with spending decisions on budgets. That means that if a project is not delivering effectively or is not yet ready to start, we will not release the money for that project, and we will stop funding projects that are failing. That is a key difference from how decisions were processed previously, and we think it will lead to much better discipline in delivering big projects.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Last week, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement of investment in public infrastructure and transport projects, which we have long called for. We are glad that today the Government are setting out a 10-year infrastructure plan to realise those projects, and the Liberal Democrats will be closely scrutinising it to ensure that it delivers for communities across the UK.
Boosting our infrastructure is vital, given the appalling mismanagement under the last Conservative Government that left our school and hospital buildings crumbling while neglecting critical infrastructure, from transport to renewable energy generation. Today’s plan must draw a line under the disastrous mismanagement of projects such as HS2, which promised to connect our country and communities only to end up another hollow Conservative promise, long delayed and billions over budget. While we welcome the Government’s intention to deliver productive investment, we will closely scrutinise its implementation.
I have been concerned that Ministers have been unable to answer questions regarding delegated funding from the structures fund, such as for Hammersmith bridge in my constituency. Will the Minister confirm that specific projects have been selected, and will he ensure that infrastructure funding is distributed fairly for the benefit of all regions? Will he set up a crumbling hospitals taskforce to identify creative funding ideas, speed up construction timelines and put an end to the vicious cycle and false economies of delayed rebuilds, which lead to rising repair costs?
As we look carefully at the implementation of these plans, the Government must ensure that we have a workforce equipped with the necessary skills to meet these commitments. Does the Minister therefore agree that it is time to replace the broken apprenticeship levy with a broader, more flexible skills and training levy? Will the Government fulfil their promise to make Skills England an independent body with employers at its heart?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is right to point to the fiasco of HS2, which my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary updated the House on yesterday. The complete and utter negligence in delivering on that project over many years has left us with the legacy of having to pay more for longer, which has implications for all the other things we would like to do in the country. We commissioned the James Stewart review, which was published yesterday. All its recommendations have been adopted, and lessons are already flowing through this infrastructure strategy, so that we never end up in that situation again.
The hon. Lady asked me about the structures fund, which was a particular fund that we prioritised because we know that in many constituencies, bridges in particular often miss out on funding and are in desperate need of it. She will have to speak with the Department for Transport about the allocations of that funding, but I will make sure that she gets an answer from my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Darren Jones
Lastly, the hon. Lady asked about hospital maintenance. There is a big commitment in the infrastructure strategy on maintenance. Maintenance is not sexy, and it is not good for election leaflets, but it is important. That is why we are committing so many billions today to it, because there is an enormous backlog. NISTA will be co-ordinating across Government and across all social infrastructure to make sure that we are prioritising that going forward so that people can see quick, real, tangible improvements to their public infra- structure in their local communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister missed the Mexican wave that took place behind him. It was down to Chris Vince mostly, although probably it was also down to the length of the answers, which could be shorter.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his excellent work on this strategy, which will turbocharge confidence in the investment community while improving the lives, incomes and opportunities of my constituents in Darlington, which is exactly what I was elected to do. It will not surprise him to hear me ask politely for him to outline more detail on his ambition for the place-based approach, the Green Book reforms and the pilots that he has mentioned. Can we have one in Darlington, the home of many of his Treasury colleagues?
Darren Jones
I will give a shorter answer, given the time available. We will be setting out further detail shortly about where we will be piloting these place-based business cases. It is a new process for Whitehall. It requires a level of co-ordination that does not currently exist, but the outcome if we get it right will be people experiencing co-ordinated, thoughtful infrastructure spending in the places they live, in a way that makes sense for how they live in those areas. I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to bid for Darlington as we decide where to pilot those place-based business cases in due course.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the midlands rail hub. He will know that the previous Government committed to the £1.75 billion project. There has been a pause, and paragraph 5.83 of the spending review states that the Government will fund its progression. In the spirit of short answers, can he tell me exactly how much money has been committed to it?
Darren Jones
The difference from the last Government is that they promised things with no money, and we are promising things with actual money. The hon. Member points to the midlands hub in the spending review document. That is about development funding. One of our different approaches under this infrastructure strategy is that, instead of just allocating the total estimated spend at the start of the project and letting the project get on without proper oversight, we are issuing development funding earlier and more often, so that we can have properly costed business cases with proper assurance. That means we can guarantee members of the public that we will deliver on our promises, unlike his party.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this investment strategy. Many of us have seen at first hand the broken infrastructure we are dealing with. The Chief Secretary will know my concern that many of the organisations we will be asking to tackle these problems are also dealing with the legacy of the private finance initiative, which saw buildings and projects cost three times more than the actual assets themselves. The pleas that many of us made to the previous Government to tackle these legal loan sharks of the public sector fell on deaf ears, and I know that this Chief Secretary will not make the same mistake. Would he be open to meeting those of us who are keen to learn the lessons of the private finance initiative? In particular, can we cap what private companies can make on military contracts, children’s care homes and other social infrastructure projects, so that we do not see our public sector savaged by these companies in future?
Darren Jones
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I can confirm that in the design and funding of NISTA, I have funded a particular team to work on the management of disputes under the old PFI contract schemes to make sure that we are getting the best outcomes and best deal for the public sector.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I cannot believe it, but I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). It is a shock to the system, but the Chief Secretary has announced the return of the public-private partnership. The last Labour Government were a byword for disastrous contractual negotiations, and that led to the infamous £1,000 lightbulb. Given that Labour was so bad at these contract negotiations last time around, what confidence does the Chief Secretary have that he will be any better this time around?
Darren Jones
I am usually confident in my abilities, to be frank. We will be consulting on some of the design details. We will be using private capital for social infrastructure only in particular potential use cases. We mention in the strategy today certain types of primary neighbourhood healthcare centres. We will be transparently consulting on that detail, and we will only allow such capital to be used in a way that is value for money. We will not be returning to the PFI contracts of the past.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement. As someone whose parents and grandparents grew up in and lived in council housing and benefited from that opportunity, I particularly welcome the record investment in social and affordable housing. Under the previous Government, the UK was 28th out of 31 OECD countries for business investment, and it was regularly at the bottom of the G7 for the combination of public and private investment. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that this strategy today will begin to turn that terrible legacy around?
Darren Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend on our extremely ambitious plans for council houses—or social and affordable houses, as we call them now. He will know that I, too, grew up in a council flat. I now represent the constituency of Bristol North West, and over 20,000 people in the city of Bristol are waiting for secure housing. I am very confident that our £39 billion commitment on building affordable and social housing will make a huge difference to the lives of people across the whole country.
My hon. Friend asks about unlocking private capital. The good news is that plenty of investors want to invest private capital in the UK, but they have told us through the British infrastructure taskforce and other vehicles that they did not invest for many years because they thought that we had lost the plot in this country, whereas we now have a clear strategy. We have stability both politically and economically, and we will now work with those investors to provide opportunities across the country to bring money to communities that have missed out for too long.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I welcome the Chief Secretary’s comments on maintenance. He may be aware that a huge maintenance project is about to begin on the most beautiful stretch of motorway in the country, the M6 at Lune Gorge. Eight bridges under and over that motorway will need replacing in the coming years. Will he have a look at the resource that is being made available to mitigate the impact on the local community? The plan is to close the northbound exit and the southbound exit consecutively for three years, and to close the A685 bridge connecting Kendal to Tebay. Will he make sure that there is resource to ensure that there are temporary slip roads, so that local communities are not cut off?
Darren Jones
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman makes a very good case, which Ministers in the Department for Transport will need to answer, but I am pleased to know that the Liberal Democrats think maintenance is sexy after all.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Through my work on the Public Accounts Committee, I have seen just how severe the public estate maintenance backlog has become. In fact, the Conservatives had their heads so deep in the sand on building maintenance that I am surprised they did not apply for planning permission. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that York’s public buildings will benefit from the £9 billion maintenance fund that he has announced?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the challenges that I learned on coming into government is that the last Government did not even ask what the maintenance backlog was in certain Departments. There was not a clear set of data that told us which assets the Government own and the quality or state of them, so we have some pretty basic work to be getting on with through NISTA as we allocate the money, which will go directly to the schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings that have been ignored for many, many years.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The creation of another new authority will be met with an eye-rolling sigh in Scotland, because although it is called the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—a very shiny title—the reality is that it will have little oversight in Scotland. The plan announced today will generate Barnett formula money, which will go to Holyrood and disappear—it will go into ferries that do not float and things like that. In my constituency the A75 road is a piece of critical national infrastructure. It services the ferry ports to Northern Ireland, and it is vital for all the countries that make up the United Kingdom. Will we see any money coming for that road through today’s innovation, or will the money once again disappear into the coffers in Holyrood?
Darren Jones
I politely point the hon. Member to the fact that previously there were two functions in Government, and I have closed both of them and created one, so we are actually down by one. He asks about the devolved Governments, which have devolved responsibilities. We will not interfere with the devolution settlement, but I think that he and I agree that Scotland needs a new direction, and I hope the people of Scotland will vote for Anas Sarwar and Labour at the election next May.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I welcome the UK Government’s bold 10-year infrastructure plan, and the swift action they have already taken to green-light projects such as the third runway at Heathrow. However, sadly for my constituents, infrastructure policy and delivery in Scotland is in the hands of the failing SNP Government—a Government who cannot dual a road or build a ferry. We are in the grips of a housing emergency in West Lothian, and they are not building the homes that we need. Does the Minister agree that there is much that the SNP Scottish Government can learn from the UK Government about getting the country building again?
Darren Jones
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Next week I will be meeting finance Ministers from the devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We will put forward today’s update on our infrastructure strategy and seek to partner with them as best we can to deliver for people and places across the whole of Scotland. But given the track record of the SNP Government, I am afraid that I do not have a huge amount of confidence.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The denial in this statement is truly breathtaking. This UK Government could not come up with a 10-year strategy that would survive first contact with reality on anything, and the statement comes against a backdrop of challenging cuts off the backs of the poorest while we are fitting £10 million new doors to the House of Lords and providing £100 billion for a not-very-fast railway that will not be finished for some time.
There was nothing for Scotland in the Chancellor’s spending review, there is nothing for Scotland in this statement, and there is nothing for Scotland in the UK’s 10-year infrastructure working paper. On that latter document, it is interesting to note that it does not mention devolution, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland once. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think that simply mentioning Acorn will make private capital hang around and wait for the Government to put a number on it? How much of this will be a rerun of Labour’s disastrous private finance initiative projects, which Scottish councils are still haemorrhaging money on, and why is he heralding working with the Welsh Government but not the SNP Scottish Government? Is he a democrat or not?
Darren Jones
That was a stream of slightly incoherent questions, if I may say so. I point the hon. Gentleman to the document that we have published today, which does mention Scotland quite a few times. He says that this Labour Government have not delivered anything for Scotland. I will just point him to the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution began—his SNP colleagues might want to think about how they could spend that more wisely for the people of Scotland. That is in addition to the supercomputer in Edinburgh; the development funding for Acorn, and for carbon capture, usage and storage; and our defence spending, including on the Clyde—I could go on and on. The only people in denial are those in the SNP.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this statement. After years of neglect, it is quite clear that our infrastructure has been creaking and that opportunities have been missed. That is particularly the case in the east of England, where the Government inherited a per head of population spend that is £1,000 less than the UK average. May I ask the Chief Secretary please to look at the Ely junction project, where for every £1 invested there would be a £5 return? The project would help not only my constituency but dozens in the east of England, and help drive economic growth in our part of the world.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Ely junction. The great thing about the multi-year spending review in the 10-year strategy is that the Department for Transport and its partners are now able to plan ahead, so I encourage him to talk to Transport Ministers about that particular project. He is right to say that we are absolutely in the business for high value-for-money cases that unlock growth and opportunity in every part of the country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
A long-term approach to spending is really sensible and I, as a northern MP, particularly welcome the Treasury reviewing the Green Book to make sure that regional inequalities are not further entrenched by future spending. Stepping Hill hospital in my patch has a reported repairs backlog of £138 million, so I was really interested to hear the Chief Secretary talk about the pilot of place-based business cases. Can he say a bit more about how the Treasury will review those pilots, and does it mean that Stepping Hill is more likely to get the funding it needs so that my constituents get the hospital they deserve?
Darren Jones
I hope that Stepping Hill will be able to bid into the new, longer-term maintenance fund so that we can get work done more quickly than it has been done in the past. On the place-based business case pilots under the Green Book review, we have not yet made any decisions about where we will pilot them or how, so we now have to do that work. As I said in my statement to the House, the intention behind them is to look across different types of spending to make sure that we are creating functioning places that have the relevant public service infrastructure, transport infrastructure and house building in one place. We will be able to come to the House with more detail on that in due course.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I know that my constituents in North East Derbyshire will warmly welcome the infrastructure strategy, because we have been on the sharp end of Government Departments failing to co-ordinate when building infrastructure. Can I make a bid for a place-based business case pilot in North East Derbyshire? Our unique mix of urban, rural and semi-rural communities, as well as the fact that we are in the east midlands and close to South Yorkshire and Sheffield, makes us an ideal area for a pilot.
Darren Jones
It seems that I have a list of bids for place-based business case pilots, which we will take away and consider. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight why this issue is important. When the Government are spending a lot of money on a particular thing, including through industrial policy or defence spending, we need to ensure that that translates into good jobs and good pay, with housing and good public infrastructure, so that people can access those opportunities and help drive the economy forward.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
As one of my constituency neighbours, the Chief Secretary will be aware of our local infrastructure needs, such as upgrading junctions 16 and 17 on the M5, fixing the original Severn bridge and upgrading Westerleigh rail junction. The West of England has often been overlooked in the past, so how will he ensure that the funding is distributed fairly and for the benefit of all regions?
Darren Jones
Noting that I need to manage carefully my conflicts of interest as a Minister and a constituency MP, I would just point the hon. Lady to the announcement made the other week—I thought it was very good—about nearly £800 million of devolved funding going to the Mayor of the West of England, Helen Godwin, allowing her to get on with lots of the transport upgrades that in the past we waited many years to get funded.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I am encouraged by the Minister’s statement, which is a plan to rebuild Britain from the mess left by the Conservatives. Can he inform the House how constituencies such as mine can take advantage of the new place-based business case as part of the Government’s Green Book strategy?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a champion for securing investment in her constituency. The approach with the Green Book has been changed to make sure that we are investing in the places that have been left behind for too long. It will be for local leaders to work together to bid for the type of funding that will enable them to deliver on the Government’s missions, whether that is house building, economic growth or helping public services get back on their feet. We will certainly be open to bids from her constituency and region in due course.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I welcome this announcement, and while there are aspects that I do not support, I particularly welcome the Government’s investment in vital flood defences. As the Minister knows, these are critical in ensuring that we are better protected against the impacts of climate breakdown. With the Met Office warning this week that we could reach 45° temperatures in the current climate, clearly the effects of climate breakdown are already here. Does he agree that protection needs to be fully integrated into every aspect of our economy—from housing to transport and farming—and does he also agree that it is a good idea to put climate resilience and preparedness on a statutory footing by requiring all major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments in order to make us all safer?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising those important points. Adaptation and sustainable development are at the heart of this infrastructure strategy, and they have to be for all the obvious reasons. He may like to know that, as part of our new approach to spatial strategies in Government, we are already integrating data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flood risk, heat risk and water availability with data from other Departments—for example, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—to ensure that we are planning properly for the future.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Green Book review of the co-ordination of joined-up infrastructure thinking—thank you so much. Promises have previously been made to local places affected by major infrastructure projects that they would see some local benefits. With that in mind, and with the lower Thames crossing coming to Gravesham, will he meet me to see how Gravesham could be a pilot for this place-based study and to really help with the affordable homes that are also desperately needed?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am always delighted to meet her, and we should meet colleagues from the Department for Transport to make sure that, where we are investing billions of pounds—whether that is public or private capital—in important infrastructure such as the lower Thames crossing, people benefit from the wider effects of that investment.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Last week something amazing happened: I actually found myself in agreement with the Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire, when he said that spending review
“announcements fall well short”,
and that this
“government had a real chance to show it was serious about rural…areas—but it missed it.”
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree with me that one of the best ways to invest in new infrastructure would be by dualling and electrifying the line between Leeds and York via Harrogate in order to unlock growth in our part of Yorkshire?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he will have seen from the Chancellor’s previous statements, we are increasing investment in transport—whether rail, road or buses—specifically in the north and the midlands, so there is plenty of opportunity to bid for the project he mentions, and I am sure he will talk to Transport Ministers to make that case.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for the national infrastructure strategy. It is particularly welcome that, after the dither and delay of the last Government—who failed to get important projects such as the lower Thames crossing, which has been mentioned, over the line—this Government are finally setting out a plan to do so. Does he agree with me that investing in infrastructure sets the foundation for growth across the whole country, so that there will be not only jobs in north Kent, a reduction in congestion and opportunities for small businesses, but majorly enhanced connectivity for businesses in the midlands and the north with our channel ports?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will see in due course, when the industrial strategy is published, that we have been thinking across Government about the role of infrastructure as an enabling investment to unlock other types of investment, and to create great opportunities for people and economies where they can afford to live and are able to get around to access those opportunities.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Chief Secretary’s statement made no mention of rural areas. When it comes to infrastructure, Welsh rural communities have for decades lost out, with a lack of investment in both our physical and digital infrastructure. Unfortunately, the £445 million on rail does not come anywhere near rural Wales. What are the Government doing to prioritise investment in disadvantaged rural areas in Wales?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for her question. Without wanting to go through the entire infrastructure strategy or spending review, there is significant money coming to all parts of the country. The Chancellor has increased day-to-day spending by £190 billion and capital spending by £120 billion, so I am confident that the hon. Member’s constituents will benefit from an improved national health service, improved road maintenance and improved digital infrastructure. There is a very long list of things people will be able to experience, and they will see the difference made by a Labour Government as we deliver on our promise of change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am hoping that the next question will be as entertaining as his constant chuntering. I call Alan Gemmell.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very nice to finally be recognised by the Chair.
Does the Minister agree that this approach to investment is fundamentally different from the Conservative chaos that led to crumbling schools, hospitals and roads, and light-years away from that of the SNP Government, whose profligate waste of public money has led to a £1 billion ferry fiasco in Ayrshire?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure of other Governments—both the previous Government at Westminster and the current Government in Scotland. When preparing this work in opposition, I was very taken by investors saying, “When I can invest anywhere in the world, if the UK says it is going to do something and Germany says it is going to do something, I am probably going to bet on Germany over the UK.” That has to change because Britain is a brilliant country with lots of opportunity. The long-term stability we are setting out in our strategy, our long-term spending plans and our commitment to stability are unlocking that investment to create great opportunities for people across the whole country, including in Scotland.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I hope the Minister appreciates just how insulting it is to Welsh ears for us to be told that we are getting a fair deal on railway funding, when we know that we have been cheated out of billions of pounds due to the classification of several projects as England and Wales projects. Wales is getting only five railway stations between Newport and Cardiff. That is hardly national renewal, is it? Will he bet on Wales and commit to projects outside that belt, such as projects across mid-Wales and west Wales or the electrification of the north and south lines?
Darren Jones
There is a key difference: under the last Government, Wales did not get a penny, but under this Labour Government, working with the Labour Government in Wales, it has had not only the largest real-terms increase in spending since devolution began, but £455 million for rail infrastructure, nearly £130 million for coal tip safety and many other things. That is the benefit of two Labour Governments working together to deliver for the people of Wales, and the hon. Gentleman may want to be a little bit more grateful in future.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his very welcome statement. In my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow, we have the Avon gorge, which is unsuitable for the volume of heavy goods vehicles that traverse it every day; a motorway junction at Burghmuir only for traffic going east, not west; and, of course, the long-awaited Winchburgh train station that has never been delivered, despite years of promises from elected SNP Members. As well as being in my constituency, they are in the constituency of the SNP Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Can I urge my right hon. Friend to encourage his counterparts in the Scottish Government to take a leaf out of this Government’s book, and invest in infrastructure to support our businesses and local communities?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who knows that this Labour Government at Westminster have given the Scottish Government the money to get on with the job. They have no excuses left for not delivering for the people of Scotland. We will continue to partner with and support the Scottish Government as best we can, but ultimately the SNP-led Government in Scotland have to change their ways, and if they cannot, the people’s only choice will be to vote for a new direction under Labour next May.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. He is always incredibly pleasant, and we appreciate that. Can he confirm that the 10-year strategy incorporates the need to enhance connectivity throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? In particular, may I ask him about flights between Belfast and other major UK cities, which are becoming more costly by the day?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that the Government have renewed our commitment to regional airport capacity, with plans for a national policy statement to be published in due course. I am sure the Transport Secretary and her team are listening to him on the increasing costs for his constituents of those flights, which we would of course like to reduce, if we can.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
As a civil engineer, I absolutely welcome the Minister’s statement, but I want to respond to it within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If he does not mind, I will start by giving him some advice. If he is going to meet his counterpart in the Scottish Government, do not mention Sheriffhall roundabout on the Edinburgh city bypass. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) is laughing. Over the past eight years, there have been lots of reports but no delivery and the price has moved from £120 million to, I think, £300 million now—quite incredible.
On to my point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the long-term plan. There are kids at school today who will be involved in delivering it. I welcome the connection with schools and colleges, but my right hon. Friend will know that universities in England are under huge pressure and universities in Scotland are in crisis. What part will they play in developing the skills we need to deliver these projects?
Darren Jones
Our universities play a crucial part in our education and skills landscape. They are, of course, privately-owned organisations and so are funded separately from the departmental budgets we have allocated in the spending review. The money announced last week and in the infrastructure strategy today is for schools and further education colleges. Any further changes to help universities with their estates will be announced in due course.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I spent a week in Leeds at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum, banging the drum for Bournemouth and the south-west to say that we are open for business with this Labour Government. Investors and builders are responding. They are encouraged by the pension, regulatory and planning reforms and by this infrastructure approach, but we need more investment. We have £1.6 million going into Bournemouth and Poole college, £500 million into two new NHS buildings and £230 million into water upgrades, but we need more. Will the Chief Secretary meet me and Dorset MPs to consider how we will take forward this place-based approach towards investment, so that Dorset can benefit?
Darren Jones
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for championing not just his own constituency, but the region in which it sits. He is right to raise the fact that many communities have lost out on funding over many, many years because of the chaotic approach under the previous Government. Our approach to this long-term strategy, with long-term funding and partnering with private capital, is essentially set up to try to drive investment in the places that have missed out. I would be delighted to work with him to try to unlock those opportunities.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and in particular for the funding for the maintenance of hospitals. I will be lobbying the Health Secretary in due course, but first will my right hon. Friend let me once again advocate for Harlow in respect of the future of the UK Health Security Agency? It is shovel-ready, well located and cost-effective.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to make the case for that investment in his constituency. Now that the spending review has concluded, it will be for the Department of Health and Social Care to make decisions on the allocation of its spending. I am sure that he will continue to lobby the Health Secretary in the normal way.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the statement. Does the Minister agree that our investment plans are a world away from the chronic under-investment of the previous Government, with their lack of investment in public services, housing, people and an ambition for Britain. That included the previous Government decimating shipbuilding in my city, snatching it away and not replacing the economy and jobs, leaving a hole for 14 years. How will this Government’s plans deliver for Portsmouth? Will he meet me to see how we can finally open up place- based investment for Portsmouth and wider Hampshire?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have long-term budgets, a long-term strategy and a long-term commitment to places across the country, in particular to Portsmouth where, working with our friends in the Ministry of Defence, we are spending an increased amount of money to ensure we have wider benefits for communities and for workers in that sector.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Milton Keynes is proud to be a growing city, but too often under the previous Government new homes did not come with the infrastructure required for the new communities. Will the Minister please set out how the new strategy will help to support the infrastructure, in particular GP surgeries and hospitals, that will be needed to support those new homes? More specifically, will he please let us know how it will help to support the building of new towns when we hear back from Sir Michael Lyons in his report shortly?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the legacy issue of poor planning. NISTA, our new centre of expertise in the Treasury that is implementing the strategy, has been given the authority by Cabinet to co-ordinate spatial strategies across Government. That means that Departments will have to think between themselves about making sure that they put things like GP surgeries and hospitals in the right places when they are building significant numbers of new homes.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Our long-term plan is having an immediate effect in South Norfolk: over £200 million for the Thickthorn junction, £8.9 million for the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, and upgrades to four GP practices—[Interruption.] All of which will support the constituency of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) as well. I would not be doing a good job as the MP for South Norfolk if I did not flag the amazing work of the Norwich Research Park and advocate for future investment in it.
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being so successful in securing so much investment in his constituency. I am sure his constituents will be deeply indebted to him now and in future elections. I know he will continue to make the case for investment for his constituents.
Warm Home Discount
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the action we are taking to cut energy bills for working families.
Three years on from the Russian invasion of Ukraine which sent prices soaring, people up and down the country are still feeling the impacts. Everywhere I go in this job and from every person I speak to, I hear how the wages that used to support families are being swallowed up by sky-high energy bills month after month after month. The truth is that for as long as we remain dependent on gas and volatile global markets, British people will continue to pay the price and we will continue to be held back as a country. That is why we are finally ending our exposure and our vulnerability by sprinting to clean, affordable energy that is controlled by us.
We know that in the meantime, we must do everything we can to support families who are under huge amounts of pressure with their energy bills. Today, we are setting out how we will help millions more households with their bills this winter by expanding the warm home discount. Previously, around 3 million people received the £150 rebate off their energy bills, but millions of people living in homes not classified as “hard to heat” were excluded as a result of criteria introduced by the previous Government in 2022. We believe those criteria were unnecessary and unreliable. We believe that it cannot be fair to have two families in almost exactly the same circumstances, with one receiving help and one not. That has been raised repeatedly by consumers and their advocates since the changes were made in 2022, and I absolutely understand their concerns. That is why we are abolishing this restriction.
This winter, every single household where the bill payer receives a means-tested benefit will be eligible for the warm home discount, which means a further 2.7 million low-income households will get that vital support. In total, more than 6 million households—one in five families in Britain—will get the help they need this winter. This expansion will help us meet our goal of tackling fuel poverty, which is critical to the work of my Department. It will increase the number of fuel-poor households that receive support, with coverage improving from 30% under the current scheme to around 45%. In total, 1.6 million fuel-poor households will receive support. I have met people on the frontline of the energy bills crisis up and down the country, so I know for a fact that there are families out there right now breathing a sigh of relief because this measure will ease the huge amount of pressure they are under with the cost of living.
One issue that is often raised with me is that families can miss out on the warm home discount because the person who receives the means-tested benefit is not named on the energy bill. To be eligible, the means-tested benefit recipient, their partner or their legal appointee needs to be named on the energy bill. I encourage all families who receive a means-tested benefit to check that and, if necessary, to contact their supplier. People need to ensure that the benefit recipient, their partner or their appointee is named on the bill before the warm home discount qualifying date, which is 24 August.
At the same time, we are going further to put the energy market back in the service of working people, taking steps to restore confidence and faith in the energy market, which has been shaken. As it stands, too many complaints against energy companies go unresolved or take too long to fix—whether it is suppliers not responding quickly enough or failing to adjust direct debits when families use less energy—which leads to a situation where consumers often do not access the compensation they are entitled to due to an overly complex complaints system.
This Government are absolutely committed to standing up for consumers who have had a bad experience of the energy system, and we are working hard to ensure that the system works in the interests of consumers. We have already made real strides in improving conditions for customers. Following the Secretary of State’s intervention and months of Government work with the sector, Ofgem announced £18.6 million of compensation for victims of forced prepayment meters in May, and we will continue to go further.
This is a Government willing to use every tool in our arsenal to fight for working people. By moving at speed to deliver clean power, and with the spending review setting out the biggest investment in the domestic clean energy industry in history, we will take back control of our energy system and do the job of protecting consumers. That is why we have wasted absolutely no time in driving forward our clean energy mission in our first year, ending the onshore wind ban, consenting more than 4 GW of renewable energy, launching Great British Energy, funding a new golden era for nuclear, kick-starting carbon capture and hydrogen industries, and investing £1 billion already to upgrade up to 300,000 homes, with £13.2 billion committed in the spending review to upgrade millions more.
This is how we will rebuild our energy network and protect families across the country: by supporting more people who need our help this winter; by restoring confidence in a reformed energy market; and by bringing bills down for good with secure, reliable, clean energy. We will ensure that every family in this country has the security of a home they can afford to heat now and in the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement—what a delight it was to receive an update on the warm home discount on this, the warmest day of the year. I know that the Minister is a tireless champion for the people of Peckham and for the most vulnerable, and I thank her for all the work that she does behind the scenes for those causes.
Exactly one year ago today, the Chancellor said:
“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.”
What has happened since? Bills have not fallen by £300, as was promised so many times by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Energy Secretary and Labour MPs. In fact, bills have gone up by almost £300—the opposite of what they all promised just a year ago. On top of that, this Government took the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners through a cold winter. This announcement will provide support for some, but it is nothing more than a sticking plaster—the fact is, this Government’s energy policy is making people colder and poorer.
The Minister has not said a single word about how this expansion will be paid for. It is a £400 million commitment, but there was no detail in either the Government’s press release or the Minister’s statement about how it will be funded. Will the warm home discount still be funded by levies on everyone’s energy bills? If so, this policy means that energy bills will increase for the majority of bill payers, yet the Minister did not say so in her statement. Will she therefore inform the House whether she has asked her Department to calculate by how much levies on everyone’s bills will increase to pay for the £400 million of extra spending? If so, will she inform the House so that our constituents know how much their bills will increase by under this Labour Government?
The Government’s press release said that the expansion of the scheme will be offset by efficiency savings across the energy system, but we have no detail about what those efficiencies are, or how much money will be saved. In fact, the system is becoming less efficient. The National Energy System Operator recently said that the cost of balancing the grid by paying wind farms to switch off when it is too windy increased by 10% to £2.7 billion a year, warning that this will triple to £8 billion a year by 2030 as this Government rush to build more wind farms and solar farms on agricultural land than ever before. That is what this Government are delivering: more subsidies, more levies, more payments for wind farms to switch off, more tech imported from China, and more costs added to everyone’s bills.
Will the Minister share some proper detail with the House on exactly how much this will cost the British people? I suspect the answer will be a resounding no. This is a statement devoid of detail because it is designed simply to distract from the fact that this Government’s energy policy is in chaos and driving bills higher and higher. This is a Government driven by the ideology of net zero, not by making energy bills lower for families across Britain. It is a Government of broken promises.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I think the hon. Lady has some cheek, given the previous Government’s record on energy bills. When, under their watch, families across the country were paying sky-high energy bills—with people still paying the price of that today—the idea that the Conservatives would try to lecture us on energy bills is pretty rich.
Let me take the hon. Lady’s questions directly. Yes, we are committed to reducing energy bills by £300. We have passed the legislation on Great British Energy and the institution is up and running. We are doing the job of driving down bills—we stand by that commitment, and the way we will deliver it is through investment in clean power. It is very clear that our reliance and dependence on global fossil fuel markets under the Conservatives’ watch was ultimately what led to bills rising. Labour will not make that mistake, which is why we are investing record levels in renewables. That is the way we will drive down costs in the system and drive down bills.
This policy is not about ideology; it is about families across the country. The status quo is not tenable. We do not think it is acceptable to have bills at the current levels and to leave families exposed, which is why we are taking action.
The hon. Lady asked specifically how this policy will be paid for. The warm home discount is paid for under the price cap. We are very clear that we do not want other families’ bills to increase in order to pay for this change. We have worked with Ofgem to look for savings within supplier operating costs, for instance. Given that debt spiked under the energy crisis, meaning that all households are currently paying a bit on the debt allowance, we are also working with Ofgem to get that debt burden down. We will use the savings there to cover the cost of this policy. We are very clear: support for those who need it; protection for all households.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I think the shadow Minister was right to highlight this statement being made on the warmest day of the year—this is a Government announcing a warm home plan to literally fix the roof while the sun shines, which the Conservatives failed to do. This announcement will benefit nearly 3 million families, no doubt helping thousands in Hampshire, including many in my constituency.
First, on data sharing, one reason it is tough for many families and households to access these benefits is the inability to access data between the suppliers and the Government. Secondly, given that the legacy of the previous Government was to leave us with the highest electricity prices in Europe, can the Minister confirm that the Government are continuing to look at ways to bring down electricity costs for both consumers and businesses?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As always, my hon. Friend puts it perfectly. I will pick up his point on data sharing, which is critical. My Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have been working over the past few months on the sharing of means-tested benefit data so that this will be automatic; come this winter, all eligible consumers will receive a letter informing them that they will be getting the warm home discount. It will be transferred on to energy bills as a credit—a direct payment for consumers—because we have done the groundwork to put that in place.
On my hon. Friend’s critical second point, the relative cost of gas and electricity is incredibly high, and we know that is a problem for both households and businesses, particularly as we try to make that transition to clean energy. We are continuing to do that work. I am very clear that we need to deal with that question in order, for example, for our plans to upgrade homes to have the bite and traction they need, and we are absolutely committed to doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
We welcome investment in warm homes following a winter in which millions of households were living in fuel poverty. The crisis was exacerbated by the Government’s cut to winter fuel payments— and we welcome the U-turn on that, too. The former Conservative Government’s stop-starts on home insulation policies left thousands of vulnerable people in damp, cold and unsafe homes, with lower energy-efficiency standards and higher bills during an energy crisis.
Given that homes in this country are among the oldest and least energy-efficient in Europe, will the Government commit to an ambitious 10-year plan for home insulation, for which the Liberal Democrats have long called? Will they ensure that households on lower incomes will be eligible for free insulation as part of that plan? And, following the Government accepting the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for solar panels to be mandated for all new homes, will they now look to introduce a full zero carbon standard for all new homes and solar for car parks, as put forward by the Liberal Democrats in amendments to the Planning and Infra- structure Bill?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I could not agree more. The record of stops and starts on home upgrades and home insulation is one reason that we failed to insulate as many households as we should have done from the energy price spike. We are committed to a long-term plan to upgrade millions of homes across the country. That is what the warm homes plan will do. We are delighted that this has been backed by the Chancellor with £13.2 billion of investment, and we are now working on how we draw that out across the country. We will make sure that we have the right solution for every household, using a combination of insulation, solar, and heat pumps. We want every household that gets an upgrade to have a home that is warm and much, much cheaper to run. That is our absolute focus and priority.
On the future homes standard, we have been working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and consulting with developers. We are absolutely committed to driving forward standards. We have set out our ambition to make sure that future homes are fit for the future, using solar and clean heat solutions. We cannot have the situation that we have had in the past, where we built homes that needed retrofitting a few years later. We are committed to our ambition and we will be setting out more details in the warm homes plan.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s announcement, which will mean that 240,000 people in Scotland will benefit to the tune of £150 directly from the UK Government. I know that she will be having conversations with our Scottish counterparts—and I am sure that if SNP Members were here today, they would also welcome this announcement. As she is having those conversations, may I encourage her to talk about what she is doing and how it differs from the SNP’s approach, which involves independence thermometers and housing dashboards? What this Labour Government are doing down here is a practical, tangible example of how we can directly impact the lives of working people.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are engaging with the Scottish Government. Today’s expansion creates more resources for the Scottish Government to ensure that direct bill support is provided to more households. Alongside that, there has to be a plan to upgrade homes and to make sure that we are delivering homes that are warmer and cheaper to run. We will have a plan here, and we expect that, with the additional funding and the example that we have set, the Scottish Government will follow suit, but we are long past the stage of warm words and light action. We need to get on with it, because there are people across the country, including in Scotland, who are struggling. It is the responsibility of Government to get a grip and start to act.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Yesterday, as the Minister probably knows, food bank groups associated with the Trussell Trust lobbied—very effectively —Members on both sides of the House. My local group, the Waterside food bank, impressed on me the gap between the £92, which the Government believe a single person is estimated to need to survive, and the £120 that the food bank believes is necessary for a single person to be able to survive alone. Can the Minister give an indication as to what extent the gap between those two figures will be closed as a result of this initiative?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Member for a very good question. We know that families are struggling with the cost of living. We know that families are in poverty, and that many are having to make the choice between heating and eating. We are trying to put in place a range of measures, and the warm home discount —this £150—is part of it. We have extended free school meals to families on means-tested benefits. We are rolling out breakfast clubs. There is a range of things that we are trying to do as a Government to ensure that people who are struggling and who have been struggling for a long time are lifted out of poverty. We are very clear about our ambition. Every time Labour comes to power, our record is that we lift people out of poverty, and we will continue to do that.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, as will nearly a quarter of a million people across Scotland who will benefit from this £150 warm home discount for the first time. We always appreciate these measures a little bit more in Scotland, because our weather is a bit colder. We have to keep reminding people of that, even today. Does the Minister share my pride in this Government expanding support for more people who need it most because we are turning the tide on failure and building a strong economy on the back of clean energy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The legacy—the inheritance—was woeful. I do not need to say that, because people feel it across the country. We, as the incoming Government, have a responsibility to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to lift living standards—everything that we can to support families who we know are struggling. I share my hon. Friend’s pride in our being able to expand the support, because we know just how much it is needed. None the less, there is more that we need to do. We will not stop here. If we get the roll-out of the warm homes plan right, and if we are upgrading homes, we will be taking up to £600 off bills. The bigger plan that we must take forward will help us to deliver clean power, so that we can reduce bills for everyone. This Government are clear about the task of improving living standards. It is core to what we need to do and to what we need to achieve as a Government, and we are getting on and delivering it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that park home residents in North West Norfolk and across the country, who pay their bills directly to the site owner, will also benefit from the extended £150 discount, and that when they apply, funding will not be limited, so that everyone who is entitled to this payment will receive it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for a really good question. Park homes are currently supported through industry initiatives and the warm home discount. We will continue to make sure that park homes are supported. There is obviously work that we need to do, because we are conscious that there are some customers who are not receiving the discount, and we are working with industry to resolve that.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement today on the expansion of the warm home discount. It will mean that 240,000 people across Scotland, including many thousands in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, will receive £150 directly off their energy bills from this UK Government. Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the work being done to accelerate proposals to introduce a debt relief scheme, which would target unsustainable debt built up during the energy crisis?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right to mention debt relief and the huge burden of debt that we have seen. Over the course of the energy crisis, we saw debt increase to more than £3 billion. For many of those households in debt, there is no route to paying it off. We have been working with Ofgem to put in place a debt relief scheme, using a combination of write-offs of debt and repayment plans, so that we can ensure that more people are lifted out of energy debt and are in a position to afford their energy.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister knows that I have a lot of time for her, and I welcome her announcement today, but it will be of little relief to those who are living with spray-foam insulation that was inadequately installed, and there has been no support from the Government to fix that. Putting that aside, I wondered what Government support is available for off-grid households in rural areas, to ensure that they do not miss out and are included in these plans?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Rural consumers who are on means-tested benefits and linked to an energy supplier should be supported in the right way. We know that there are some off-grid rural households that are not with a particular energy supplier and that that is more difficult. This is why we are working with industry. There is a discretionary amount within the warm home discount that allows industry to find and target those people to provide support.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I think all Labour Members warmly welcome today’s statement, particularly those in Scotland, where 240,000 families will benefit from £150 off their bills this winter. That includes thousands of working families across my constituency. Does the Minister agree that this is another case of the UK Labour Government making a manifesto commitment and delivering on it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right—a promise made, a promise delivered. That is what a Labour Government do. We are very clear about the change we need to deliver in the country. Unlike the Conservatives and the Scottish Government, there are no warm words or faffing around; we are getting on with the job of delivering change.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Today’s announcement of the expansion of the warm home discount is extremely welcome and will benefit many people across west Cumbria. One of the first meetings I had with Ministers after the election was with my hon. Friend. Could she set out more detail about how the really welcome warm homes plan will build on this discount to create a permanent, lasting solution for families in my constituency, who face some of the draughtiest homes in the country, to give them real financial benefit?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Fuel poverty is an absolute scourge that we must work hard to eliminate. There are two things we must do to achieve that. On the one hand, we must deliver bills support. The expansion of the warm home discount is so important, because more households in fuel poverty will receive it. On the other hand, we must make sure that we are doing the job of upgrading homes. This year we have invested £1 billion to deliver 300,000 upgrades, but that is not enough. We have to massively increase the number of upgrades so that we are delivering millions over the course of this Parliament. We have committed to £13.2 billion, and we are now doing the work of setting out how we will drive the shift and change that we need to see across the country. We must ensure that the households that need it have insulation, solar panels, batteries and heat pumps so that their homes are warmer, and ultimately so that we can lower bills by up to £600.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Today’s announcement is very welcome and will make a real difference to many of our constituents. I am glad to hear the Minister reaffirm today that in addition to support with bills, the Government recognise the urgent need to ensure that every home is well-insulated and affordable to heat—a genuinely warm home—and are doing that through both hugely increasing standards for new homes and insulating existing homes. She has referenced the £13.2 billion Government commitment to the warm homes plan, which is welcome, though not enough, but why do the spending review documents show that more than a third of that money—£5 billion of the £13.2 billion—is money that the Government expect to get back, presumably to be repaid by households?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I think the hon. Member is referring to some of the financial transaction mechanisms. We will deliver the warm homes strand through Government support to some households as well as by working with energy companies, whether it be suppliers or distribution network operators, in order to ensure that we are driving upgrades. Part of that will involve the Government providing loans to suppliers, which they will pay back over time. I think that is what the hon. Member is referring to. We are very clear that we need up-front investment as a catalyst, and we are clear that we need to upgrade millions of homes and crack on with the job.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. This announcement will mean that over half a million more Londoners will benefit from a £150 discount on their energy bills this winter. Does she agree that along with our free breakfast clubs, the £1,400 per year increase in the minimum wage and free childcare in schools, today’s announcement shows that Labour is putting money back into the pockets of working people in Ealing Southall and across the country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is spot on. Members on the Conservative Front Bench are chuckling away in front of me, but it is no joke. We inherited an absolutely atrocious set of circumstances. Families across the country are paying for their failure, with the cost of living at a record high level. I go across the country to speak to people, and I see the impact of the Conservatives’ failure on people’s lives. We were not willing to accept that what we inherited was the status quo. That is why we are taking decisive action. Whether it is the expansions to the warm home discount and free school meals, the increase in the national minimum wage or our record investment in social housing, this Government are getting on with the job of lifting living standards in order to fix the mess we inherited from that lot.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement and her answers. In the short time she has been in her role, she has always delivered good news, and that is quite a talent, so I say well done and I thank the Government for that. Double the number of households in the United Kingdom will get £150 off their energy bills, and that is very welcome for those on means-tested benefits. However, with one in four children living in poverty in Northern Ireland, it is essential that this announcement applies in Northern Ireland too. Will the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland is included in this help for the vulnerable and those in poverty? Will it come through Barnett consequentials or another way?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Northern Ireland runs its own separate scheme. We are in very close contact with the Northern Irish Government—in fact, I was in Northern Ireland yesterday. We are making sure that our work to deliver clean power, which is our route to lowering bills, and, critically, our work through the warm homes plan is co-ordinated. The hon. Member is right that there are people across the country who are struggling at the moment, and it is absolutely our responsibility to take action to support them.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this announcement. As she will recall, we met back in September to discuss my concerns about fuel poverty in my constituency, including the number of children living in cold homes. We specifically talked about this measure. She has taken it away, done the hard graft and delivered, so I thank her for that. As she said in her statement, there are people who may not get the discount because they do not know that they are entitled to it. The Government will know which people are receiving the warm home discount and which people are on a means-tested benefit and are not receiving it. Will she consider writing to those families to make sure that everybody knows the good news that this Government are putting more money into their pockets?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing to champion this agenda. I can confirm that we will be writing to all households in receipt of means-tested benefits to let them know that they are eligible for the discount. For the vast majority, it will be automatic; they will not have to do anything, and the discount will turn up as a credit on their bills. There is a bit of action to take for people who are not the bill payer. We will get the message out that they must ensure that they are included as the bill payer in order to get the automatic support.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Thousands more of my constituents in Glasgow will have money off their energy bills this winter as a result of this Labour Government’s decision. I welcome the Minister’s statement and ask her to assure me that the Government will continue to work hard to deliver lower energy bills for families in Glasgow.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I can commit to that. The Conservatives tell us that our fight to deliver clean power and our work to upgrade people’s homes is ideological. It is not ideological; it is down to bread and butter issues. We know that there are families struggling across the country. We were not willing to accept what we inherited as the status quo, so we are getting on with the job of reducing energy bills, because improving living standards and delivering the change we were elected to deliver is a core priority for this Government.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Minister is right that because the Conservatives left our country exposed to fossil fuel prices, people’s wages are being swallowed up by energy costs. It is right that we are sprinting towards clean, home-grown energy as a long-term solution, and the tensions in the middle east demonstrate why that is so important. We must also get support to people right now in Bournemouth East. I welcome the fact that 220,000 families across the south-west, including my constituents, will benefit from help this winter, but my constituents want to feel a bit of breathing room—to live, not merely survive. Will the Minister confirm that tackling the cost of living is our No. 1 priority as a Government, and set out the ways in which the Government are targeting the cost of living crisis?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the cost of living. He is also right to point out that we have huge exposure to global fossil fuel markets, and at a point where we are seeing tensions and conflict in the middle east, energy security becomes so critical. So we will continue, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, to sprint to deliver clean power, but while we do that we are taking action to reduce the cost of living. So, whether it is the expansion of the warm home discount, or the expansion of free school meals, or increasing the national living wage, or the action that we are taking to roll out breakfast clubs, or the action that we are taking to build record amounts of social housing, the Labour Government are committed to bettering living standards—not talking about it, but getting on and delivering the change that we were elected to deliver.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Many families in Portsmouth North continue to face pressure from energy bills and the cost of living, so I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on supporting those on the lowest incomes this winter, particularly through the change in the warm home discount, the £150 credit, the warm homes plan and the additional funds that we have given to the household support fund, helping people like Portsmouth North resident Amee, who I met yesterday and who lost out under the last Government’s unnecessary, unreliable and unfair criteria. Will the Minister join me in urging that—alongside our Government—energy providers and councils, including Portsmouth city council, do more to promote and advertise what residents must do to access these vital supports to raise their living standards, so that families who are entitled to it get the help that they need?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a clear obligation on energy suppliers to do everything that they can to support vulnerable households. I meet with suppliers regularly to emphasise that people are under pressure and that they absolutely must discharge their obligations. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that we have to work with local government, regional government and partners on the ground to ensure that the support that is available—we will continue building on that support—gets to the people that absolutely need it.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement, which will help a quarter of a million households in the east of England. May I say, from a personal point of view, it is so encouraging to hear a Government focused on green energy solutions? Believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is over 30 years since I was at school, learning about the importance of green energy—[Interruption.] I know. Will she reflect on the decisions that this Government are making, including removing the ban on onshore wind, and how they will continue to benefit residents in my constituency of Harlow?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I cannot believe it was 30 years ago that my hon. Friend was learning about green energy. We have been sprinting to deliver clean power. When we came into government we set a mission to do it by 2030. There were naysayers, and there continues to be naysayers, but we were not deterred by that. So whether it is removing the ban on onshore wind, whether it is record investment in nuclear, or whether it is a record renewables auction, we are very clear that we are putting in the investment—we are putting in the hard yards, the hard graft—to deliver clean power. Why are we doing that? Not because of ideology, but because we recognise that we inherited an energy system that was not working on behalf of consumers. We recognise that people were under huge pressure—a status quo that we were not willing to accept. We will deliver clean power, so that we can bear down on bills and ensure that we drive down energy bills for good.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the statement, so I will allow the Front Benches a few moments to shuffle over as we continue the business for the rest of the afternoon.
Bill Presented
Licences and Licensing
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.
This summer, the UEFA women’s European football championship, commonly referred to as the Women’s Euro 2025, will be hosted in Switzerland. I am pleased to report that both the England and Wales women’s national teams have qualified to participate in that prestigious tournament. The draft contingent order before the House today proposes a temporary extension of licensing hours across England and Wales, should either England or Wales—or both—progress to the semi-finals or the final of the competition. Specifically, if either team reaches these stages—I have to say, from my limited following of football, that it seems the women’s teams have a reputation for doing far better than our male teams—the order would extend licensing hours from 11 pm to 1 am on the evenings of the semi-finals, which are scheduled for 22 and 23 July, and the final, which is due to take place on 27 July.
As Members will be aware, section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 empowers the Secretary of State to make such an order in recognition of events of “exceptional national significance.” The decision to lay this draft order follows a public consultation conducted by the Home Office earlier this year. A significant majority—87% of respondents —supported the proposed extension of licensing hours for the semi-final and 84% for the final, should the home nations qualify. Respondents also agreed with the proposed duration of the extension—until 1 am—and supported its application to both England and Wales. There was also consensus that the extension should apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. The order will therefore allow licensed premises to remain open until 1 am without the need to submit a temporary event notice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As a Northern Ireland MP, I wish to convey my best to the English and the Welsh ladies’ teams. Although the order will not apply to Northern Ireland, that will not stop us cheering on the English and the Welsh teams on a different timescale in our pubs, our restaurants and our cafés.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is always good to see solidarity between the four nations. I thank the hon. Member for displaying his usual courtesy in expressing his good wishes to the two women’s teams.
I was just about to explain that the reason we are taking this order forward is to reduce the administrative burden on both businesses and local authorities, saving time and resources for all involved.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a Leeds United supporter, I felt the need to ask what a semi-final or a final was, but—[Laughter.] I welcome the order. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the benefits that the increased opening hours will bring to the pub and entertainment industry, and hopefully—if we get that far—the impact that will have on the communities that support them?
Dame Diana Johnson
I was just about to say that businesses in the hospitality sector, particularly pubs and bars, stand to benefit from this modest extension, which would allow them to accommodate increased demand during these high-profile fixtures. I fully accept that the hospitality sector has had a difficult time over the past few years, and that this is a helpful measure.
It is right to acknowledge that police representatives have expressed some concerns regarding the potential for increased crime and disorder. While operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are a matter for individual forces, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has happened in similar cases.
Notably, there have been no significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to previous licensing extensions, which is testament to the professionalism of our police service, to which we owe our thanks. I also emphasise that this is a limited and proportionate two-hour extension. It applies solely to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises after 11 pm and does not extend to off licences, supermarkets or other premises licensed only for off-sales.
To clarify one final point, if neither England nor Wales reach the semi-finals, the proposed extension will not apply on 22 or 23 July. Similarly, if one or both teams reach the semi-finals but do not progress to the final, normal licensing hours will apply on 27 July.
I also make Members aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) is sponsoring a private Member’s Bill, supported by the Government, which seeks to make such orders subject to the negative resolution procedure in future. That means that less time will be spent, particularly on the Floor of the House, having to agree such measures. The Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House but will not be enacted in time to apply to this summer’s tournament, hence the need for this order to be brought before the House today. Should this order receive the support of the House, as I hope and expect it will, it will reinforce the argument that debating such measures may not represent the most effective use of parliamentary time.
In conclusion, this order has been brought forward in recognition of the significant public interest in the forthcoming tournament and, in particular, the hopes and expectations surrounding the England and Wales teams. On that note, I take the opportunity to wish the players of both teams the very best of luck. I am sure they will do themselves, their fans and their nations proud, and I commend the order to the House.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
We are delighted to support the temporary licence changes, as I am sure are Members on all sides—although, to be fair, I do not think I would have much choice on the matter, for if I ever stood at this Dispatch Box and opposed more time in the pub to watch football, my dad would probably disown me. The changes, as the Minister has outlined, will extend licences by two hours for venues that already have licences until 11 pm and apply if England or Wales, the two qualifying teams in the UEFA women’s Euro, reaches a semi-final on 22 or 23 July, or the final on 27 July. There is no reason we should doubt that they will reach that threshold because we are the defending champions, after England’s magnificent performance at the 2022 tournament, hosted in the UK at Wembley. The final saw a 2-1 victory and, of course, it was made all the sweeter by beating the Germans.
This is a fantastic time to support our local as well as our national teams. It is also worth taking the time, however, to note that since the autumn Budget, the hospitality sector is sadly reporting a spike in the number of pub closures. That is no surprise, as the Chancellor’s raid on pubs has cost them at least £2,500 per full-time employee. Sixty per cent of pubs say they have cut jobs and three quarters say they have increased their prices as a direct result. Therefore, even though the licensing changes mean we might all be able to go to the pub for a little longer, it will cost us a bit more for a pint—and sadly, for many, the local might not even be in business any more.
Now, more than ever, we need to support our locals, such as the 63 pubs that were nominated in my Fylde pub of the year competition, which was won by the Coach & Horses in Freckleton. I am sure that the two Grahams who run that cracking establishment will be delighted with a shout-out from this Dispatch Box, but they will be even more delighted with the Minister for having a bit of extra time to sell some more pints of Ponkys ale.
That just leaves me to finish by wishing the England and Wales teams good luck—though, of course, I am biased and hope to be raising a glass to England, once again, thrashing Germany.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, it would be remiss of me not to mention my local football club, Crowborough, and that we are a family of Gooners.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
England’s Lionesses have a brilliant track record, and not just on the pitch; they have continued to win hearts, change attitudes and redefine what women’s sport looks like in this country. From their historic Euro 2022 win to reaching the world cup final last year, they have sparked a cultural shift that has touched every community, including mine in North Cornwall.
In towns and villages across Cornwall, we find women lacing up their boots, taking to the pitch and building the next chapter of the game. Teams such as Bodmin Women, Bude Town Ladies, Kilkhampton Ladies and countless others are part of a growing movement to put women’s sport on an equal footing with men’s. I cannot stress how vital our national team and local grassroots sides are to inspiring young girls to dream big. When girls in places such as Bude or Padstow see the Lionesses celebrated on the same scale as the men’s team, it sends a clear message: this game is for you, too, and you belong here.
That is why this licensing change really matters. It might seem technical, but it carries symbolic weight. It will also have a really positive impact on our hospitality industry, at a time when it is struggling with increased national insurance and business property relief changes. It tells the country that women’s football deserves the same celebration, the same energy and the same place in our national life as the men’s game.
Visibility alone is not enough, however. At school level, where a lot of the passions start and a lifelong love of the beautiful game is ignited, only around two thirds of girls are getting the chance to play football during physical education lessons. That is unacceptable. We Liberal Democrats believe that every young person should get at least two hours of quality physical education a week, backed by proper facilities and the right funding.
We also need to ensure that grassroots clubs, such as those in North Cornwall and across the country, have the coaching, resources and safe spaces they need to thrive. I have seen the appetite in our local communities at first hand; we just need to match it with the support. The Karen Carney review in 2023 offered a road map for long-term progress, but progress must also mean equity and treating women’s sport not just as an add-on, but as an essential part of this country’s culture.
Collectively, I am sure that all Members of this House will join me in getting behind the teams in our villages, towns, cities and schools, encouraging the future of women’s football to be written on school fields and local pitches by the next generation. I take this opportunity to wish both Wales and England the very best of luck for the tournament.
Question put and agreed to.
Incontinence
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of incontinence.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who helped secure this debate. I am delighted that we are debating this vital but often ignored issue during World Continence Week.
The definition of a taboo is a subject so difficult, repulsive or offensive that it cannot be mentioned in polite conversation and can be articulated only in hushed, embarrassed tones. Once, menstruation was a taboo and we were not supposed to talk about it. Once, cancer was a taboo, and in some communities it still is. Once, mental health was a taboo and people covered it up. We can now discuss those things more openly without embarrassment, we can seek the right medical advice and treatment, and we can offer support to one another and fight for decent healthcare for every aspect of the human body.
How did I get here, in this Chamber, talking about human bodily functions? This has been a journey for me. I spoke in the Westminster Hall debate on women’s health in February. As a physiotherapist, I talked about pelvic health and the importance of rehabilitation and pelvic floor exercises. My words seemed to have struck a chord. Colleagues, residents and professionals all emailed me to thank me for speaking out and to share their experiences. It started to snowball, and I asked myself, “Why aren’t we talking about this more?” I am advised that this is the first ever general debate on this topic in the Chamber, so I congratulate the House.
What are we actually talking about? We are talking about the involuntary loss of faeces and urine, which can be caused by pregnancy, neurological conditions, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord surgery, musculoskeletal conditions, disabilities, menopause, prostrate-related conditions and many more reasons. The crippling fear for patients is that it might happen at work, in public or in social settings. Patients have told me that they feel like a prisoner in their own homes, caught by a condition that means people avoid others, do not go out, cannot go to work, do not have relationships and feel a crushing sense of shame. People’s mental health suffers to the point of serious illness.
Our language reflects society’s attitudes: “wetting your knickers”, “peeing your pants”, or ruder variants that I will not say. Yet we are talking about a range of conditions that affect millions of our residents. Did you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that bladder and bowel incontinence is more common than hay fever? The NHS estimates that 14 million people live with bladder problems—one in five of the population—and it is men as well as women. The NHS says that 2 million men experience involuntary loss of urine. A third of women live with these conditions right now—that’s right: a third. Yet this is another aspect of health that is woefully unsupported and pushed off the agenda. It affects 1.5 million children and young people. One in 12 children across the UK battle these debilitating symptoms, including bed wetting, chronic constipation and soiling. Half a million adults have bowel conditions that lead to the involuntary loss of faeces.
We have a population that is getting older and surviving complex conditions, such as cancer, and that will increase the prevalence of bladder and bowel dysfunction. When it comes to bowel conditions, we are talking about the involuntary loss of faecal matter, which can be because of irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease or other conditions, such as bowel cancer. I have not even touched on what people suffer when they are doubly incontinent. Our NHS collects data on anything and everything. The number of patients with continence care needs to be routinely published, and it is not. My first ask of the Minister —and I have several—is, why not?
The House will note—notwithstanding the title of the debate—that I avoid the terms “incontinence” and “continence”. I have spoken to so many people with bladder and bowel conditions, and my feeling is they are the wrong words to use and they carry too much stigma.
To give justice to the debate, I have conducted roundtables with experts and patients and have shared anonymous surveys. Dawn shared her story with me. She noticed some urinary leakage 10 years ago, when she was 50. Now, at the age of 60, she spoke to me about her journey. She did not go to the GP because she felt ashamed. It got worse and she began to see the gynaecologist. She got the strength to speak to the GP, who gave her tablets. Three rounds of tablets did not work. Her symptoms got worse, and she was unable to leave the House. The gynaecologist referred her to a physiotherapist and specialist nurses. I asked what went wrong here: it was the lack of prevention.
Prevention, prevention, prevention is key. Physiotherapy is recommended as an integral part of women’s health, especially with pelvic floor dysfunction. According to the 2019 NHS long-term plan,
“Physiotherapy is by far the most cost-effective intervention for preventing and treating mild to moderate incontinence and prolapse”.
Insufficient physiotherapist numbers mean that women who experience pelvic floor dysfunction or prolapse wait months or years, or miss out on treatment entirely. Women often end up needing surgery that could have been avoided with earlier intervention. Dawn eventually received specialist care, and her symptoms have vastly improved. She only gets the odd leakage here and there. Her advice to others is
“see your GP… don’t leave it and ask for a referral to see a specialist”.
I had the privilege of seeing one such specialist service in my constituency—Dudley adult bladder and bowel service, known as DABBS—where I met patients and practitioners like Ola Rawlins, team lead and clinical pelvic health physiotherapist, who shared her story, which was eye-opening. Patients told me how GPs ask about bowels but seldom bladders. A patient—Leanne—said she felt ignored, fobbed of and misdirected. One felt like a “prisoner”. Ola’s patients felt like a ball bouncing around different parts of the system. Men, especially those with prostate cancer, were reluctant to take part in self-help groups, and many men did not even know they had a pelvic floor and thought only women did.
Yet symptoms can be easily treated with the right interventions, treatments and course of rehabilitation. Research shows that for every £1 spent on women’s health services, there is a return of £13, thanks to a reduction in emergency admissions, fewer missed days at work and better long-term health outcomes. I know the Department of Health and Social Care is consulting on the men’s health strategy, and I trust that the Minister will ensure that this aspect of men’s health is front and centre.
The DABB service calls itself a “Cinderella service”. The testimonies of patients and professionals is humbling to hear, but it makes me so angry. We are letting too many people down. So what must change? We need to talk about the taboo, and we need action. We need a renaissance of public toilets: to maintain the ones we have, open the ones that are closed and build new ones. I want to see bins in both men’s and women’s toilets, so people can throw these products in the bin. I support the Boys Need Bins campaign by Prostate Cancer UK, and I congratulate the all-party parliamentary group for bladder and bowel continence care for its work. I ask that this place be a pioneer in this space by placing bins in all men’s toilets.
We also need better food labelling, so that fibre is listed on products and people can understand how they can get better bowel health. We need to ensure that the AI and robotics revolution in healthcare does not miss bladder and bowel care. We need a joined-up service between GPs, hospitals, clinics and patient groups. Perhaps we could have more sympathetic and subtle signage in healthcare settings. Products provided outside healthcare settings could have simple labels on shelves, such as “body care” instead of “incontinence products”. That tackles the embarrassment of being seen by a friend or neighbour buying them in the shops.
I urge the Minister, as the 10-year plan nears publication, to ensure that bladder and bowel care is included. Much needs to change, but today I have five concrete asks for the Minister. First, we need a public information campaign to raise awareness and smash the stigma, as recommended by Dr Sara Webb of the Royal College of Midwives. The NHS rightly spends millions on campaigns, such as cancer screenings, the use of 111 and sepsis awareness. Will the Minister commit to a campaign on bladder and bowel care?
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Many years ago, when I worked in the NHS, the board tried to save money by changing the incontinence products that people used. The products were not quite the same, which caused a lot of distress for the people who used them, as well as a lot of inconvenience for the health professionals working with patients, particularly the district nurse team. In the end, it did not really save any money. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that people get access to the products that work for them?
Sonia Kumar
I agree that products need to be readily available, and that is one of my recommendations.
Secondly, beyond awareness is prevention. We need real understanding, and I want bladder and bowel health to form part of the school syllabus, enmeshed into the curriculum. That is a recommendation from surgeon Dr Robinson from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Let us give teachers the tools to teach it. I want this to form part of the training of all healthcare professionals, so that medical professions understand bladder and bowel care from their earliest time in the job. We need a specialist workforce that includes physiotherapists, nurses, surgeons and many others. Can the Minister commit to placing this issue high on the agenda for schools, and to building a specialist multidisciplinary workforce who have the relevant skills and knowledge?
Thirdly, we need enhanced research and development on bladder and bowel conditions and their treatment. That does not necessarily mean vastly increasing spending; it could mean looking at how resources could be better prioritised. We cannot diagnose, treat and rehabilitate, or look into future medical interventions, if there is limited research.
Fourthly—this recommendation is from Dr Ashish Pradhan, chair of the British Society of Urogynaecology —can the Minister commit to banning misleading advertisements that send the wrong message? Products subject to no regulation are advertised, and patients are told to live with their symptoms.
Fifthly, I have a recommendation from a patient I met, Leanne. Could we have a one-stop shop in which all services are under one roof, care that is closer to home, and cheaper incontinence products? They are exempt from VAT if they are purchased for personal use, or use by a registered charity, but what if they are purchased by care homes?
Those are my five demands, backed by experts—five things that will ensure real progress. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Lastly, let me say this to men, women, young people and children listening to this debate: you are not alone, and there is no shame. This subject is often surrounded by silence. It is a subject that people do not want to talk about, or do not know about, and that the NHS does not do enough about. That ends now, and it ends here.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Incontinence is no respecter of person, and no respecter of sex, and it is male incontinence that I rise to speak about. The wry old joke is that men do not know they have a prostate until their other half reads about it in the Daily Mail. Campaigning newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, and charity groups like Prostate Buddies in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency have done a power of work to make men aware of prostate disease and prostate cancer—just as well, given that prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. One in eight of us will be diagnosed with it, and that figure rises to one in four for black men. It is well recognised that early diagnosis is key, but it is less well known that as many as 60% of those treated with surgery will face urinary incontinence, outwith surgical intervention.
Prostate Cancer UK says that one in 25 men aged over 40 will experience some form of urinary leakage every year. The scale of the issue, and the number of people facing the problem who report feeling shame, embarrassment and isolation, is greater than many suppose. The guardedly good news is that far from being alone, people suffering incontinence are a very large portion of society. It has been another silent epidemic, and people have been left to suffer in obscurity. Today is part of the solution to that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on securing the debate. Given her medical background, I defer to her for advice on what can be done to relieve the physical symptoms of incontinence—and much can be done. According to the American Urological Association, better prostate treatment is cutting the number of men who suffer incontinence after prostate treatment. Pelvic floor exercises can help both men and women, as can bladder training.
But what can Government do, aside from making health policy decisions on treatment for incontinence in all its forms, be it suffered by men or women, and be it post-op, prostate-related or childbirth-related? Small steps can help. When the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) asked whether there had been discussions about providing bins in men’s toilets for disposal of sanitaryware made necessary by incontinence, a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave a rather technocratic answer, promising a Health and Safety Executive review of workplace regulations dating back to 1992 on the provision of disposal facilities in workplace toilets “in due course”. I hope the Minister can today confirm that the consultation can be fast-tracked.
I hope that we have taken a giant stride in this place today by stripping away some of the stigma merely by giving an airing to the issue of incontinence. There has been much talk recently about Parliament at its best, but surely this is Parliament at its best, considering unfashionable yet critical issues. Today we bury the myth that this condition is somehow shameful. With this first ever debate on the subject, we take a modest but significant step towards improving the life of those who struggle with the burden of incontinence.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
A big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this extremely important debate. I was fascinated and not a little shocked to hear that this is the first full debate in the Chamber on this subject, and it is absolutely tremendous that we are talking about it, because we need to. As everyone has recognised, it is a subject that people rarely talk about, despite the fact that millions of people are affected by bladder and bowel control issues—I will try to use that phrase instead of the term “incontinence”, after hearing the point that my hon. Friend rightly raised; I was scribbling away when she said that.
For much too long, this issue has been treated as a private embarrassment—something to whisper about, not act on. I was struck by what she said about the number of people who got in touch with her, crying out for this subject to be discussed, and for us to take action. We need to take action, because as well as being a very important health issue, it is almost a social justice issue, and an issue of dignity. Far too many people and families face a daily struggle that has been quietly ignored.
As was said, it is estimated that one in three women in the UK experiences urinary control issues, but the issue affects men, too. It is important that men speak in this debate, and I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) did. As for my city, London, a recent survey for Prostate Cancer UK found that 54% of all male Londoners had experienced urinary control problems. More than one in four men—28%—experienced symptoms as early as between the ages of 18 and 25. That contradicts the widely held view that bladder conditions affect only older adults. Then, of course, we come to bowel incontinence, which is more closely associated with age: 15% of those aged over 85 and living at home are affected, and the figure is even higher for men and women living in residential and nursing homes.
Of course, we also have to think about bladder and bowel conditions affecting children and young people, and especially those with disabilities, whose voices are often the last to be heard anyway, and particularly the last to be heard on this subject. Disabled and other children with these conditions can miss out on education, friendships and an ordinary life because of a lack of basic provision. Families feel ashamed when they ask for help, because they think that no one else is facing the same thing. That brings us back to the importance of us discussing this matter in the House today. Many families face this issue; we need to make it safe to talk about it, and safe to ask for support.
As I say, bladder and bowel conditions are not only a health issue, but a social justice issue, and it is time we treated them as such, because that is not what happens now. Despite the evident human cost, and the prevalence of these conditions across society, support and services remain inadequate, and those affected and their families are left to scramble for help. They face stigma. They too often endure isolation, yet as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley set out, there are simple, straightforward solutions that would make a huge difference to those who live with bladder and bowel control issues. We can start by destigmatising the issue; that is what we are doing today, as has been said.
At a national level, we need a public health campaign, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, that makes it clear that these conditions are normal, treatable and nothing to be ashamed of. Let me tell Members about one of the very few people in either House that I have heard talk about these conditions. I went to a meeting on assisted dying—one of many such meetings, which colleagues of all parties have been to—at which I heard from a disabled Member of the House of Lords, and other people who are disabled and wheelchair users. They spoke in a very matter-of-fact way about being incontinent—that was the word they used. They made it quite clear that it was perfectly possible to lead a normal and fulfilling life with that condition. When I was growing up, older people would say to me, “The one thing I dread above all is being incontinent— I think I’d take my life if that happened.” It was very inspiring for me to hear a Member of the other place talking about their situation, and talking about it released all of us from a particular challenge when it came to reflecting on assisted dying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned Prostate Cancer UK’s Boys Need Bins campaign. There are others, including the End Bladder Shame campaign by TENA, the maker of incontinence products. These things show what is possible if people feel heard—but they need more support. Alongside a public health campaign, let us have more investment in infrastructure. That means more modern, accessible public toilets with clean, safe disposal facilities for men as well as women, which has been a long-standing request from charities like Age UK.
We need to make sure that every school—mainstream schools as well as specialist schools—has trained staff who can support children with bladder and bowel conditions, not as an afterthought but as part of their core pastoral care. We have a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care on the Front Bench, but I hope she can pass on the message to her colleagues in the Department for Education that they should make sure school toilets are accessible, hygienic and inclusive, with disposal bins, locks and space—with dignity built in.
Finally, I would like to see us integrate bladder and bowel care into national health strategies. They should be a core part of NHS England’s work on long-term conditions, ageing and preventive care, not an afterthought. I look forward to that being reflected in the 10-year plan and, I hope, in the forthcoming men’s health strategy.
Better bladder and bowel care will save men, women and their families from stress, it will save children from shame and the feeling of being left behind, and, wonderfully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, it will save public money. It is a public good, and if we take this seriously, it will make a huge difference to a lot of people’s lives. Let us give this issue the attention it deserves and do right by every person who has been living with these conditions in silence for too long.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. A significant number of Members want to take part in the following debate, so we are playing “beat the clock”. I will not introduce a rigid time limit at this stage, but if Members could confine their speeches to no more than six minutes, we should get everybody in, get the Front Benchers in and give adequate time for the next debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome you to your place, Sir Roger; it is a pleasure to see you there again. It is a pleasure to speak on this issue as my party’s health spokesperson. I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for setting the scene so incredibly well.
The Patient and Client Council’s 2020 report “Accessibility and Quality of Continence Services in Northern Ireland”—I always give a perspective from Northern Ireland—estimated that some half a million people in Northern Ireland live with bladder control problems and some quarter of a million with bowel control problems, with many experiencing both. When we remember that Northern Ireland’s population is 1.95 million, it puts that figure into perspective. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that 61% of men in the general population experience lower urinary tract symptoms and some 34% of women live with urinary incontinence.
I commend the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for focusing on prostate cancer. It is one of those things that us menfolk do not wish to think or talk about. He is right: it is probably the wife who says to us when we have a pain somewhere, “Did you go and see the doctor about it?” We most definitely should go and see someone about it.
This debate is about raising awareness. It is not a topic that is openly discussed, as the hon. Member for Dudley referred to, because people often feel uncomfortable discussing their symptoms and problems given the personal nature of the issue—I have to say that I feel a tad uncomfortable as well. As a result, many suffer in silence or wait a long time before discussing their incontinence issues with a healthcare professional. Only 20% of those affected go on to seek treatment, with many maybe not recognising their issues at first.
Continence issues can be a significant contributing factor to social isolation. Whether we like it or not, many people will feel uneasy about these issues, so they will withdraw into themselves and seek to deal with their problems alone, which can prevent them from having a normal life. It is clear that we need to do more to remove any feelings of shame from continence issues, including by having a public conversation.
I am very thankful that my local council, Ards and North Down borough council—I served on Ards council at one time—provides sanitary bins in accessible toilets across the borough, including some male toilets. These bins are part of a wider initiative to make public toilets more inclusive, particularly for individuals experiencing incontinence or with stoma needs. This debate is also about those with stoma needs. I am surprised by how many people I meet who carry a stoma bag. They have managed to deal with that, but it is not easy—it scares the wits out of me, I have to say.
Ards and North Down borough council has upgraded 44 of its accessible toilets with features such as shelves, hooks, mirrors and bins to accommodate stoma care. My council has taken that action already. Additionally, the council is working to address the need for sanitary bins in all public toilets, including male toilets, where they are not currently a legal requirement. Ards and North Down borough council has already done that because it recognises that that is the right thing to do. The council did this at its own cost and on its own initiative—not because it legally had to but because it recognised the need. This helps to address the stigma, but it must be a UK-wide approach and not simply the decision of individual councils. We commend Ards and North Down borough council: it did that because it was the right thing to do, not because it had to do so.
One in five people are affected by these issues, and yet it is a silent topic, so it is good that we are speaking about it today with the compassion, the understanding and the carefulness that it requires. Inadequate management of incontinence can lead to escalating costs due to morbidity and unnecessary hospitalisation; those are the side effects. It is good to see the Minister for Secondary Care in her place, because she always responds helpfully to the questions we ask.
Some 6.5 million adults in the UK suffer with some form of bowel problem, so it is imperative that we do things better. One in 10 children will suffer from continence difficulties, whether it be bed-wetting, daytime wetting, constipation, soiling or difficulties with toilet training. The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) referred to that issue, and it cannot be ignored.
Improving catheter care in the community would reduce A&E attendance and hospital admissions, which fits well with two of the Secretary of State’s three shifts: hospital to community and sickness to prevention. Can the Government commit to implementing that in a co-ordinated strategy?
Colleagues have flagged the many changes that are needed, and I know these cannot be made immediately, but it is important that we move forward, that we have this discourse and that we dispel the darkness of shame and shine a light for those who feel isolated in the shadows. Today is the first step in this journey, and I look forward to participating in further journeys.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for bringing this issue to the House for debate. Unlike her, I am not an experienced health professional, so I will narrow my contribution to the issue of public toilets, their availability and their importance to those with incontinence.
There are people who did not go out last week and who may not go out today or next week. They are those whose trips are always challenged by the lack of, or uncertainty about the availability of, public toilets—not just those who are incontinent, but those who experience any sort of urgency: those with irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis; those who need to use the toilet more frequently because of age or pregnancy or because they are menstruating, have had prostate cancer, have stomas or other disabilities; and those who are caring for those with disabilities. Very few of us will not be affected by these vulnerabilities at some point during our lives, and we want our country to be one in which we are able to ensure dignity and the ability for those visiting public spaces to have access to public toilets.
Local authorities have powers to provide public toilets but no statutory duty to do so, and this lack of compulsion has contributed to the decline in the number of public conveniences. As a former local councillor, I know how stretched local authority budgets are, decimated through a long decade of austerity and the political decision to centralise funding. In my constituency, which encompasses the Lake District national park, we are very aware of the importance of good-quality public toilets to support tourism, and yet even there, at prime visitor sites such as the start of the Keswick to Threlkeld railway path—a fantastic facility for those with disabilities to enjoy the Lake district—there is insufficient money to provide public toilets.
Just two years ago, this House considered appointing a commissioner for public conveniences and making it a statutory duty for local authorities to have public convenience plans. I am not sure why something so simple would require the creation of a commissioner, but like so many plans under the last Government, it never came to pass. I ask the new Government to look again at establishing a statutory requirement on local authorities. In the meantime, I invite hon. Members across the House to lobby their own local authorities to ensure that they create, review and scrutinise public convenience plans, and make public spaces accessible to those for whom quality public toilets are the difference between inclusion and exclusion.
A recent survey by the Association for Public Service Excellence found that over a third of local authorities had reduced their provision of public toilets over the past decade. We know that provision had been declining even before then, but it is not all bad news. Half of the councils that responded in the 2024 survey did provide Changing Places toilets. I congratulate the campaigning organisation Changing Places, which has lobbied so long and so hard to seek provision for the quarter of a million people in the UK, and their families and carers, who have for so long been condemned to loneliness at home by the lack of accessible public toilet facilities.
The latest count of Changing Places toilets in the UK is 2,607. The campaign will have been instrumental in the 2021 building regulations requiring all new public buildings to put in large and well-equipped toilet facilities. Many local authorities have ensured provision in creative and economical ways, through community toilet schemes and payments or rates reductions for businesses that open their toilet facilities to the public. Local authorities can make planning permission, leases and premises licences subject to the provision of public toilets, and they can hand facilities over to community operators. These are not always suitable or appropriate substitutes for standard public toilets provided and maintained by the local authority, but as part of a portfolio of provision they help to increase access and often help to circumnavigate some of the issues of graffiti and inappropriate use that present problems for some communities.
I urge all hon. Members to engage with our local authorities and impress upon them how important it is for the public to be adequately provided with high-quality, well-maintained facilities. I look to Members participating in today’s debate to join me in calling upon this Government to draw up statutory measures. Providing public toilets that support the most vulnerable people in our communities should be a duty, not an option.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on securing today’s important debate. I have recently become the chair of the APPG for bladder and bowel continence care, and there is much to be done. As someone with a background in early years, I am sure that any parent of a young child will confirm that we are probably the people who talk about wee and poo the most in this world. They tell us vital health information—from the earliest days of having a baby, it is crucial. Bladder function is one of the signs of good health, and maintaining that through adulthood leads to the prevention of incontinence.
The importance of talking about wee and poo cannot be overstated. As any three-year-old will tell you, that is because it is funny. Wee and poo is the funniest topic in nursery classrooms up and down the country—and it is funny, right up until the point that it is not. When wee and poo stop being funny, it is devastating. It impacts on people’s mental and physical health, their dignity and their very independence. In some cases, it can prove fatal. It is also entirely preventable.
Sadly, poo and wee is not funny for around 14 million people who have continence and incontinence issues. That figure alone hides some of the issues of dealing with the enormous range of health conditions in the field of continence. The figure of 14 million is based on data gathered in 2018, and no recent data is available. Continence status data is not recorded as standard on entering the NHS. The scale of the problem is simply unquantifiable. The NICE guidelines have not been reviewed, and the findings of the 2017 report “Excellence in Continence Care” have not been fully implemented. We need a stronger mandate and a greater focus on training for incontinence needs across midwifery, dementia, cancer care and health visiting teams—literally from cradle to grave—and we need to provide that care in our communities to avoid the need for crisis interventions in A&E.
Today, I will highlight just a couple of the complications from failing to provide a robust continence service. Despite spending a large amount of my time surrounded by, and occasionally covered in, poo and wee, I did not arrive in Parliament intending to take on this role. I have been made aware for many years of the woeful lack of help for those with continence issues, the poverty caused by buying continence products, and the rationing of four pads a day. I have faced the frustration of parents who had no continence service in Warwickshire at all until May 2024. I have been aware of the trauma faced by parents, especially those whose children have special educational needs and disabilities, attending A&E with their child’s constipation, which had reached agonising and dangerous levels.
It was, however, Elissa and Ivan’s story that motivated me to take on my role, and campaign for more humane, systemic changes to prevent the worst impact of continence issues. So many simple things can be done to protect the dignity and independence, and improve the quality of life, of these 14 million people. When Ivan arrived at A&E, he was screaming and in pain. His stomach was distended and he was severely underweight for his age. He had spent months in pain, attending A&E around four times a week. He was discharged without treatment, but Elissa did not leave. She did not accept the shocking assessment from consultants that disabled children just scream. She pushed back and, with sheer luck, one of Ivan’s other consultants happened to see them and gave instructions for an X-ray. On the final day, they evacuated nearly 2 kg of stool from a 10 kg three-year-old child.
Elissa believes that that day saved Ivan’s life. Others have not been so lucky. In 2019, 19 people with learning difficulties died from constipation when under continence care. Out of all the deaths of people with learning difficulties, more than a quarter were also suffering from constipation and bowel issues that would be worthy of note. Unsurprisingly, we do not even hold the data for the wider population on these issues.
Continence and constipation issues are increasing in our younger population at a worrying rate, with a strong correlation between constipation, continence issues and neurodiversity. One in four of our children who start school is not yet ready to use a toilet independently, and on average, 2.4 hours of learning time is lost every day in supporting children going to the toilet. Toileting issues, even in nursery, cause embarrassment and anxiety, which often leads to functional constipation, damaging the bowel and causing lifelong continence issues.
Getting it right from the start is hugely important. Children with continence issues are often excluded from school activities and parents are required to take time off work. Consequently, ERIC, a charity that specialises in supporting children with continence issues, whose representatives are, coincidentally, here today to celebrate and draw attention to World Continence Week, note that in the 1980s, 83% of babies were out of nappies by 18 months. New research identifies the benefits of children who start potty training earlier and are out of nappies by 30 months, but the health visiting team numbers are at a disgraceful all-time low. That is a national shame, as are the outdated NICE guidelines.
The message is not getting through, and parents simply do not know where to turn for the right support, especially in places like Warwickshire where continence care was simply unavailable. Hospital admissions for childhood continence issues and constipation have increased by 60% in over a decade, with 44,000 children admitted this year alone. The decimation of health visitor numbers and school nurses, and the demolition of institutions such as Sure Start, leave carers and families without the infrastructure and support needed to train children to toilet independently, and for constipation to be recognised before it becomes life-threatening.
Increased data collection is essential, and the NICE guidelines need to be heavily reviewed and mandated in healthcare so that we can make savings in crisis teams. If we intend to move care to the community, and move from crisis to prevention, continence care has to be a central focus of that mission.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour, hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for securing this important debate, and for attempting to remove the stigma and silence that too often surrounds this key area of healthcare.
As has been mentioned, in the UK over 14 million people experience bladder leakage and more than 6.5 million people—around one in 10—struggle with bowel control. However, those figures are probably not a true reflection of the reality, as many individuals choose not to disclose their symptoms, often because of embarrassment or in the mistaken belief that incontinence is simply an inevitable part of ageing.
I want to talk about how women suffering from incontinence have been treated in the past, because we need to focus on the availability of proper treatment options for the future. For far too long, vaginal mesh surgery was widely accepted as the so-called gold standard to treat stress urinary incontinence in women. Between its introduction in 2008 and when its use was paused in 2018, it is believed that over 100,000 women in the UK underwent mesh implant procedures. Sadly, many of them were not properly advised about the alternative options available to treat stress urinary incontinence, such as the physiotherapist-supervised pelvic floor exercises that my hon. Friend mentioned, nor about the risks associated with using vaginal mesh, and some of them sustained life-changing injuries.
Before I became an MP, I worked as a solicitor specialising in representing women who had been affected by vaginal mesh implants and pursuing claims for compensation for them based on clinical negligence. I came across women who were left in constant pain, unable to work or participate in daily aspects of life. Their personal relationships were affected and their lives were changed forever by a treatment that was supposed to help them.
I commend the work of Baroness Cumberlege in her landmark July 2020 report “First Do No Harm”, which recommended that the Government should immediately issue a full apology on behalf of the healthcare system to the families affected by mesh. She also proposed setting up a scheme to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who experienced avoidable harm, and networks of specialist centres to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by mesh implants. A subsequent report by Dr Henrietta Hughes, released in February 2024 through the patient safety commissioner, recommended a Government financial and non-financial redress scheme for all those affected by mesh.
Looking ahead, it is critical that current recommended treatments for incontinence are subject to the highest clinical scrutiny and that we take steps to ensure that no more patients are harmed in the pursuit of quick fixes or one-size-fits-all solutions. At the heart of every treatment plan must be the dignity, safety and informed choice of the patient. Treatment must be tailored to the type and severity of each individual’s condition, not determined by cost effectiveness alone. Patient outcomes, not just financial metrics, must be central to how we define value in care for incontinence patients.
We must break the stigma surrounding the issue. A recent study found that around 40% of women had experienced urinary incontinence, yet only 17% of them had sought professional help. Poor continence care, as has already been mentioned, can lead to complications such as infections, social isolation and, in some cases, hospital admissions. Each of those outcomes is completely avoidable with early intervention and treatment, which is something that we must aim for in our healthcare system. Only by tackling the taboo, investing in better treatment pathways and listening to the voices of those affected can we ensure that people living with incontinence are able to access the support they need, and to do so with the dignity that they deserve.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on securing this important debate. It is great to have her experience of having worked as an NHS physio in the Chamber and she brings a unique perspective to the issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for mentioning the pelvic mesh scandal. Soon after my election as MP for Harlow, a number of women who are victims of the pelvic mesh scandal came to see me. Now, over a dozen women have approached me about it, and that is just in the Harlow constituency, so that gives us an idea about the huge number of women who have been affected by this terrible scandal.
I do not want to focus on the pelvic mesh scandal alone, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West did it far more justice than I would. Whether people are the victim of a national scandal or they have bladder and bowel issues for any of the other reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned, nobody should be made to feel embarrassed. Talking to the women who were victims of the pelvic mesh scandal, I was struck by the journey they went on. When they initially had bladder and bowel problems, they felt really embarrassed, and it was only when they got to the point where they were in almost constant pain did they feel that they could come forward. What a terrible situation for people to be so embarrassed that they feel that they cannot come forward to the GP. We have to end that stigma.
I was not going to do so, but as we are in a safe space, I have decided to mention my own experience of suffering from IBS as a young person. It was almost a joke when we went on holiday—“We must make sure we are near a toilet so that Chris can go.” Actually, that should not be a stigma; it is a medical condition and people should understand it, support it and give others the support to deal with it.
To show solidarity with those who suffer from bladder and bowel issues, urinary incontinence impacts an estimated 14 million in the UK. As many Members have said already, if people suffer from such issues, they should not think that they are the only person to be suffering from them. A quick maths calculation tells me that that equates to roughly 20,000 people per constituency, so a significant number of our constituents will suffer from those issues. The cost to the NHS to deal with these issues is roughly £5 billion a year, and I wonder whether that bill would come down if we gave confidence to people who suffer from them to come forward sooner.
I have alluded to some of the symptoms, but there is a loss of dignity and independence, and a sense of social isolation. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) mentioned people who no longer go out because they are embarrassed—what a terrible situation for them to be in, and one that is entirely avoidable, if we could help to reduce the embarrassment and stigma that people feel.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in asking the Minister about the collection of data on those impacted by the issue and supporting the need for a public health campaign. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for mentioning stomas. A young friend has a stoma and, having spoken to her about it, I am sure she would welcome ending the stigma associated with that.
I want to briefly mention women’s health. I recognise the vital contribution made by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) about the impact on men, but I welcome the fact that Health Ministers in this Government have championed the importance of health equality. I hear a number of stories from women in Harlow who feel that they are not taken seriously, and I hope that we can address that and that the Minister will respond to that in her summing up.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for bringing this hugely important debate to the House. I agree with sentiments raised by Members from across the House that this is the first step in ending the stigma. I hope we can work together to end the stigma and embarrassment; I know that this is just the start.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for bringing this debate—I cannot quite believe it is the first time that the House has debated this issue. I also fully endorse her suggested recommendations to improve bladder and bowel care, and I hope that the Minister will also endorse them.
As we have heard today, incontinence affects people of all ages across all communities. It is still shrouded in stigma and embarrassment, and it disrupts so many people’s daily activities, such as going to school, going to work, going out for the day, going out for the night and going on holiday. It really needs to be tackled at so many levels.
To echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), one way in which we need to address this issue is by ensuring that we have enough accessible toilets in public places, workplaces and schools with the necessary facilities, including sanitary bins for incontinence products for all users. In my constituency, we have just restored one of the sets of toilets in our main public park, Castle Park, after a justified outcry at their closure.
Adequate public toilet provision is just one response to this complex crisis but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, other measures are needed to tackle it. I again congratulate her on being the first person to bring this issue to public attention in the House, and I look forward to working with her on it.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this incredibly important debate; it has been absolutely wonderful listening to how it has been conducted. As has been said, this debate is often overlooked, and it is occurring in World Continence Week.
Bladder and bowel control issues are taboo and embarrassing, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for sharing his experience. He will not be alone, and I am sure there are many in this Chamber who have suffered the same thing, as have our constituents. We need to talk openly about this issue. We cannot hide it in silence as it affects so many people. One in three women in the UK have a urinary incontinence issue, and half of those are likely to suffer from it due to pregnancy, childbirth or hormonal changes linked to the menopause—another taboo topic.
Let us go through the stages and where some issues still remain. How are bladder and bowel control issues detected and diagnosed? I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for her expertise, but the University of Aberdeen has found that invasive bladder pressure tests, which are often painful and incredibly uncomfortable, are not necessarily necessary. Researchers have found that non-invasive testing, including the things that my hon. Friend has described, such as pelvic floor exercises, should be made more available to patients. That is just one of the issues.
Another issue is surgical implants. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his incredible expertise on this topic, and I thank him for the work he does to help to protect women. The complications that have affected hundreds if not thousands of women, who are rightly outraged, have been described as barbaric. We must do more to see that those women are compensated, but no amount of compensation will ever make up for the years of pain and physical and emotional damage. This issue needs to be treated with respect and care, and the treatment options need to be empowered, so that people feel they can be empowered to prevent these things from occurring. I pay tribute to the Boys Need Bins campaign, which I have spoken with—it has been absolutely incredible—because men too suffer from incontinence. We need bins in public spaces.
How can we help people to live their lives to the full? My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who is no longer in his place, made the point that austerity and cuts to local government mean that many public toilets have been closed. Thankfully, in my area of Gravesham, the local council has increased the number of public toilets, including by opening one by the bus hub, so that people know about them and can plan regular breaks if they are needed. We need to ensure that there are spaces so that people feel empowered and confident to leave their homes, because we cannot have more people who stand alone.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for raising this very important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and others mentioned the importance of greater and better provision of public conveniences. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to encourage cafés and other organisations in town centres to make better provision for people suffering from these issues? Perhaps some of the campaigns that have been alluded to can help to make those spaces available. They should by no means replace what public conveniences should do, but having such places in town centres can assist vulnerable people.
Dr Sullivan
I agree. The community toilet scheme in Gravesham has been a good success. However, the issue of course comes down to vandalism. Councils cannot see this as an easy way to cut money. It needs to be a statutory duty, so I support the bid of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway to make it a statutory duty to provide public toilets in those spaces.
No one deserves to be lonely or locked in at home, so I hope that this debate is the first step to opening the door. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for bringing this issue to the attention of the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this important debate and for outlining the issues so well in her opening speech, particularly the importance of breaking down the taboos surrounding incontinence and the social isolation that can result from it. I have carefully scribbled out the term “incontinence” all the way through my speech and hopefully replaced it with “bladder and bowel control issues”—forgive me if I have missed one.
I recognise the importance of prevention and specialist treatment. The hon. Member for Dudley highlighted the benefit to both individuals and taxpayers from investing in women’s health up front, and I echo that call. There have been lots of excellent contributions, but I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for raising the scandal of pelvic mesh implants. I thank him for highlighting that issue and the need for redress there.
Incontinence, or bladder and bowel control issues, can have a hugely detrimental impact on a person’s wellbeing and sense of dignity, as we have heard. Despite affecting millions of people across the UK, it is the subject of stigma, and the needs of those with bladder and bowel control issues are not properly considered in many aspects of life. All too often, people suffering from these issues are left without the right support, whether that is the uncomfortable bladder pressure tests that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) referred to, or the lack of access to sanitary bins in public and workplace toilets.
It has been widely assumed for many years that sanitary bins for men are not required in public toilet facilities. As we have heard, many millions of men are affected by bladder and bowel control issues. The absence of sanitary bins has a wholly unnecessary and damaging impact on their self-esteem, causing embarrassment and stress and, as we have heard, withdrawal from public places and the workplace. The cost is tiny but the benefits for those affected can be significant.
There has been progress in this area, thanks to the work of campaigns such as Boys Need Bins by Prostate Cancer UK, but there is much further to go. That is why it is crucial that we support all individuals with the condition by ensuring access to services such as public toilets and sanitary bins, as unfortunately that is not the case. Under the last Government, 19% of public toilet facilities—nearly 600—lost their local authority maintenance and funding between 2015 and 2021 alone. Liberal Democrat research from 45 councils found that the number of public toilets had fallen by 14% from 2018-19 to 2023.
Many local authorities are on the verge of bankruptcy and do not have the spare capacity for these vital services. Proper funding of local authorities to provide services such as public toilets and sanitary bins could make a truly meaningful difference for people with bladder and bowel control issues, and I hope the whole House will agree that these individuals deserve access to basic facilities.
There is also a clear need for more research into developing better treatments and mitigations for people suffering from bladder and bowel control issues. Crucially, these should avoid unnecessary discomfort or invasive procedures. As such, I support what the hon. Member for Gravesham has said. The University of Aberdeen has found that women with ongoing urinary incontinence can avoid invasive bladder pressure tests, and that non-invasive assessments work just as well in guiding treatment. An emphasis on respecting people’s dignity and reducing discomfort should be at the heart of how we approach the testing, treatment and mitigation of these issues.
We also know that these issues—particularly bowel incontinence—can place a significant strain on family carers carrying out personal care, who are often under-supported and suffer from ill health themselves. Many care requests go unmet; last year, the King’s Fund estimated that nearly a third of requests for local government funding result in no support for care at home. This means that there are many thousands of families struggling with the realities of caring for a loved one with bladder and bowel control issues, which can include not only feelings of shame and embarrassment —both for them and for their loved one—but difficulty with lifting and moving a family member to clean them, and in accessing the equipment necessary to cope. That is why dealing with the crisis in social care should be a top priority for the Government.
When the Secretary of State phoned me—and, presumably, the other national party health spokespeople —over the Christmas break to let me know that he was instigating the Casey review and cross-party talks to find a long-term solution to that crisis, I was hugely encouraged. Since then, the Casey review has been delayed, and the cross-party talks have apparently been cancelled. I must stress that each party giving its view to Baroness Casey is not the same as sitting in the same room and agreeing a long-term funding plan. The review’s terms of reference will not deliver meaningful reform until the next Parliament, and there is a huge risk that, again, nothing will be done by the Government of the day—in this case, despite them having a huge majority to achieve whatever they want. Meanwhile, the number of people needing care increases every year, and the step change required to transform the sector becomes larger and less politically palatable. As such, I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State and help him to recover the enthusiasm for change that he showed over Christmas, because he will have my full support.
However, there are simple steps that can make a difference now, such as hospitals working with family carers ahead of discharge to ensure that they are equipped to carry out heightened personal care needs. In many places, that support is not delivered, let alone ongoing support and meaningful respite care. Wait times for a continence assessment vary across the country—it can take weeks and weeks. Improving those wait times would ensure that the right care and equipment is available much sooner. There is also a chronic shortage of speech and language therapists, who can make a real difference in helping people with limited or no speech to more easily communicate when they need the toilet or want to be changed or washed. That is particularly essential in cases in which those people suffer from bladder and bowel control issues.
Incontinence is not properly reflected in how we organise paid social care. For instance, too often the pay for domiciliary carers and the time they are expected to care for any one person do not reflect the fact that someone’s need for care might vary hugely from day to day. Any embarrassment, frustration and discomfort for the person being cared for will only be made worse if their carers are rushed, stressed and overworked, and if spending longer at one house could mean that those carers are effectively having to work for free.
I also want to highlight the importance of good care in hospital settings. NHS England’s 2018 “Excellence in Continence Care” guidance states that
“pathways of care should be commissioned that ensure early assessment, effective management of incontinence, along with other bladder and bowel problems such as constipation and urinary tract infections and their impact on social, physical and mental well-being”.
I highlight this because my constituent Trevor Collins died on 21 May 2022 as a result of aspiration pneumonia and small bowel ileus, due to a small bowel obstruction caused by constipation. The coroner concluded that neglect at Royal Shrewsbury hospital and a failure to manage Mr Collins’ constipation contributed to his avoidable death. It is essential that healthcare settings follow the NICE guidelines that are in place, not only to preserve dignity but to prevent serious harm and—in the worst cases—even death.
Liberal Democrats recognise the seriousness of the issues surrounding all types of incontinence and bladder and bowel control issues, and the critical importance of ensuring that people with those conditions can live in dignity. The Minister will have heard the calls in my speech. I hope she will commit to repairing our broken social care system, reinstating cross-party talks and wrapping up the Casey review this year, so that we can make the reforms that are necessary for long-term stability in the sector and the dignity of all those receiving and providing care.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your place today.
It is an honour to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing it. Her speech included the wealth of experience that she brings to the topic, and I especially congratulate her on putting this issue so clearly on the agenda today in the House. It was a powerful and wide-ranging speech that demonstrated the wide range of issues and conditions that can lead to incontinence.
As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) told us earlier, incontinence is a condition that affects around 14 million people across the UK, yet too often it remains misunderstood, under-discussed and—worse still—dismissed. One in three women experience urinary incontinence, and half a million adults live with bowel incontinence. Incontinence does not discriminate; whether bladder or bowel, temporary or chronic, or mild or severe, it touches people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. It affects new mothers, people recovering from surgery, those with neurological conditions, the elderly, and even children. However, too many suffer in silence, held back by stigma, isolation, or the belief that nothing can be done.
Like other Members, I received some heartbreaking stories from my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Incontinence is a medical issue, not a personal failing. It is not something to be ashamed of; it is something to be addressed through compassion, awareness and proper care. The impact of incontinence can be profound. It affects people’s confidence, their work, their relationships and their mental health. That is why Continence Week, which we are currently marking, matters. We cannot expect people to reach out for help unless we first create a culture where they feel safe and supported in doing so. We also need to ensure that services are in place to respond when they do seek help. That means better access to continence nurses, urologists, and physiotherapists, such as the hon. Member for Dudley. It means investing in community support, and in research and innovation, and recognising that continence care is a core part of our health system, not an afterthought.
I therefore welcome the Government’s stated ambition to tackle inequalities in women’s health and to address conditions such as incontinence more seriously, but warm words and long-term ambitions are not enough when so many continue to struggle. For example, the “Excellence in Continence Care” guidance, first published in 2018, was a groundbreaking piece of work, but we now need clear next steps, funding and measurable outcomes. We must not allow this to drift for another seven years while millions suffer in silence.
Under the previous Conservative Government, we delivered real and lasting progress in this area. In 2022, we published England’s first ever women’s health strategy, a genuine turning point shaped by listening to more than 100,000 women’s voices. That strategy committed to trauma-informed care, expanded research and, crucially, improved the quality and accessibility of information on the NHS website so that women could make informed choices about their own health.
Under our leadership, women’s health hubs were launched with a clear mandate to exist in every integrated care system, bringing services closer to communities and breaking down barriers to care. We also ensured the creation of specialist mesh centres across England, delivering multidisciplinary, regionally-based care for women facing the severe consequences of surgical complications. At a recent roundtable I attended with lecturers from Bath University on mesh, Primodos and valproate, it was clear that there is still more work to do to support these women and to learn from the past. I thank the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for raising the mesh scandal so passionately earlier.
On incontinence, the Conservative Government backed National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for vital research into patient-reported outcome measures, empowering patients, improving clinical care and ensuring that the lived experience is properly reflected in decision making. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) so powerfully elucidated earlier, men are often forgotten in this area. On the Opposition Benches, we support any culture and any steps that will help men with incontinence. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, we men are pretty poor at going for diagnosis and treatment, and that needs to change.
The scale of the issue remains significant. Nearly half of women experience incontinence after childbirth and one in 10 experience faecal incontinence, yet only 17% seek help. That is often because they are told subtly or directly that it is simply part of ageing or the price of motherhood. That attitude was unacceptable then and must not be tolerated now. When a third of women suffer pelvic floor disorders after giving birth and still face barriers to care, when men living with incontinence are afraid to leave their homes, and when people are forced to depend on charities for access to basic hygiene products, it is clear that we have a public health problem that transcends mere inconvenience.
Will the Department commit to publishing an updated “Excellence in Continence Care” strategy this year, with clear timelines and accountability? Will we see dedicated funding to expand women’s health hubs further, so that continence care is a core service, not a bolt-on? Will the Minister also bring forward a plan for better health services for male incontinence? Will NHS England guarantee national consistency of access to continence services and products, ending the unacceptable postcode lottery? Will the Government protect and grow funding for continence research to improve treatments for men and women?
Finally, I pay tribute to the organisations, including Bladder and Bowel UK, Prostate Cancer UK and the Urology Foundation, that are breaking taboos and supporting patients so tirelessly, but it is not their responsibility alone; the Government must lead. We Conservatives made a start, and we now need the current Government to have the same urgency, ambition and delivery to ensure that these hard-won improvements are built upon so that no one is left to struggle in silence.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker; you have done an excellent job of making sure that all Back Benchers get to contribute to this afternoon’s important debate. I will have to cut some of my comments, but hopefully I will get to address everybody’s points. We are having this debate during World Continence Week, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on securing it. There could not be a more appropriate time to raise awareness of this issue.
Millions of men, women, young people and children are living with bowel and bladder problems. Incontinence is an issue that robs people of their dignity, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and for Harlow (Chris Vince), and too many suffer in silence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley rightly says, this subject is taboo, and I congratulate her on securing her first debate in the Chamber. It is great to have her expertise in this area.
All continence problems can be debilitating and life-changing. They affect a wide range of care groups, and can be a particular concern for older people. In recent years, public discussion and awareness has opened up. The advertising of products has become slightly more commonplace, helping people to normalise these issues, with which so many people live from day to day. However, we are still a very long way from being a society that supports people with incontinence to live without stigma.
As these issues affect people of all ages, we need to recognise that different approaches are required. We heard an excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who raised that point, as did the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about children, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) talked passionately about people with learning disabilities.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to managing incontinence, but dignity and compassion must be at the heart of the care provided. That is why we are introducing reforms to put the patient at the heart of the care pathway and the decision-making process around it. The 10-year health plan, and its focus on the three shifts needed to deliver a modern NHS—moving from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention—will benefit people at risk of developing incontinence and those already living with it. For example, preventing type 2 diabetes or helping people into remission will help to reduce the number of people who develop continence problems as they go through life.
We have heard many contributions about women’s health. NHS England has established a perinatal pelvic health service, which focuses on the prevention, identification and timely treatment of a range of issues antenatally and for at least 12 months after birth. The initiative aims to support women who experienced trauma during childbirth, including conditions such as urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan).
In addition to perinatal pelvic health services, continence services are provided more widely via women’s health hubs, and the core specification outlines that incontinence care is a key consideration for local organisations when establishing hubs. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for bringing his expertise and experience to this debate, and for supporting so many women. I know that in the last Parliament many Members of this House supported women through the horrors of mesh implants, and we are moving that issue forward.
By moving from sickness to prevention, the Government want to shorten the amount of time people spend in ill health and to prevent illnesses before they happen. Although prevention is extremely important, we must also ensure that those living with incontinence receive the best possible care, wherever they live. A key part of that involves the NHS providing high-quality guidance on how to care for people living with incontinence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published five guidelines on the management of urinary and faecal incontinence, which cover the management of urinary incontinence in people with neurological disease, the prevention and management of pelvic floor dysfunction, and pelvic organ prolapse in women. NICE has also published advice on a further 14 products for urinary incontinence, and on 12 products for faecal incontinence.
My Department has commissioned NICE to produce late-stage assessment guidance on one-piece closed bags for colostomies, and on intermittent urethral catheters for chronic incomplete bladder emptying in adults. These late-stage assessments will gather the views of clinical experts and patients to help NICE assess and compare the value of products in widespread use across the NHS. In addition to NICE’s guidance, the NHS must have regard to the “Excellence in Continence Care” guidance, published in 2018.
NHS England has also produced guidance on safer bowel care for patients at risk of autonomic dysreflexia, a serious medical condition that can affect people with spinal cord injuries. The guidance offers resources to support safer bowel care practice, and highlights the importance of implementing the excellent incontinence framework. In addition, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has professional standards relating to bladder and bowel nursing care. Its code places a strong emphasis on the principle of prioritising people, setting out the expectation that registrants should always respond to individual patient needs. NHS England is also developing a best practice catheter care pathway across all settings, which is to be completed by the end of this year.
The provision of suitable care, with the products necessary to deliver that care, is essential for minimising the physical harm related to complications and treatments for continence problems, which can lead to admission to hospital for extended lengths of stay. The NHS will commission pathways of care that ensure early assessment and effective management of incontinence, along with other bladder and bowel problems. These pathways will take account of the impact of urinary tract infections on social, physical and mental wellbeing to reduce expensive pad usage, high-cost complications, and unnecessary hospital and care home admissions.
As we have heard, our focus on the shift from hospital to community will drive more joint working in neighbourhoods between primary care, pharmacies, community healthcare and social care to help people manage incontinence at home. This will help them to access the right self-care and the right professional support so they are not passed from service provider to service provider. It will also reduce their need for emergency hospital admissions, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) made some excellent points about access to facilities, and I know he will keep pressing my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that issue. His points were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox).
As I stated at the outset, shifting care into community settings is one of our three shifts, and we will shortly be publishing the 10-year plan. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for bringing forward this debate to raise awareness of this important but often overlooked issue.
Sonia Kumar
I thank the Minister for her response, and I hope she takes forward my five recommendations. I also thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate; I hope they continue this conversation in their constituencies.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about men’s health and smashing the stigma. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) talked about her work on the all-party parliamentary group for bladder and bowel continence care, and she shared information about paediatric care and the lack of provision. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of the costs to the NHS of neglecting bladder and bowel conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) talked passionately about the high quality of care needed for patients and about the pelvic mesh scandal; my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke powerfully about dealing with bladder and bowel conditions at an early stage, and about prevention; my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned health inequalities and shared his personal experience; and my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) discussed the availability of public toilets.
Lastly, I thank everybody again, and I say this once more to those men, women, children and young people who are listening to the debate: you are not alone, and there is absolutely no shame.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of incontinence.
Water Safety Education
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call Darren Paffey to move the motion.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered water safety education.
May I begin by welcoming you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to secure this debate and all hon. Members who supported the application for it. The debate is particularly poignant because this week we mark the Royal Life Saving Society’s national Drowning Prevention Week. It is a timely moment to speak not just of tragedy, but of our responsibility and of opportunity.
Every year, over 300 people in this country drown, many of them just metres from safety. In the last three years alone, almost 150 children have lost their lives by drowning. That is the equivalent of five full classrooms of young people, their futures snatched away by accidents that in so many cases were preventable. As an island nation with coastlines, rivers, lakes and canals, we are surrounded by water. It is my privilege to represent the people of Southampton Itchen, a coastal constituency where we live alongside the River Itchen, Weston shore and Ocean Village marina, and the major port alongside Southampton water. The water makes our city what it is, but with that comes risk. So today I ask this House: are we doing enough to prepare our children for the island nation they are growing up in? The problem is clear and stark. Since 2020, over 1,700 people have drowned in the UK. Disturbingly, during that same period, the number of drowning deaths has doubled, with more than half these tragedies occurring in open water.
The national curriculum does currently require some practical training. Primary-age children should be able to swim 25 metres, use a range of strokes and demonstrate self-rescue techniques. But if that alone were enough, we would not be here today debating this issue under the shadow of so many lost lives. The policy on the national curriculum is, of course, welcome, but a policy is only as good as the difference it makes—so how effective is it? A Sport England report estimates that just 74% of children now leave school able to swim 25 metres. That is down since before the pandemic. The gap is one not just of ability either, but of social class. Only 35% of children from low-income families can swim 25 metres; compare that to 76% of children from more affluent backgrounds. The result is that children from the most deprived areas are twice as likely to drown.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for raising the important issue of teaching children to swim. Like me, he represents a coastal community. Two years ago in Hastings and Rye, the Silverdale primary school pool closed. Many children and parents miss that facility, and hundreds of parents have joined me in supporting the campaign to get the school pool at Silverdale back open. Does he agree that we need an increase in school swimming lessons and facilities, not their rolling back?
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend for making that salient point. I have no doubt that occurrences like the one we have heard about in her constituency are part of the reason why fewer children are now able to swim. I wish her every success in her campaign.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. I want to make a similar point to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore). A number of schools in my constituency have closed their pools over the past 20 years. When I grew up in Lewisham, I had access to a school pool. Does he agree that we need to work together on national policy to ensure that, although some school pools will still close, our young people can access their local leisure facilities at a discounted rate, through local government?
Darren Paffey
I thank my constituency neighbour for making that point. There is a great need to work in partnership. We simply do not have as many pools as we used to, be they local authority-run or within schools themselves, but we should be working towards either increasing the number where possible or sharing these vital resources in our communities.
Added to those inequalities, there are ethnic inequalities. Statistically, black children are three times more likely to drown than white children. Water safety education cannot be left to chance or to postcode. It is a vital provision for every part of an island nation such as ours and should not depend on the lottery of family income, school funding or private access to lessons.
Let me tell the House about Joe Abbess. Joe, from Sholing in Southampton, was a bright, responsible and fit 17-year-old young man. He was an ambitious trainee chef at the local college and worked part-time at Southampton football club. He was the kind of teenager that any parent would be proud of—someone who followed the rules and led by example. He was a caring and loyal friend, who was well known in his friendship group as the “dad” figure. On 31 May 2023, Joe and his friends went for a day at Bournemouth beach. They were swimming waist high in the sea as Joe, who was a strong swimmer, had done many, many times before. They were between the safety flags, in full view of lifeguards. But in an instant, a rip current turned their fun into tragedy. The water was very suddenly over their heads. Joe got into difficulty and was pulled further out into the water before disappearing beneath it. Eleven people were rescued from the water that day because of that rip current, and I commend the emergency services for their actions. However, tragically, Joe and 12-year-old Sunnah Khan did not survive.
The coroner reported that it was an accident—a devastating and fatal act of nature. However, the coroner also reported that rip currents can occur anywhere along the UK coastline at any time. How many people, especially children, know that? How many Members in this Chamber would understand, recognise and rightly respond to a rip current? On sunny days such as those we are enjoying at the moment, many will rightly want to enjoy our rivers and beaches. We must do everything we can to ensure that they can do so safely.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to bring up the issue of water safety education. Sometimes, even strong swimmers can unfortunately get into difficulties. Does he feel there is a role for Education Ministers and local councils to identify where the problems are, whether they are in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom or in our lakes? Unfortunately, some people have jumped into the lakes in my constituency without knowing there were obstructions in the water, to give one example. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be greater partnership work between the Department and councils to identify those problems, so that those who go swimming know exactly what to watch out for?
Darren Paffey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very relevant point he makes. I will come on to the issue of how we can ensure that education is locally targeted. Each of the situations we face in our constituencies will be that little bit different, so it is important that on top of a compulsory expectation there are locally targeted campaigns.
We would not let someone drive a car without first passing their theory test, so why do not we comprehensively and consistently teach our children about water safety before they enter the water to have fun? This is not about taking away that fun; it is about being aware of the hidden threats, and therefore having the power to do something about it.
I pay tribute to Joe’s mother, Vanessa Abbess, who I am pleased is present in the Gallery today. Ness has become a tireless campaigner, sending hundreds of letters to local schools, working with the Royal Life Saving Society and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and pushing for improved signage in Bournemouth. She brought her powerful story to Parliament earlier this week, when we established the all-party parliamentary group on water safety education. Ness has done all that in the hope that no other family should suffer as the Abbess family has.
The coroner’s report was submitted to the Secretary of State in October last year. The coroner said:
“An ideal opportunity to warn and inform all members of the public would be through educating children of the risks. The lack of providing education to children around these risks through the national classroom curriculum could lead to future deaths.”
The report also stated that
“urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths”
and that the Department for Education has
“the power to take such action.”
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s response to the coroner’s report, in which she committed to
“look carefully at what more can be done to support schools to provide water safety education to all pupils,”
and to
“give full consideration to including a requirement that all pupils should be taught about water safety, including the water safety code.”
I urge the Government today to uphold that commitment and to go further.
As has become clear, we need to do more than just teach swimming. As hon. Members have highlighted, access to pools is uneven, lessons vary in quality and duration, and too many children—especially in deprived or minority communities—are being left behind. The Department for Education states:
“All pupils should be taught to swim and how to be safe in and around water”.
Well, yes, they should, but is saying they “should” really enough? At this point, I do not believe so—we can and we must go further. We need to mandate classroom-based water safety education in every school.
I pay tribute to many people who have campaigned on this before, including Rebecca Ramsay from Chorley, who secured some concessions under the previous Government. However, she has recently said that changes are not coming quickly enough. For her son, Dylan, for Joe, for Sunnah and for too many others, I ask the Government to tackle this issue with the urgency that it deserves. The Royal Life Saving Society has already created high-quality classroom resources that are cost-effective and proven to improve children’s understanding and confidence around water. It reaches everyone—through its Water Smart Schools’ campaign, its Splash Safety at Your Pad campaign, and its lifesaving training, accreditation and awards—regardless of background or access to swimming pools. These resources offer a lesson for life. Let us not leave it to chance; let us bring those resources into the heart of our curriculum.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise that her responsibilities lie within education, included in the recommendations are some wider points that I ask her to convey back to Government. First, there is currently no Minister for water safety or drowning prevention in the UK despite having Ministers for fire safety, road safety and other preventable public dangers, and despite Scotland and Wales having dedicated water safety ministerial roles. Why does England not have such a role? The National Water Safety Forum and the World Health Organisation have both urged the UK Government to appoint such Ministers, and I echo that call today. The coroner noted that one in four children still does not receive any swimming education, and that number has almost certainly worsened since the pandemic.
Secondly, I ask the Government to commit to a national swimming and water safety strategy, based on up-to-date evidence about children’s access across this country to swimming lessons and water safety education. Thirdly, my major request is that when the national curriculum is updated, following the current review, and is then taught in every school as mandated in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, will the Government use that opportunity to enshrine water safety as a core, compulsory part of every child’s education? The point of the curriculum is not just to pass exams; it is to prepare our young people for life. If Labour’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, here is just about the greatest opportunity that we can offer them: the opportunity to learn and to live.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that there is more to this than just teaching children to swim? Hope Cove Life Boat in my constituency saves about 60 people from drowning every year, and many of them have been swept out to sea because of wind and tides. Understanding the nature of the sea and how dangerous it can be is crucial. It is not just about knowing how to swim, but about knowing how to survive at sea.
Darren Paffey
I fully agree with the hon. Lady. As I commended the emergency services that rushed to the scene on that fateful day in Bournemouth, I commend the project that she has mentioned in her constituency.
In closing, no child should drown simply because they were not taught how to recognise the dangers. It is essential to teach children how to swim, yes, but it is not enough; we must teach them how to survive in different contexts. The coroner’s warning was chilling in its clarity:
“Further deaths will occur unless action is taken.”
So today I ask the Government please to act now and make classroom-based water safety education a compulsory part of the national curriculum, not an optional extra, not a postcode lottery, but a guaranteed lifesaving entitlement for every child in every school, in every constituency, in every part of the country. The time to act is now, before any more lives are lost.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. This is a very important subject. There are some 14 Members at least who wish to contribute to the debate. Allowing eight minutes each for the wind-ups and a couple of minutes for the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I think we are looking at a time limit of about five minutes each. I will not set a formal time limit at the moment, but if hon. Members try to stick to that, we should get everybody in.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I take your steer on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this debate, and I declare an interest as a new vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety.
Members will know that there will always be moments in our careers that will forever be etched in our memories. We can only hope that they are moments of joy, but sadly I am here to talk about a moment of tragedy. That moment was on 11 December 2022, which I will always remember. This moment of great tragedy impacted my constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. On that day, four young boys were playing near Babbs Mill Lake, which had been iced over. They were: Finlay Butler, eight years old; Samuel Butler, his brother, six years old; Thomas Stewart, 11 years old; and Jack Johnson, 10 years old. They were playing near the ice, feeding ducks. As the coroner later reported, Jack was with one group, and Finlay, Sam and Thomas were playing together with another group.
One of the boys decided to go on to the ice. It was Finlay who fell in first, and then Thomas and Jack tried to help. Sadly, nobody saw Samuel fall in. The boys were shouting for help, but the witnesses could not reach them in time. I pay tribute to the emergency services, who reached the location within 11 minutes. They ignored their own safety advice, taking off their body armour and taking out their batons, and they used their fists to try to break through the ice. One officer who jumped in was neck-deep in the water and had to be treated for cold water shock. As the coroner and the police reported, any moment longer and we could have had another tragedy on our hands.
The water was too deep, and sadly none of the boys survived. What strikes me is the suddenness of this tragedy. That is why I am talking about it today. I suppose all tragedies are sudden, but this was 11 December, two weeks before Christmas. I am not sure any of us can fathom what the parents of the two brothers or the families of the others went through, and I do not know whether they will ever be able to come to terms with it.
What happened is particularly important to my communities in north Solihull, because in Kingshurst, Fordbridge and Smith’s Wood, which used to be in my constituency, the community came together. I remember going to the vigils and tributes in the week after. These boys were massively central to their school communities and the wider community, and I could see how much pain and hurt they were going through. Everyone came together, and the collective grief, pain and sadness has stayed with me. I am reminded of it every year, because sadly every Christmas I still hear of children playing on the lake when it is iced over. As the coroner reported, the temperature that day was around 5°C. I remember where I was, and it felt a lot colder. The water was a lot colder than 5°C.
The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen talked about education being key, and I agree with all the requests he made. I want to put on record that I will work very closely with him on this, because I believe it to be a cross-party issue—it is certainly not a partisan issue. Cold water shock is something that I knew very little about. The coroner said that within minutes the boys would have suffered fatal brain damage, which is what happened.
When the tragedy happened, I remember coming to the House having done lots of media interviews. I remember after one interview, when the story broke that one of the children had just perished, Members across the House came to pay tribute to the communities in north Solihull. That included the Prime Minister, who within minutes of the story breaking had called me to find out whether there was anything that could be done. He also paid tribute to the communities at Prime Minister’s questions.
For me this is a really personal debate, because I see the pain when people in Solihull talk about this incident. There is not anyone in the midlands, or across the country, who when I talk to them about the four children does not remember what happened. When I was talking to Members about why I would be speaking today and about those four lads who passed away in Solihull, it was clear that everyone remembers what happened.
Ultimately, this issue comes down to education. I wrote to Sir Nick Gibb in the previous Government and spoke to him about trying to update the curriculum, but sadly we were not able to get that done. I wrote to the Education Secretary a few months ago and did not get a response, so I hope the Minister can give me some indication of action in this area—or perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen when he winds up can do so. This issue is so important, and I know that the Minister agrees. I am really keen to ensure that we get the curriculum changed, so on behalf of my families in north Solihull and the families of Finlay, Sam, Jack and Thomas, will the Minister please work to ensure that we avoid these tragedies in future?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this debate.
Water safety education is particularly important for my constituency of Oxford East, for several reasons. We have many bodies of water in Oxford, which can be very cold, as in many other constituencies, because of hidden depths; we also have, in many cases, poor access for rescue vehicles; and many of those bodies of water contain submerged obstacles. We also have in Oxford a young population that is exuberant and fun-loving. Of course that is a wonderful thing, but celebrations in my city too often turn to tragedy, as we saw most recently with promising student Wesley Akum-Ojong. I regrettably cannot mention every tragic case from Oxford, but I mention him because I understand that he had aspired to become Britain’s youngest Prime Minister, and I have to say that, judging by his many achievements, I do not think it would have been long before he would have been elbowing us out of the way. He was an incredible young man. I pay tribute to him, and to his friends and family, and to all those who have lost loved ones in my city from drowning.
Oxford is also highly prone to flooding, and it is often difficult for people to assess how deep floodwater is and where obstacles are submerged. Better education about the potential dangers of the water is imperative. It needs to be part of a broader suite of initiatives, from effective signage to access to supervised swimming, like Oxford city council’s free swimming programme for under-16s, and—where required and feasible—physical restrictions.
There is in my city—I am sure this applies in other constituencies represented here—a vigorous debate over the rights of wild swimmers to access waterways that have been deemed to be unsafe. I understand wild swimmers’ contention that they will often be swimming together, that they do not tend to dive into the water, and that they are experienced swimmers; but they are, of course, still at risk, including from effluent discharges and algal blooms. In any case, I would urge anyone considering wild swimming to consult the Environment Agency’s information on water quality, and above all, to educate themselves about the dangers of the water, even if they think they are experienced. Because no matter how experienced a swimmer is, if they are in unsupervised waterways with the water temperature below 16° they could experience cold water shock, or the other hazards I mentioned.
The chair of the National Water Safety Forum has said that
“drowning can occur anywhere and to anyone”.
So far, in Oxford, we have seen particular efforts from the Oxfordshire fire and rescue service to educate people about the dangers of the water. That has been really positive, along with the water safety code, and simplified messages such as, “Call, tell, throw” and “Float to Live”. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen spoke passionately about ensuring that our schools are always reinforcing that message. As he said, water safety and swimming are mandatory within PE in primary school, but that is subject to problems of access and disparities related to social class and ethnicity.
Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review for the Government has shown that it is difficult for many schools to prioritise PE because of the accumulated challenges that they face; there is a particular issue at key stage 4. I hope that, as she works towards the full review, she can look at the specific issue of water safety in more detail. I also hope that the Government will consider it carefully—I know that the Minister would want to be doing that—as they are reviewing the relationships, sex and health education draft statutory guidance. I know that organisations in Oxford are really keen about that, so that they can have a joined-up approach with local schools, with better signage information and so on.
Finally, it is really important, in undertaking this work, that wherever possible young people themselves are included in the conversation, because they know what will be most effective, a lot of the time, with their peers. I believe that one of the most effective measures in my city is a striking memorial painted to Hussain Mohammed, a 15-year-old who died after jumping from Donnington bridge in 2012. Very sadly, he is not the only person to die from that cause. Thirteen years later, that bridge still features the touching mural that reminds people of Hussain and hopefully recalls the need to stay water-safe.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate today. As we have heard, every year in the UK, more than 200 lives are lost to accidental drowning. In fact, it claims more lives each year in the UK than house fires or cycling accidents. That must be a wake-up call.
We have an opportunity and a responsibility in this House today to bring those numbers down. The problem is as clear as it is urgent: too many people grow up without being taught how to stay safe around water. Swimming must be a core life skill, as we have heard, and yet, according to the Royal Life Saving Society UK, one in three children leave primary school unable to swim properly. That statistic should concern us all. Of course, children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are most likely to miss out. In other words, those at greatest risk are the least protected.
This is not just about learning to swim, although that is essential; it is about knowing what to do when things go wrong—when someone panics, when cold water shock sets in and when every second counts. Every summer, every bank holiday and every heatwave, like this week, the risk increases. Rivers, lakes, canals and coastlines become magnets for young people and far too often, lives are lost.
My constituency of Esher and Walton has seen three tragic drowning deaths in the past four years. Two of them occurred during the fierce heat of the summer of 2022—a heartbreaking testament to the risks that rise with each heatwave. These are tragedies with unimaginable pain for the families and profound effects for schools, emergency services and the wider community. As a river- based constituency, we owe it to our residents, visitors and local businesses to prioritise water safety. The risks are all around us, particularly this week. The Thames threads through our towns, the River Mole runs through our parks, and reservoirs sit at the heart of our communities. Addressing the root causes is so important.
One of my constituents, Nell Hickman, took up the cause by leading a local water safety campaign along a stretch of the Thames between Thames Ditton and Hampton Court, which I have heard referred to by school children as the Barbados of south-west London. Determined to prevent further tragedies, Nell partnered with the RNLI, Elmbridge borough council and other stakeholders. Together, they installed safety signage and emergency throwlines. They also expanded water safety training, advising swimmers to stay parallel to the riverbank instead of swimming across the River Thames. That is a powerful example of community-led action, backed by the right support, saving lives.
There is more that we can do. The RNLI plays a vital role in my constituency and I pay tribute to its tireless work. Some schools in Esher and Walton are already leading the way by teaching key life skills through personal, social, health and economic education and citizenship. However, we must do more to ensure that water safety is embedded in our children’s education, especially in areas such as mine, with rivers and open waters.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am greatly pleased that this debate is taking place. In my constituency and within Somerset and North Somerset—the whole of Somerset—there are 8,463 miles of rivers, reans and streams which, from Somerset, would take us as far as Singapore. That level of water coverage presents a danger not only for those who swim and need to be taught to swim, but for young people, who should understand very clearly what to do should the vehicle in which they are travelling goes into water. There are specific rules around how to save ourselves if the car or vehicle we are in goes into water. Does my hon. Friend have a comment about that?
Monica Harding
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing attention to vehicles going into the water. In my constituency, the Thames provides our border with London, so it stretches along the entire constituency, and of course cars could go into the river.
In areas like ours where rivers and open water are a daily part of life, it is essential that our children are taught how to be safe in the water. Would the Minister consider ensuring that water safety is integrated into the secondary school curriculum, so that every young person leaves school equipped with these essential skills for their safety? It is now—in a heatwave when GCSEs and A levels have just finished—that our children are most at risk. I know that because this week I sensed that my 16-year-old after finishing his GCSEs was going to do just that, and it took all my parental bribery, frankly, to ensure that he did not.
Organisations like the Royal Life Saving Society, alongside the RNLI, provide expert guidance, from recognising dangerous currents and raising awareness of cold water shock to assisting people in distress in the river. By working with those partners, we can build a generation that is not only confident in the water, but capable of saving lives. These are not just water safety tools; they are universal lifesaving skills that can make all the difference in emergencies of all kinds.
Countries like Australia rightly treat water safety as a national priority. Children grow up surrounded by water there, so they are taught how to navigate it, just as our children are taught to wear seatbelts and how to cross the road. The UK, an island nation flowing with rivers, should be no different. Let us work towards a future where fewer families face heartbreak and finally make water safety a priority.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate. I also thank Michael Wardle, who is a Royal Life Saving Society UK lifeguard, and his team at the Helly Hansen watersports centre in Salford for their dedication to saving lives in Salford. I had the pleasure of meeting them, and their passion for educating about water safety was inspiring.
In Salford Quays, countless lives have tragically been lost as young people head to the water, unaware of the dangers within. It is a ship canal, so it is incredibly deep and littered with underwater obstacles. The area is now monitored by CCTV cameras and joint council and police patrols in hot weather. Under-18s caught jumping from bridges or illegally swimming will receive a police warning, and adults will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. But that still does not stop people crowding to the quays on days like today, looking to cool off or have fun with their friends. The sad thing is there are supervised open swimming areas in the quays—areas that can offer a safer swimming environment, but they are only open at limited times and are not free, which bars too many young people from them. There is one simple thing that the Government could do to ensure that my constituents are safe, and that would be to provide just a little funding to open up these supervised lifeguarded swim areas to the public for free and for longer during the summer months. That way no young person is tempted to risk their life in dangerous areas when they can have full access to a supervised one.
Secondly, as we have heard, water safety education is critical. While it is a statutory requirement that children are able to swim 25 metres by the time they reach year 7, evidence sadly suggests that the number of children receiving swimming lessons is declining. In 2024, the Royal Life Saving Society estimated that over 140,000 children left primary school without these vital lifesaving skills. There are also inequalities in those statistics. Staggeringly, Sport England found that 50.4% of children from low-income families could swim 25 metres in year 7, compared with 85.8% of high-income families. Barriers to the statutory provision include limited pool access, transportation costs, logistics, staff shortages and cultural and religious barriers. It is critical that the Government secure water safety education on the national curriculum for England as a statutory requirement, but also that they ensure schools are provided with dedicated ringfenced budgets so they can meet that requirement.
Thirdly, I would like to draw attention to a quite staggering fact. I met my local fire service in Salford recently and learnt of the amazing work its dedicated firefighters do to save lives and keep us safe. I met the water response team, which I thought—naively, like much of the general public—was just part of its service. It is not. They do it because they are good people, not because they are funded to or required to. While there is a public perception that the fire and rescue service is responsible for responding to water rescue incidents and engaging in water safety education and prevention, there is no statutory duty on it in England to do so. However, statutory duties do exist in Wales.
The fire and rescue service responds to 999 calls and inland water rescue incidents using its existing general powers and resources. It scrimps and saves from existing budgets to try to resource the lifesaving equipment it needs, rather than that being allocated. As a result, the resource and the coverage are patchy, and firefighters often train in water safety on their own time.
I call on the Government to urgently adopt the National Fire Chiefs Council recommendations on this issue: to consult on establishing a statutory responsibility in England for inland water rescue response and prevention; to provide capital alongside continuous funding to support any new statutory duty introduced; to establish a clear lead Department with accountability for water safety prevention, mirrored at local authority level; and to update the reporting requirements of the incident recording system to more accurately record water-related deaths and injuries.
To conclude, no parent should ever receive that phone call and no person should ever needlessly lose their lives when the asks on Government are so simple. I hope the Government will do all they can to urgently implement the measures that I and others have outlined.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing the debate—he genuinely is an hon. Friend. We served together on Southampton city council, we have both been education lead members, and now we are constituency neighbours. I know that he consistently stands up for the great people of the great city of Southampton, and in particular the constituents he has mentioned today. I pay tribute to Joe’s mum for the work she has already done and the work she will do in future to make sure we lose fewer people on our waterways across the country.
Although the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and I share Southampton Water, which is the busiest part of the waterways around and into Southampton, I also have in my constituency the entirety of the River Hamble, which comes off Southampton Water. The River Hamble is internationally known as one of the most difficult rivers to navigate for our sailing and boating community. It is known as an international sailing hub but also as one of the most difficult tidal waterways to navigate across the world.
We saw that, unfortunately, in 2020, early in my career here as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which is in the same area. Emily Lewis, who was on a fast boat in the Solent, was tragically killed after being catapulted out of it when it hit Netley buoy. She was travelling at 44 mph, and two charges were eventually made of manslaughter and failure to ensure safe navigation against the person who chartered the boat.
The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen is absolutely right that we need to have water safety education. I put it to the House and the Minister that we also need to have proper education for not only those who enter the water through our seasides, lakes and rivers, but also people who use the water on a daily basis. As I said, we have the whole of the River Hamble in the constituency of Hamble Valley, and a vast array of people use our rivers and Southampton Water—sailors, motorboaters, kayakers, paddleboarders and rowers. Many people use the river, as they should be able to, because that is intrinsic to the identity of those who grow up and live in my constituency. Given the hot weather this weekend, I intend to go out on the Hamble on Saturday to kayak, but I am aware of the intrinsic dangers of a river such as the Hamble. It is vital, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, that we educate from a very early age.
I also want to outline and make colleagues aware of the role of our independent lifeboats. Hamble lifeboat in my constituency has already been called out over 60 times this year. We must raise awareness of these services, because they play a very important educational role for many people in our constituencies. I was delighted to be a founding member of the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which looks after our independent lifeboats, alongside our former colleague Anthony Mangnall, who was the Member for Totnes. I encourage all Members who represent areas with independent lifeboats to get in touch with NILA and to raise awareness of water safety.
The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen highlighted the key variations in access to swimming pools and water education. As I indicated in my intervention, we will both be aware, from our time leading the education system in Southampton, of the number of schools there that have had closures. This is not a political point at all, because we have both been in control of the Administration, and we have had national Governments of different colours, but he will be aware of a reduction in funding for our education system from local authorities, whereby many schools have had to close their pools.
Partnerships that allow kids to be taken to local leisure centres for school lessons have been reduced as well. I remember being a young person—I used to be young once—growing up in Lewisham. The council school bus would come and take me to Lewisham swimming baths every week for a two-hour swimming lesson. That has diminished, and it is vital that we work on a cross-party basis to get swimming lessons and water education delivered to people across the UK.
As I said, this is not just about young people. A brief story: a couple of summers ago, I was out on my kayak when I saw an older gentleman clinging to a kayak in very cold water. He had lost his energy and would have died that day, had I and my friend Jerry not gone past and rescued him. He was not wearing a life preserver, he was very cold, and he was running out of energy, clinging to his kayak. We managed to take him out of the water and save him, and get him medical attention. Frustratingly, such things still happen, which is why any measures taken forward by the Minister need to be attentive to not only young people but all users of the rivers and waterways across the UK.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and all Members who will speak in today’s debate. He has my commitment, alongside that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and, I am sure, the shadow Minister, that this is a cross-party issue that we all need to work on. I wish the hon. Member well in his endeavours.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing the debate, and for all the extremely important work that he is doing on this issue. I extend my compliments to his constituent in the Gallery, who we heard at the APPG earlier in the week. Given the circumstances, her campaign is extremely brave, and her words were very inspiring, so I wanted to put my tribute to her on the record too.
I come to this debate because of a situation that occurred within my constituency of West Ham and Beckton very recently, which received quite a lot of press publicity. I do not intend to go into the details—it is still a very fresh event—but I lost an 11-year-old constituent in the River Thames earlier in the spring. That was a huge trauma for her family, and I put on the record—I know the whole House will share in this— my deepest condolences to them. I also extend my congratulations and thanks to the emergency services, search and rescue, and actually local people who stepped in to try to help on that occasion, which obviously had a huge impact on the community too.
This debate is very pertinent for my constituency because I am surrounded by water in east London: I have the Roding to the east, the River Lea to the west and, significantly, the River Thames bordering the south of my constituency. I also have huge amounts of dockland, including the royal docks, which are a very large open space of water, built at a time when we had a lot of shipping. With that comes a lot of open wharves and causeways, many of which are still in use, which is another aspect of water safety. We have reserved industrial spaces, and education is needed on that. People often forget that lots of the Thames is still a working river. We have a lot of industry. At my end, Tate & Lyle and Tarmac use large shipping, in addition to all the other boats that go up and down the river.
Education is therefore hugely important for where I am, including education on safety and a wide range of things. We need to take advantage of the huge opportunity to work with schools, youth clubs, community groups and young people’s groups to try to get that education across. I am lucky to have active sea scouts and sea cadets in my area; those groups touch only a small number of people, but there are people out there who can deliver such education.
I am of an age that I can remember public information films made by the Central Office of Information. That disappeared in 2012 and we do not have the same sort of programming—I see some smiles around the Chamber from Members of a similar age who remember such things. I was taught to cross the road by Kevin Keegan; I remember it was Jimmy who threw his frisbee into the pylon, so I did not do that; and it was the Spirit of Dark and Lonely Water who warned us about still pools. The fact that I can remember all that 40 years down the line—if hon. Members are interested, many such films are now online and often seen as nostalgia—shows that that type of campaigning works because it sticks in the mind.
We seem to lack a national campaign on such issues. Ironically, those campaigns happened in a pre-digital age, but they lend themselves to the age we now live in, with social media, TikTok and all the rest of it. We could produce information to share with schools and youth groups, so that they could take advantage of such a campaign. I hope that we get back to being able to produce such campaigns that could be widely shared, so that children will remember and tell their children further down the line.
A second issue that I would like to touch on, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) but is outside the scope of the Minister for Education, is about statutory duty. At the APPG meeting this week, we were told by a fire chief that there is a lack of statutory duty, which seems like a gap in our services. There have been a number of incidents on waterways in my constituency, both accidents and, sadly, suicide attempts, where the fire brigade attended. The London Fire Brigade is always absolutely magnificent—it turns out and does an exceptional job. However, the fact that there is no statutory duty seems to be a gap to me, so that is an important change that needs to be made.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) talked about the weather that is currently forecast. The marine policing unit of the Metropolitan Police Service, which receives over 2,000 calls a year on water safety, highlights that the risk grows in the summer and in hot weather. Certainly, near me, at the Royal Victoria Docks, we have children jumping in all the time, so this is a pertinent debate now, and as we move into the summer, with the hot weather, the issue is pressing.
I will finish with a couple of asks for the Front Bench. Can we look at how we can put in place a comprehensive education programme, working with schools but also on a national level, perhaps taking advantage of modern technology? Can we also look at the need for a statutory duty for fire and rescue services, so that it is enshrined in law, as perhaps people expect it is not, but it is not at the moment? By doing that, hopefully we can take a couple of steps towards ensuring that no family has to go through the kind of incident and heartbreak that my constituents saw earlier this spring.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate. Shrewsbury is famous for being looped by the beautiful River Severn. It is a source of beauty, nature, tourism and livelihoods for my town, but also, unfortunately, the scene of 14 deaths in the last 10 years. Overwhelmingly, those deaths occurred at the weekends or in the evenings, by men, sometimes after a night out or because of mental ill health, and sometimes because of those two factors combined.
In April 2022 there were two river deaths in quick succession: Toby Jones and Nathan Fleetwood. Those deaths brought the town together, to say that we had had too many such deaths and that we needed to look at the issue as a community to see what could be done. Our local stakeholders and councils came together and launched a water safety campaign. They set up the new Water Safety Action Group, funded by West Mercia Police. We set up safer route signage along the river; got funding for increased solar lighting and rescue throw lines; set up free online water safety courses for schools, colleges and clubs; and we had a poster campaign in pubs and clubs.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) will be delighted to hear that we created videos, to be broadcast in pubs and put out on social media, that told the story of what could go wrong. We also educated bar staff about not overselling alcohol, when too much is too much, and we trained them in mental health response, working with our street pastors. We had free training from the RNLI on waterside response schemes, helping our local businesses. We got funding for CCTV, and we set up the Shrewsbury rangers scheme and taxi marshals to help people to get home safely late in the evening. I am really proud of my town—of how we took this issue on and said, “We don’t want this to happen in Shrewsbury.” I am proud to the House that the number of deaths has reduced slightly.
I pay tribute to our local stakeholders, who responded so quickly and thoroughly to what we considered to be an emergency, and supported our local community. I thank Shropshire council, Shrewsbury town council, our business improvement district, West Mercia police for its funding and support, our street pastors, the fire and rescue service and our local residents’ “Make Our River Safer” Facebook group. Together, as communities, we can help to move the dial.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for leading this debate on an incredibly important issue—one that is felt by myself and many constituents. It was only a few weeks ago, at the end of May, that two children entered the River Thames in Gravesend. One child was thankfully rescued, but one young girl tragically lost her life. It was an incredibly heartbreaking accident, and I pass on my deepest condolences to her family, her friends and the community. I cannot imagine the pain of their loss—similarly to so many Members who have shared their stories today.
I place on record my gratitude to those who worked so hard in the efforts to save that young girl’s life and have supported our community through this difficult time, including the coastguard, the RNLI, the Port of London Authority, Kent police, the emergency services and the passerby who, on seeing that the young girl was in trouble, jumped in to try to save her; they did indeed save the little boy at that time. The work that these organisations do is commendable and invaluable to the residents of Gravesham, who are on the River Thames.
The River Thames often looks calm and tranquil on its surface, but underneath the rips and currents are incredibly dangerous. We are lucky to have the RNLI station and the Port of London Authority in Gravesend, which chaperone the hugely busy motorway of boats up and down our city. The RNLI is an excellent charity, and I thank it for its hugely important educational work; its volunteers are incredible. I cannot fail to mention, as other Members have mentioned, those choosing to use bridges to take their lives; we must do all that we can to stop those who feel that that is the only option. I thank the RNLI, the Port of London Authority and even the Thames Clipper for saving some of those people and hopefully giving them another chance at life.
Learning to swim from a young age is incredibly important, and it is great that it is on the national curriculum, but I hear and stand with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen when he says that we can do more in this space. For those swimming in the Thames—certainly near Gravesend—that will not be enough, so those public awareness campaigns, especially through social media, will be crucial.
We must avoid future tragedies and deaths, so I urge the Government to work closely with local authorities, emergency services and other organisations to identify these black spots along our rivers and coastlines and see where further safety measures are needed. Our community in Gravesham has been shaken by this recent tragedy, and we owe it to all those who have lost their lives in similar circumstances to take every possible step to prevent such accidents in the future.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen for bringing this incredibly important issue to the House today. I am proud to stand in support of greater awareness, investment and collaboration to improve water safety across the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I suggest that we have a four-minute time limit to get everybody in?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing today’s debate, particularly during Drowning Prevention Week. I will speak of not just the risks of wild and open-water swimming, but the enormous benefits that it can offer when done safely and responsibly.
Specifically, I would like to address concerns about the lake at the former Shoal Hill quarry—which is in the neighbouring constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge—and about Chasewater reservoir. Although that reservoir falls within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), it is a much-loved site that is frequently used by many of my constituents, particularly those in my home village of Norton Canes. They feel a very strong sense of ownership over what was, for many years before a rebrand, known as the Norton pool. My hon. Friend had hoped to be here today, but due to constituency commitments, he has not been able to join us for this debate. However, he shares the concerns I will raise about Chasewater in his constituency.
As the evenings grow longer and the days get warmer, places such as Shoal Hill quarry and Chasewater become popular destinations for families seeking to cool off. Appealing though it may be, the risks of swimming in dangerous bodies of water can strike anyone. They including cold water shock, currents that drag people down due to the depth of the water, rip currents that drag people away from the shore, a lack of safe exits from the water, cuts caused by hidden objects underwater, a lack of preparation or ways to call for help, and aftershock. Being safe and well prepared before swimming is crucial. According to the National Water Safety Forum, an average of 19 people a year drown when swimming in open water, and I know that every Member in the Chamber today would want to make sure that none of our constituents becomes one of those 19.
Tragically, six years ago, a 21-year-old man drowned in Chasewater while saving a nine-year-old girl from the water. His bravery should not be forgotten, nor should the circumstances that led to such a loss. From memory, I believe that this incident involved an inflatable like the ones used in swimming pools, which—in deep water and with high winds—was pulled some 30 to 40 metres out into the reservoir. However, later that summer and in summers since, we have again seen young children on inflatables in Chasewater. I know I might come across as being a killjoy, but this is genuinely a threat to life, especially for children. As such, I take this opportunity to urge my constituents not to swim in Chasewater—unless it is with an open water swimming group, which I will come to later.
At Shoal Hill quarry near Cannock, too, it is simply not safe to enter the water. Risks lie hidden beneath the surface, including sharp debris, submerged machinery and toxic contaminants. Weed beds and rubbish create an unforeseen web of entanglement, while sheer sudden drop-offs along the quarry floor can turn a step into a deadly fall. But this is not about discouraging people from enjoying the outdoors—quite the opposite. When open water swimming is done properly, it can be incredibly rewarding. People can stay safer while open water swimming by checking the weather, being aware of where to exit the water, making sure they have kit prepared, wearing a brightly coloured swimming cap, and knowing their gear.
Chasewater’s open water swimming groups offer one-to-one coaching, compulsory tow floats, and the National Open Water Coaching Association’s safety system. That wristband system allows immediate access to emergency details. With safety and training of this kind available, people can enjoy open water swimming and trust that they will be safe while doing so. I also pay tribute to all the other businesses and groups that provide safe activities on Chasewater, including Chasewater Activity Centre, Chase Watersports Centre, Pier 52 Watersports and the Chase Sailing Club.
With the beautiful hot weather upon us, it is vital that we continue to talk about ways to make wild water swimming as safe as possible. By increasing awareness and educating people in high-risk areas, we can start to bring down the number of these tragedies. No one should lose their life from a moment of fun, and no family should suffer the grief of a death that could have been prevented. This is not about stopping people enjoying the outdoors, whether at Chasewater, Shoal Hill quarry or anywhere else across the United Kingdom; it is about giving them the information and tools they need to do so safely and confidently.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate. It is a timely debate, particularly with the hot weather we are seeing and the number of people who will be going into the water this weekend. I am proud to represent the beautiful constituency of Bangor Aberconwy. It is coastal, scenic, and home to some of the most stunning beaches, lakes, rivers and waterfalls. These areas are rightly cherished by residents and visitors alike, but sadly people in my constituency know all too well the pain and devastation that is caused when something goes wrong.
I do not think there will be a single person across my whole constituency whose life has not been touched at some point by a tragedy involving drowning. Those accidents and fatalities are obviously devastating, not just for the individuals, families and communities affected, but for the emergency services and organisations—including the coastguard, RNLI and mountain rescue teams—that are tasked with responding. So much of that painstaking work of search and rescue is carried out by volunteers who give up their time for free, and I want to put on record my thanks to them as well as my deepest condolences to everyone who has been affected by these incidents. This is not just physical work; it is emotional work, never more so than when the incidents involve young people and children.
One specific issue that has been brought to my attention is that of destinations being promoted on social media platforms, such as TikTok and Instagram. The emergency services are responding to big spikes in visitors coming to our area to see these secluded lakes, amazing beaches and tucked-away viewpoints, which are being promoted as hidden gems—but people are unaware of the dangers. I understand that the Education Minister responding today is not necessarily involved directly in online safety, but it would be wonderful if the Government could address that issue.
Perhaps the Minister could discuss with colleagues how social media platforms could be encouraged to act. Other Members have talked about the potential for social media campaigns, which can be influential, especially when we are talking to young people. I would like the social media platforms to be more aware of their responsibilities in highlighting water safety education and the dangers, and perhaps to work with content creators.
We definitely want people to come and visit north Wales and to enjoy our beaches, lakes and rivers. I am in no way blaming anyone who ever calls for help—I have two teenage children, and they will be out enjoying the water this weekend, as will many others; I just want to make sure we have a cross-societal and cross-governmental approach to water safety education. If the Minister could raise that with colleagues within Government, I would be grateful, because we should all be paying attention to this issue online, as well as in the real world.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Sam Haycock is a name that most Members in the Chamber will not have heard before today, but it is my job to make sure that that 16-year-old’s legacy does not end four years ago, when he was swimming in a South Yorkshire reservoir with his friends. I want Sam’s name imprinted on everyone’s brain and etched in everyone’s heart today—not only in the name of Sam, but for his mum and for his dad, Simon, who came to Parliament yesterday and talked with me about my private Member’s Bill on water safety.
I met Sam’s dad for the first time a couple of summers ago; that day at Thorne fire station, when many firefighters and service people were showing how to rescue someone safely from water, he handed me a picture of Sam. Sam’s dad does that work week in, week out, tirelessly. Yesterday I could see the anguish in his eyes still, because that call that he got will never go away. It makes such a difference to him to be able to go out and educate children and their families about swimming safely, the dangers and risks, and what learning about those dangers can mean for protecting lives in the future.
Unfortunately, if we look back to 2023, there were another 236 or so Sams out there. That is 236 parents, friends or colleagues who got that same horrible knock at the door or that awful phone call. Some 50% of drownings happen in the months of June, July and August—so half of all drownings this year will happen in the next three months. Of course, it is hot, and this year in particular has been super-hot in the lead-up to summer. That prevailing weather is only a bigger risk in terms of the potential numbers that could join those other Sams.
Some 5.8 million children finish their GCSEs today or tomorrow, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) said. Sam died on the day that he finished his GCSEs and went swimming with his friends to celebrate. Across the UK, we have some of the most beautiful watercourses. We have 40,000 lakes, 43,000 miles of rivers. We have 22 major rivers, 2,000 reservoirs, 273 major reservoirs and 600 designated beaches. Those offer opportunities for any child to go and swim—just to try it, perhaps for the first time.
Of course, there is a balance here; water can be good. It is good for physical health, and it is great for mental health. It is a great source of tourism, sports and leisure in our communities. Some 7.5 million people take part or have taken part in open water swimming. One of those people is Lindsy James, who lives in and works across my community. She is a world champion duathlete, who has only recently learned to swim as she had a fear of water; she has shown how swimming can build resilience and confidence.
Given the amount of water that we have, the most important thing is education, because we cannot protect all the different sites that I have talked about. That is why I am so proud that my Water Safety Bill had a reception this week. The Bill would make compulsory water safety education part of this Government’s legal duty, which would save lives—that is the reason we are here today. Our job is to enrich lives, to save lives and to protect lives.
Sam Haycock’s story does not need to end on that day four years ago; there needs to be a legacy. He may not go on to fulfil all the dreams he had on the day he finished his GCSEs, but his legacy can and will allow others to fulfil their dreams.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: earlier this month, I hosted an event by Future Lidos, a peer network across the UK and Ireland that is working together to bring outdoor swimming pools to more people in our communities. I am also chair of a local group called Splash, which is working to restore and reopen the outdoor tidal pool in the town of Saltcoats in my constituency. Lidos and outdoor pools provide a safe space and opportunity for people to learn to swim outdoors, and tidal pools get people used to swimming in cold water. I fully support the campaign to open more lidos throughout the UK, although we must make them affordable so that people can access them.
Sadly, Scotland has the highest accidental drowning rate of all the UK nations—it is about three times the rate in England. The risk tends to increase with age, peaking in the 60 to 69 age group. Surprisingly, people who plan to go into the water are not always at the highest risk. It has been shown that accidents can occur among walkers and runners, who can slip into the water and drown, which is why it is vital that everyone learns to swim. In Scotland, there is no statutory requirement to provide swimming lessons, and provision is determined on a council-by-council basis. Learning to swim is not a required part of the curriculum, unlike in Northern Ireland, where swimming is part of the minimum content, or in England, as we heard earlier. In Scotland, there is a “learn to swim” framework, but a significant number of children still leave primary school without learning to swim, and this must be urgently addressed by the SNP Scottish Government.
As a young girl, I learned to swim in the local outdoor tidal pool at the age of four, thanks to my mum, who was a swimming teacher, and swimming has always been important to me. Swimming and water safety skills are vital, and we need to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn to swim, as well as ensuring that these skills are reinforced throughout people’s lives in order to protect older people too. It is really important that people are encouraged to learn to swim at all ages, not just from a safety perspective but for the many benefits that swimming offers for health and wellbeing—both physical and mental.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for leading today’s debate. As many Members of this House will know, I am someone who spends many hours out and about on Britain’s rivers and lakes as a keen whitewater kayaker. Regardless of whether it is on moving water, along the coastline or in our lakes, spending time on and in our water is a tremendous joy, but it comes with risks. Regrettably, we have seen a number of tragedies in and around my constituency over the years.
In 2014, Donna Greenall from Horwich in my constituency was sadly found drowned in Rivington reservoir. More recently, in April last year, 17-year-old Joseph Hold died after getting into difficulty in the River Croal in Bolton, having lost control of his canoe. We must learn from these incidents to prevent similar tragedies from happening again. With that in mind, I will make the case for further investment in education to unlock the immense potential of safely being in, on or near water. After all, we owe it to Donna, Joseph and everyone who has lost their lives to drowning, or who has lost loved ones, to continue making improvements to water safety awareness.
Drowning remains one of the leading causes of accidental death, particularly among our young people, yet our approach to water safety remains fragmented. We have national strategies for road safety, for fire prevention and for public health, yet none for water safety. As an island nation that is proud of our maritime history, it is time to change our approach. Indeed, it is high time the Government developed a comprehensive national water safety strategy that brings together civil servants, local authorities, schools, water companies, the emergency services and voluntary organisations in order to raise awareness and, critically, to prevent future tragedies.
There are already some brilliant campaigns that show how simple positive messaging, positioned in the right places, can have a demonstrable impact in reducing incidents. In particular, I commend to colleagues the PaddleSafe campaign, run jointly by Paddle UK and the RNLI, as a good example of what can be done. That summer safety initiative contains five key messages to raise awareness of how to prepare for any type of paddling and to stay safe on any kind of water. Those messages are simple and easy to remember:
“Always wear a buoyancy aid
Tell someone where you’re going
Carry a mobile phone
Check the weather
Know your limits”.
I have seen at first hand the dangers of not heeding those messages, which is why I know that education must be at the heart of our response. Every child should leave school with basic water safety knowledge: how to recognise danger, how to act in an emergency and how to enjoy our waters safely. It is why I am a passionate advocate for swimming remaining a key component of the national curriculum, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen mentioned.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Austerity hit access to swimming lessons, as evidenced by the fact that 35% of children from low-income families are able to swim 25 metres unaided compared with 82% from affluent families. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that mandatory requirements for swimming and water safety should be in the national curriculum for all primary schools?
Phil Brickell
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about improving education and how fundamental it is to do so.
Indeed, I support calls from the Outdoors For All campaign to ensure our young children learn essential outdoor life skills such as risk-benefit assessment, self-sufficiency, navigation and swimming in early years learning and throughout their schooling. That campaign is supported by organisations such as the Canal & River Trust, the Outdoor Swimming Society, Surfers Against Sewage and Swim England. I was particularly pleased recently to see an awareness-raising stall at Horwich leisure centre to mark Drowning Prevention Week, making sure that both children and parents are aware of the risks and how to manage them.
Prevention goes hand in hand with responsibility. Our waterways are places not only of recreation, but of environmental and economic value, and access is too often restricted, confusing or inconsistently enforced. All that that encourages is irresponsible and frequently dangerous access. If people want to go for a dip on a hot day, like today, we have to assume they are going to find a way to do it, so we need a more proactive role for landowners and land managers in assessing and managing risk appropriately, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned.
Finally, we cannot ignore the role of investment. Our rescue services, including our hard-working volunteers in coastguard and mountain rescue teams—such as the Bolton Mountain Rescue Team based at Ladybridge Hall in my constituency—do tremendous work, as do our training providers, and they need sustained, reliable funding. Whether it is better signage, improved safety equipment at popular swimming spots, or stronger enforcement against polluters who degrade our waters or fail to maintain safety measures, proper funding is essential.
To conclude, improving water safety has three core components: first, improving education; secondly, improving safety; and, thirdly, improving and securing access. That will ensure our children, whether they want to swim or spend a day in and around water, are able to do so in a safe manner.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for bringing forward this critical debate.
We think a lot about water safety in the Ribble Valley constituency; indeed, the River Ribble is in its name. In the River Ribble catchment, which covers my constituency and some lovely neighbouring constituencies, we also have the Hodder, Calder, Darwen, Douglas and Wyre. The Ribble Rivers Trust is a Lancashire-based charity working to improve the River Ribble and all its tributaries for people and wildlife. Along with the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, it does a phenomenal job in advocating for water safety as well.
Lancashire is one of the counties in the UK with the highest water safety risk, which is likely due to the geography, as we have coasts, rivers, canals, reservoirs and quarries. One thing that has changed a lot in this country in recent years is that people move around much more. I grew up in Ribble Valley, so it was built into me not to swim in open water or reservoirs, or we at least knew where the really dangerous areas were. However, with a more transient population across the country, it is far more critical to have universal education to ensure that people who have not grown up around water understand its risks.
Another thing I am keen to raise is that, alongside the excellent case being made for lessons in schools, it is critical that children are able to learn water confidence through their own exploration and play. As others have said, that requires local accessible pools for them to explore. I am grateful to those working with me locally to begin a campaign for a proper public swimming pool in the town of Longridge in my constituency, which is one of the things that was most requested on the doorstep there.
Finally, I take this opportunity to encourage all adults who have never felt fully comfortable with swimming to learn, because it is never too late. I never learnt to swim as a child, but a few years ago when my daughter at quite a young age started diving under the water—something I could not do—I realised that I could not be encouraging her to be confident if I could not do it myself. It is a humbling thing to be a 30-something taking swimming lessons, but I am grateful to legendary Preston swimming teacher Karen Smith for her patience. The first time I swam 40 lengths was a very special moment and I am grateful that now, as a parent, I can be confident in adventures with my family. That joy and confidence should be available to everyone in our island nation and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen for pushing the Government on this matter.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and I praise Nessa for her tireless campaigning.
As a former teacher who taught swimming in my NQT—newly qualified teacher—year, as a mum of three young men who are all confident swimmers, and as the MP for Portsmouth’s coastal community where water is a part of daily life, I know just how vital water safety education is. Every child should not only learn how to swim, but understand how to stay safe around water. As has been said today, warn and inform. That is why I welcome Labour’s continued commitment to the PE and sport premium, with £320 million for 2025-26, which schools can use for teacher training and to top-up swimming lessons.
Labour’s new Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will mean that all state-funded schools, including academies, will be required to deliver the national curriculum, which will include swimming and water safety. In addition, the interim report from Labour’s curriculum assessment review recognises the urgent need to rebalance priorities, especially in PE for our older pupils. However, if we are to teach children to swim, we need to ensure we have access to facilities—affordable facilities—in which to have lessons. I am pleased that Hilsea Lido is having a revamp for local use, but we need to help schools work with local facilities, be they private or council, to ensure that pools and transport are a real option and are really affordable.
I also want to echo the praise for, and the promotion of, the Royal Life Saving Society for the work it is doing to help to educate us. Its resources are brilliant and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. I have seen the great work of my local National Independent Lifeboat Association. Alongside Portsmouth RNLI lifeboat and lifeguards, Portsmouth Southsea Voluntary Lifeguards and our local police and fire services, they all go the extra mile.
Raising awareness helps inform and warn, but it needs to be put into practice to save lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) noted, I also remember the childhood public service broadcasts some 40 years ago. They do work, and it would be a great and positive use of our online media platforms. In Portsmouth North, where children live near the sea, ponds, shorelines and marshes, these reforms to water safety education and swimming are not optional, but essential. I fully support the Government’s steps to ensure that every child leaves school with essential lifesaving water skills. I fully support the extra calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen. I pledge to work with him and others on behalf of our constituents to make a national strategy for water safety a reality for our kids and for all our communities.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing the debate. I will be very brief. I just want to highlight an ongoing issue in my part of the world. I am deeply concerned about the case of Serren Bennett, an 18-year-old who has been missing from my constituency since 8 June, 11 days ago. She was last seen approaching Redcar beach, where an item of her clothing has been found. I hope Members across the House will join me in sending our thoughts to Serren’s family and friends at this difficult time. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope that the Government will be able to assure me that the relevant authorities will be working with Cleveland police to do everything possible so she can be found.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am pleased to wind up this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing it. As others have said, this debate is incredibly timely, as this week is National Drowning Prevention Week.
There have been a number of excellent contributions today. I was very pleased to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), and want to associate myself with the points she and other hon. Members made on the importance of being prepared to spot the dangers and react to them and to be ready when things go wrong, which is just as important as being able to swim in the first place. Other hon. Members have raised important points and details—even in short interventions—and I am particularly pleased to see so many colleagues from across the House who have attended recent debates on rural and coastal communities in their places. There is clearly a theme building here.
The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen spoke about calls for ministerial responsibility. I think that could fit very well within the portfolio of a Minister for coastal communities, and I look forward to exploring that possibility with him further.
Members who have paid close attention to my past speeches in this House might have noticed that North Norfolk is a proud coastal community. By our nature, we have a lot of water, and our beaches and seas are beloved by residents and tourists alike, although for those who are not confident in the water, they can also be incredibly dangerous. Norfolk’s inland waterways are also very special, with the Norfolk broads and fantastic rivers and chalk streams like the Glaven, Bure and Stiffkey.
This is a serious concern not just to me, but to Imogen, who attends a primary school in my constituency, and who wrote to me with her concerns. Imogen said:
“All around North Norfolk there are lots of rivers which are wonderful. Apart from that if people don’t know how to swim they may fall in and drown. This is a tragic problem which affects people all around England. If people were on a walk around a river or lake and accidentally slip in and inhale the water their families would be distraught. I am not asking for a law that people know how to swim, but am requesting your attention so that you can review the problem if it persists. It may be a good idea to think about how this affects England as a whole.”
She closes by saying:
“I know there are lifesaving rings dotted around but feel there is not enough and that a few more lives could be saved if there are more that can be used. Swimming lessons are charged quite high making it harder for people to be able to teach their children to swim which may be part of the problem.”
I am sure hon. Members will agree that Imogen, despite being in primary school, has summarised this problem and highlighted the issues just as well as any of us could have.
Water safety is an issue that could affect any one of our constituents, potentially when they least expect it, as Imogen points out. I agree with her that we need to take a serious look at this across the House, and I hope that the Government will be able to provide not just reassurance and answers, but a promise of action to Imogen and everyone else who is concerned about this issue.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to mandatory swimming lessons in schools and are calling on the Government to ensure that identified swimming skills gaps are urgently addressed. The fact that 30% of 11 to 12-year-olds are unable to swim more than 25 metres is a real worry for those of us in rural and coastal communities who worry for the safety of our young people in our rivers and seas.
To address those issues, we have to invest more in our local swimming pools. I am delighted that in North Norfolk, in the past few years, we have built the Reef leisure centre swimming pool in Sheringham—a real state-of-the-art facility, which is a great asset to the community. I am equally delighted that the Lib Dem council has secured funding for a multimillion-pound expansion and refurbishment of Fakenham leisure centre, which will include a new 25-metre swimming pool, in the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew).
Steff Aquarone
On that note, having seen the hon. Gentleman in his place, I will give way to him.
Jerome Mayhew
Firs, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first outing on the Front Bench—he is doing a very good job. Secondly, I will not quibble over who it was who obtained the funding from the Conservative Government—the Conservative Member of Parliament or the Liberal Democrat district council—so let us leave that to one side. Thirdly, I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the development of having a swimming pool in Fakenham. Does he agree that that will go a long way in helping people in Fakenham and the surrounding area to learn to swim?
Steff Aquarone
Let me absolutely clear: everybody involved in securing that bid deserves congratulations— I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Jerome Mayhew
Was that the hon. Gentleman’s next point? I intervened too soon! [Laughter.]
Steff Aquarone
I think the point the hon. Gentleman is making is that many in Fakenham, as well as the nearby villages in my constituency, are delighted by the news and thrilled with the hard work that has gone into securing it.
Liberal Democrats also want to end the closure of swimming pools by designating them as critical health infrastructure, which would enshrine protections in law, meaning that central and local government would have a legal duty not to cut these services and to maintain adequate funding to keep them open.
Of course, people are not just swimming in pools, as many people enjoy gaining confidence through wild and open water swimming. However, in order for them to be able to do that, we have to clean up our rivers and seas after years of scandalous sewage dumping. For those looking to swim, only 14% of rivers and lakes in England are in good ecological health. Last year, water companies dumped sewage more than 100,000 times into areas with bathing water status. That is unacceptable. We must crack down on the years of unchecked profiteering and environmental damage that the water companies have caused. We must bring in tougher new laws to protect our environment and the health of those who enjoy it. In North Norfolk, we will not stand for it a moment longer.
To conclude, to secure the water safety that we need, we must have strong education, enabled by strong facilities and a clean environment. If we do that, then Imogen and people of all ages can enjoy the rivers and seas in North Norfolk and around our beautiful country with confidence and safety for years to come.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for leading this important debate and for doing such a good job in setting out all the different issues at stake. Although he covered a huge amount of ground in his opening statement, we also heard some excellent speeches from across the House, with everyone adding important points.
We have had excellent speeches from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and the hon. Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). Various points will stay with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) raised the hugely important issue of safety on ice and the terrible, terrible case involving his young constituents.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) caught my attention with her description of the Barbados of south London, which I very much enjoyed. I also strongly agreed with her tribute to water safety groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) talked about the terrible case of Emily Lewis and the issue of safety on boats, which is a crucial part of this debate. The hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) raised the issue of those old Central Office of Information films that have stayed with all of us, particularly the chilling “The Spirit of Dark and Lonely Water”, which we all seem to have seen. The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) then brought us bang up to date by talking about what social media could do in this space. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) made the crucial point about the importance of not drinking and swimming, and the critical dangers there.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) reminded us of the benefits of being able to swim outside, yet there are certain places in which it is just not safe to swim. A number of other Members made the point that, in a more transient society, not everyone knows where those places are any more. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made a powerful speech, talking not just about Sam and his father, but about his private Member’s Bill, the Water Safety Bill.
We also had a really interesting contribution from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who has a beautiful constituency, which I associate with seaside holidays as a child—and as an adult. A surprising fact in her speech was that this subject is not on the curriculum in Scotland, which seems like an obvious first step. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) talked about the awful case of the missing child in his constituency. We of course hope for the best for that family.
I will turn in a moment to talk about some of the things that the previous Government did. I do so not to say that everything is wonderful, because of course it is not, but because I thought that it might be a way of prompting further reflections on what more we could do to go further. As has already been mentioned, it was the previous Government who updated the national curriculum in 2013 to add swimming and water safety education. It is surprising that it was so late. That was where we got this rule that pupils should be taught to swim at least 25 metres.
A few people have talked about facilities. The previous Government announced the first £10 million and then £57 million to open up access to pools in schools, as it is obviously very sad to see good facilities not being used after school hours. We enabled 220 schools to open up their pools more than they had been doing, and we want to do more of that.
We worked together with some brilliant organisations in the National Water Safety Forum, including the RNLI, Swim England, the Royal Life Saving Society and many more. We have heard from a number of Members about important local and individual campaigns that can be so powerful, and I pay tribute to all the people involved in those.
I was involved in using the sugar tax to create and then expand the PE and sport premium, which has provided more funding for PE lessons in schools. In 2017, we doubled the funding that primary schools received to improve the quality of their PE and sport provision, including water education—it went up from £160 million to £320 million. However, there is still much more to be done, because about a third of adults—about 14 million people—still cannot swim. I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for leading by example and learning to swim as an adult—good on her for doing that.
All of us are affected by these hugely important issues. Members might think that since my constituency is as far away from the sea as it could be, the main risk is normally people with metal detectors fishing in the canal and constantly fishing out hand grenades, but water safety is relevant everywhere. Just at Christmas a one-year-old girl was rescued from the River Welland.
This has been an important debate. We welcome the Government’s decision to look carefully at what can be done to build on the existing statutory guidance and update it. We have heard excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I join Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing a debate on this incredibly important topic in this very timely week and on his powerful opening speech. I was truly saddened to hear of the deaths of his constituent Joe Abbess and Sunnah Khan at Bournemouth beach in June 2023. I extend my heartfelt condolences to their families and pay tribute to Vanessa Abbess for her campaigning.
I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for paying such thorough tribute to all Members for their contributions. If I am honest, he has saved me the task, as he did real credit to the widespread and important contributions that have been made. A number of Members present are clearly working very hard in Parliament on water safety issues, and it is a real honour to work with them. I welcome the engagement from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen on this topic and wish him every success in his new role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety education.
By holding this debate, we alert more people to the issue of water safety, and we spread understanding of the dangers of water, particularly in this hot weather. As mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), we must remember those who have been affected. There have been many names mentioned and many tragic stories, and by remembering them today, we save lives and prevent tragedies from happening to others. I want to put on record how sorry I am to hear about Serren Bennet, who is still missing from Redcar beach. My thoughts go out to her family and friends and to the emergency services, who will be working incredibly hard to find her.
This is a timely debate, as we mark the Royal Life Saving Society UK’s Drowning Prevention Week. I am pleased to support this important campaign. Each year, it reminds us of the sobering truth that drowning is one of the leading causes of accidental death in the UK, and children remain a very vulnerable group. As parents, carers and educators, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that every child understands the fundamentals of water safety. By having conversations with children about water safety and providing practical learning, we can equip children with the knowledge and skills to recognise danger, know how to respond in an emergency and enjoy water safely, which is fundamentally what we want for children. Schools have a vital role in achieving this aim.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have known her since she first came to the House, and she knows that she has my respect and regard. Swimming is critical. It is true that people who can swim still get into trouble, but if someone cannot swim at all, they are at much greater risk. Will she work with colleagues across the House, including me in respect of Deepings leisure centre, to make sure that there are good swimming facilities across the whole of our nation?
Catherine McKinnell
The right hon. Member is right to recognise how fundamental swimming is, but it is really important to recognise that it is not enough, as has come across very strongly in this debate. But being able to swim is the foundation that every child should have. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it takes a cross-Government effort to make sure that we have the facilities that children and everybody else can use to learn how to swim.
The national curriculum for PE, as has been noted, includes mandatory requirements on swimming and water safety at primary school. As has been acknowledged, pupils should be taught to swim 25 metres unaided, to perform a range of strokes, and to perform safe self-rescue in different water-based situations. Academies and free schools are not currently required to follow the national curriculum, but they do have to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was introduced in December 2024 and is making its way through the House, places a requirement on all state-funded schools, including academies, to teach the national curriculum and will, once implemented, extend the requirement to teach swimming and water safety to all state-funded schools.
Data from Sport England’s active lives survey reported in 2024 that 95.2% of state primary schools surveyed reported that they did provide swimming lessons. We want all pupils to have the opportunity to learn to swim. Support is available, as has been highlighted, through the PE and sport premium, and a range of guidance and support is available from sector organisations. We are working really closely with sector experts, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Swim England, to ensure that all schools have access to high-quality resources to provide swimming and water safety lessons to their students.
I was therefore delighted to announce last week that the PE and sport premium would continue at £320 million for the upcoming academic year. Schools can use their premium funding to provide teacher training and top-up swimming and water safety lessons for pupils if they still need additional support to reach the standard required in the national curriculum after they have completed their core swimming and water safety lessons.
Then, alongside water safety and PE lessons, schools also currently integrate water safety into their PSHE programmes, equipping students with an understanding of risk and the knowledge required to make safe, informed decisions. The water safety code provides a foundation for water safety education, providing simple, easy-to-remember information that helps keep people safe. That is why we are working to ensure that teaching pupils the water safety code at primary and secondary school will feature in our new RHSE statutory guidance, which will be published shortly. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and many others who expressed concern today.
During my time as Chair of the Petitions Committee, when I sat on the Opposition side of the House, I worked really closely on water safety, alongside Rebecca Ramsay, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, who tragically lost her son Dylan in 2011. So I am really pleased now to be in a position where I can help deliver better water safety education in schools and really make further, meaningful progress on this issue, so that no more families lose a child in such circumstances.
In 2024 the Department launched its independent curriculum and assessment review, chaired by Becky Francis CBE, to shape a curriculum that is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative for learners from five to 18. The interim report, published in March, rightly recognises the growing challenges that schools face in prioritising subjects like PE, particularly at key stage 4, and the lack of sport opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds. So I really want to thank members of the National Water Safety Forum education group for their thoughtful contributions to the panel’s call for evidence. The review is considering a wide range of evidence. We are really keen to work with the sector, not only on what will be included in the curriculum, but on how, as a Government, we can support its implementation so that we have high-quality standards across all schools. Every child deserves the best start in life, no matter their background or ability, and it is our mission to ensure that we do everything we can to achieve that. No child should miss out on the opportunity to learn how to keep themselves safe in and around water.
Last month I was pleased to announce a grant of up to £300,000 a year to the consortium led by Youth Sport Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, a programme to upskill teachers to deliver high-quality and inclusive PE, sport and physical activity to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Inclusion 2028 will provide inclusive swimming and water lessons. Two hundred young water safety champions will be trained to promote water safety to their peers. Seven new online resources will be created. The consortium will work with disability sport organisations, and nine inclusive school swimming specialists are being delivered to help deliver continuing professional development to staff at schools and leisure centres.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is right and I agree with everything that she has outlined on ensuring that those lessons are delivered at school and particularly as early on as possible. May I have her reassurance, and will she briefly outline, how she intends to ensure that is enforced further down the line, once the national curriculum comes out?
Catherine McKinnell
As I said, we are working with sector organisations on the content of the curriculum, and we are working with the sector on the delivery of these programmes. I could go into detail on Ofsted and the changes we are making on accountability, but I do not believe there is time in this debate. However, I take the challenge and I will take that away. I agree that not only do we need to say that children should have these things, but we need to make sure that they are armed with the knowledge that we know will keep them safe.
A number of Members, inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), have mentioned public information campaigns. That brought to my mind the story of Evan Crisp from Newcastle. Six years ago, Evan and his friends were at Beadnell bay in Northumberland, celebrating finishing their exams, as we know lots of young people will be doing at the moment. He was caught in a rip and was swept out to sea.
As Evan lost sight of the beach, he recalled an RNLI advert that he had seen very briefly—only for a minute—before a film that he had gone to see. Everyone who falls unexpectedly into cold water wants to follow the same instinct: to swim hard, to fight the cold water. Yet when people fight, the chances are that they will lose. Cold water will make you gasp uncontrollably. Breathe in water and you will drown. If you just float until the cold-water shock has passed, you can control your breathing and have a far better chance of staying alive. Evan followed that advice and managed to hold on to consciousness for 45 minutes until he was rescued. He feels incredibly grateful to be alive because he knows that many people do not have that opportunity. He did not learn that information at school, but from a public information campaign.
I will therefore take away the asks that have been made—they are not necessarily for my Department, but for the Government more broadly. Many useful suggestions have been made in our discussions, and we can take those away and work on them. It is clear from this debate that water safety must be a part of every child’s education. Alongside the national curriculum, education settings should have access to a wide range of engaging programmes, so that young people can know how to enjoy water safely. It can be done and it should be done.
I am delighted that representatives from RLSS UK, Swim England, RNLI and the Canal and River Trust have all agreed to meet me to discuss their work to support water safety education in schools. I am grateful for their ongoing work in that area. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, the APPG on water safety education and all Members who contributed to this important debate. My final word goes to the families who have been affected by the terrible loss of a loved one, and in particular Joe Abbess’s family, who are here today. Your brave campaigning will save lives, so thank you.
Mr Speaker
Beckie Ramsay is my constituent, and it was her son Dylan who drowned in that abandoned quarry. He will never be forgotten. The loss that she suffered, and that others have suffered, as has been mentioned today—none of us can imagine what they went through. I just want to say that Beckie does a great job of going into schools, educating and saving lives for others.
Darren Paffey
I thank all Members, from across the Chamber, who have taken part in this debate. I will mention a few key strands that have been raised, just because they align with some of the things that I have asked for. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned that the fire response, which is often the first response to these terrible tragedies, is not statutory. Does she agree that a Minister with particular responsibility for drowning prevention might bring that coherence?
Darren Paffey
I hope the Minister has followed that. I do not expect everything to be on education, but there is a necessary cross-departmental organisation response that needs to happen. It goes beyond education and some of the recommendations reflect that.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) and for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) mentioned the information campaigns that are necessary, particularly using contemporary tools of social media, which takes me to another campaign I am involved in. The potential of social media to do good is great. Unfortunately, too often that is not what happens, so we need to hold social media companies to account, to ensure that they keep our young people safe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) mentioned a wonderful community-led campaign, and there is a real example to take from that. On the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I met Sam’s dad when he was in the House yesterday and I know he appreciates the work that my hon. Friend does, so I commend him for Sam’s law. He can count on my support and, I am sure, that of many others across the House. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), who, despite the focus on schools that some of the debate has necessarily taken, made an incredibly salient point about why water safety education needs to go wider, and adults learning to swim would also benefit from that.
We heard during this debate—and during Drowning Prevention Week—about the wonderful variety of waterways that we enjoy. We have heard about the Thames, from its historical east to the tropical west. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) mentioned the neighbouring river to mine—of course, the greatest river is the River Itchen. I share the Solent with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). We heard about the quays and canals of Salford and Greater Manchester, the Severn, the Ribble, the national parks, and the lidos from Ayrshire to Hilsea. We say that these waterways must be enjoyed, but they must be enjoyed safely, and we must look at how we can move on from the current situation.
I thank everyone who has added breadth to the appreciation of this issue, as well as adding weight to the sense of urgency that we must take. Hon. Members from across the Chamber have demonstrated why the ability to swim and the knowledge of what happens in different waterways up and down the country is absolutely crucial. Although we have done that through heartbreaking personal accounts, I hope that their names and stories, having been heard in this place, will move us to action.
I appreciate the Minister’s words on what is happening. I am encouraged to hear about the meetings taking place. I look forward to reading and engaging with the RSHE guidance. I remain of the view that this should be foundational, not pieced together by different approaches. I look forward to engaging further and ensuring that by Drowning Prevention Week 2026, we will have moved on and have acted and saved more lives. By then we will have been through what is already proving to be a hot summer, and indeed through the winter—the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) rightly pointed out the dangers of ice.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, all those who have supported and spoken in the debate, my team who have made today happen, and the various organisations—I will not list them all—helping us to move the dial on this issue. Finally, and most importantly, I thank Ness, who has been an incredible inspiration for me in the debate; I hope she sees today that her work is of national significance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered water safety education.
Public Sector Pensions: McCloud Remedy
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I rise today to discuss an issue that I am sure affects not just my constituents in Edinburgh West but many of our constituents across the United Kingdom. Since 2018, thousands of civil servants, teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers and firefighters have been waiting for the compensation they are entitled to through the McCloud remedy, after the judgment in the Court of Appeal which ruled that changes to public sector pensions unlawfully discriminated against younger workers.
That impacted a huge number of dedicated public servants, including at least 400,000 civil servants and more than half a million teachers. In Scotland, more than 13,000 police officers were impacted and are due remediation, as are around 90,000 NHS workers, according to figures produced by the Scottish Government. It is understandable that, with so many people needing remediation, there could be delays, particularly for more complex cases or older cases that need to be examined manually, but these are having a significant impact on people’s lives.
Christine Jardine
As I say, these delays are having a significant impact on people’s lives.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I have had a number of cases come into my office as well. My constituent Gavin Templeton, who served 25 years of dedicated service in the Fife constabulary, was forced to return to work because his incorrect pension was so low. Does she agree that it is time we did much more to support hard-working public servants like Gavin to receive the full pensions they worked so hard for?
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Member for raising a very good point, which I will come to later. I agree completely; this has been particularly difficult for many people in the light of the crises we have faced in recent years, with the soaring cost of living and sky-high energy bills.
This is what has happened to my constituents in Edinburgh West who have come to me with their issues with the administration of the remedy—not the remedy, but the administration of it—and the possible future impact on other pension schemes. One of my constituents who was affected is a retired police officer who served 25 years. His pension scheme was forcibly changed in 2017 to the CARE—career average revalued earnings—scheme, which was found to be discriminatory. He retired in February 2023 with his 25% lump sum, on the assumption that the remedial scheme would be in place by October that year. He estimates that he is now owed more than £30,000 in terms of both his commuted lump sum from the new scheme and the lower monthly pension. He is also one of thousands of immediate detriment officers still waiting for their remediation letter from the pension authorities, despite claims that the number of retired officers receiving these has accelerated, including in Scotland.
Another constituent started working for Lothian and Borders police, as it was, in 1996 and retired in 2022, knowing he would only receive his pension for his service between 1996 and 2015, while the remedy was calculated. He was told at the time that he would receive his remediable service statement by April 2025, three years after his retirement. He also estimates a loss in pension income of more than £30,000, given that seven years of his service to our community was not counted when he first retired.
A third constituent of mine has raised a possible issue that he faces when retiring with an NHS pension. The Government’s approach to NHS pension remedies means that pension growth will be calculated under an older scheme from 2008, even if he believes this rollback leaves those in the middle of their careers vulnerable to artificial breaches of the annual pension allowance and significant income tax charges because of the set-up of the 2008 scheme used for calculation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to ascertain her focus, which is clearly on the McCloud remedy. The McCloud remedy will have implications on tax for some members, with some needing to pay more tax—she has outlined three—and others being entitled to a refund. My constituents in Strangford are experiencing the same issue as those in Edinburgh West and are in a similar position of uncertainty. Does she agree that discussion with financial advisers is essential, and for those who do not have access to financial advisers, the employer—the national health service, in the case of my constituents—must provide workshops to ensure that workers can understand what their choice will mean in reality?
Christine Jardine
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. This issue has affected all our constituents, in a different way. His is exactly the sort of point that I hope the Minister may be able to address.
All the cases that we have mentioned show the impact that the remedy process has had on people who have dedicated their lives to serving our communities. It is unfair and must be tackled. In written answers to myself and other hon. Members, Ministers have said that it is up to individual pension schemes and their managers to implement the remedy rather than the relevant Government Department, but that seems to allow the schemes to delay, or leaves them without the resources and support that they need to process claims at pace. Will the Minister outline how the Government work with these authorities to ensure rapid delivery of remedial pay?
What steps will the Government take to ensure that pension authorities can also deliver RSS notices to speed up the process of calculating and awarding remedial pay? That is particularly important for police pensions, as there appears to be a severe backlog in issuing those notices to retired officers to allow them to make their choice under the law. That is leaving my constituents in Edinburgh West and others facing years of further uncertainty on their finances, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referenced, and losing out on money that they are entitled to for their work.
As policing is devolved in both Scotland and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Northern Ireland, how are the Government working with the devolved Administrations on these pension schemes to share best practice across Departments, provide increased resource and finally give these public servants, who have served our communities, taught our children and kept us safe for so long, the safety, security and financial stability that they deserve for their retirement? Surely that is what they are entitled to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate. I am grateful for her speech, and agree that the people we are talking about keep us safe and well, and show true dedication to public service. I absolutely understand the point that she is making.
I will talk a little bit about the background to McCloud, before talking about the progress that has been made to date and what further steps the scheme managers still need to take, as the hon. Lady outlined. The McCloud remedy is, by its nature, a complex undertaking, as I am sure she will appreciate. It applies to 20 public service pension schemes in the UK, and the scheme managers for those schemes are responsible for ensuring that the remedy is administered properly and in accordance with their statutory provisions.
This issue, as the hon. Lady said, arises out of the introduction of new pension schemes for public sector workers in 2014-15. When introducing those pension schemes, the Government at the time gave what is called a transitional protection to older workers, but as she set out, in 2018 the Court of Appeal found that those protections gave rise to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age, race and sex. In 2019, the Government announced that they would address that discrimination through the McCloud remedy.
There are two main elements to the remedy. The ongoing difference in treatment between older and younger workers was removed by closing the older pre-2015 pension schemes and moving all active members into the new pension schemes in relation to employment after 31 March 2022. However, addressing the discrimination that occurred between 2014 and 2022 is considerably more complex, as hon. Members will appreciate, because whether individual members are better off under the older legacy schemes or newer reform schemes will depend on their individual employment histories and circumstances, and in some cases will not be certain until they retire. The remedy therefore gives a choice over legacy or reform scheme benefits, which is given at the point of retirement for active and deferred members, and is in the process of being rolled out for members who have already retired.
Delivering the remedy to more than 3 million affected scheme members is also an intensive administrative challenge. There are many different elements to it, but the most crucial is that all those affected must be provided with individualised information about their pension entitlements during the 2015 to 2022 remedy period, through what is known as a remediable service statement or RSS.
In addition, a smaller group of members, whose tax position during the remedy period may have changed, need to be provided with a remediable pension savings statement—an RPSS. Given the complexity of the McCloud remedy, schemes are also providing significant levels of guidance and online resources to help members understand the information they receive and the decision they need to make. That information is often very complex, as hon. Members know because many have been in the position of receiving it. There is also a dedicated HMRC digital service to allow members receiving an RPSS to understand their tax position. There are processes in place to allow members to pay additional tax or, as will be the case for the majority of members, to claim either a tax refund or compensation from the scheme where a refund is not possible.
Providing these statements to members, together with the other aspects of implementing the remedy, is the responsibility, as the hon. Lady will know, of pension scheme managers. For the largest public service schemes, including the NHS scheme in England and Wales, the teachers’ scheme in England and Wales, and the civil service scheme across the UK, the scheme manager is the relevant Secretary of State. The local government, police and fire schemes are administered locally, which means each responsible authority, force or brigade has its own scheme manager, who is responsible for the operation of the scheme in that area.
The devolved Administrations—this is pertinent to the concerns raised by the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—have responsibility for administering their schemes. The Scottish Government, through the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, have responsibility for the police, fire, NHS and teachers’ schemes in Scotland. The Welsh Government are responsible for the firefighters’ scheme in Wales. Pension schemes in Northern Ireland are established under a separate legal framework and are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government.
This means that the picture on implementing the remedy across the different schemes is complex and may be subject to particular factors that affect one scheme but not necessarily another. The remedy itself varies across the schemes, reflecting the fact that the schemes themselves are specific to each workforce and have different benefit designs. This can be seen in the differing levels of progress that schemes have so far made.
I am aware that across the police scheme in England and Wales, around 90% of the total number of RSSs have so far been issued, and I understand that the picture is similar in the police scheme in Scotland, with 97% of deferred choice and over three quarters of immediate choice RSSs already issued. Although that is not yet matched by other schemes, significant progress is being made elsewhere. For example, the civil service scheme in England and Wales has issued around 45% of immediate choice RSSs and the teachers’ scheme around 47%.
It was always anticipated that providing RSSs to members would be challenging, and that is specifically recognised in the legislation governing the remedy. In particular, the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 sets out that for the provision of RSSs, there is a deadline of 31 March 2025, or—here comes the qualification—
“such later day as the scheme manager considers reasonable in all the circumstances in the case of a particular member or a particular class of member”.
Given that I was asked about delays, I think it is worth reflecting that hon. Members have raised concerns about their constituents who are experiencing delays in receiving the remedy. I am standing in for the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), but I used to be the Pensions Minister myself, so I have some knowledge of the issue, and I encourage scheme managers to take every step possible to resolve those cases as quickly as possible and to prioritise cases where individuals may be in particular need. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West reflected on a number of such cases in her excellent contribution.
I assure anybody in this position that where there is an uplift in interest on pension payments, interest will be paid on arrears, so they will not lose out financially as a result of the delays, but I do understand that the delays are frustrating. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the overarching principle of the McCloud remedy is to put people back in the situation they would have been in if the discrimination had not occurred. In order to do that, it is necessary to apply interest where payments should have been made at an earlier date, whether by the scheme or the member. In this debate, we have heard more about the delays of the scheme towards the member. Interest is applied at 8% when the scheme owes money to the member. Where the member owes money to the scheme, interest is applied at the NS&I direct saver rate, which is currently 3.5%. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady to a certain extent.
We think it is right that these decisions are made by scheme managers, as they are the only ones with full possession of all the relevant information. As I have said, with that information and the variety of different factors, the situation is complex. Having said that, the Government are committed to ensuring that all affected members are provided with the remedy they deserve as quickly as possible, including ensuring that members already in receipt of pension benefits or approaching their retirement are prioritised.
Where scheme managers have exercised their statutory discretion to extend the deadline for providing some members with an RSS, it is therefore important that appropriate new deadlines are set out and that robust plans are in place to ensure the new deadlines are met. Scheme managers must ensure that the plans are properly communicated to pension scheme members to provide them with certainty. The Pensions Regulator must also be kept informed of plans and progress, and I know that schemes have been having these discussions with the regulator.
Similarly, there have been delays in other aspects of the remedy, such as the provision of the RPSSs to those who need them. As I set out earlier, that affects a smaller number of people. However, it is difficult for those people if they are kept waiting. It is important that schemes keep members informed and provide them with appropriate resources and support. Although I am pleased to say that the process of sending out RPSSs in England and Wales is 90% complete and that some schemes have sent them to all affected members, I know that there are issues in other parts of the country. As I said, this is a very complex area. If I have not answered all of the hon. Lady’s questions, I am happy to write to her.
Given the importance of delivering the McCloud remedy effectively, the Pensions Minister has recently written to responsible Departments, requesting details of their plans to issue remaining RSSs and RPSSs to all affected members. All those affected by the McCloud remedy can be assured that a robust and complete statutory remedy has been put in place and that schemes are working to ensure that members receive the information and support they need. I do, though, note the points that the hon. Lady has made about the impact of the delays on her constituents. They will have the opportunity to decide whether to receive legacy or reform scheme benefits in relation to their service. I again thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Construction of an underpass at the Bicester level crossing
Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary remarks and reminders for the Committee. I have had requests to allow jackets to be taken off; Members have the Chair’s permission if they wish to do so. All electronic devices should be switched to silent, and no food or drinks are permitted during Committee sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, or alternatively pass on written speaking notes to colleagues in the room. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak in any debate.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or similar, issues. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the Bill’s existing clauses.
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, I should say that he has asked to talk more generally in his opening remarks; unusually, because it is the first speech, I will say yes. This is a narrowly drawn Bill with narrowly drawn clauses but, as it is the start of the debate, I will allow discussion to go a little wider.
Clause 1
Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 13 in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim or their family if a victim is deceased.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 2, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim and their family if they are deceased.”
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to open the first debate on the Bill in Committee as we begin line-by-line consideration. As you explained, Mr Stringer, I thought it might be useful to list the Bill’s measures to provide a wider context for the amendments as we consider them one by one.
First, the Bill will make provisions relating to victims’ experiences in the administration of justice. Secondly, it will create a statutory power for judges to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings and, if they do not, to give out sanctions that take place in prison. Thirdly, it will restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders who are sentenced for four years or more for an offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. Fourthly, it will expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, meaning more victims will be able to access it.
Fifthly, the Bill will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers so that they can investigate individual cases in certain circumstances, request information from local authorities and social housing providers, and publish an annual report on compliance with the victims’ code. Sixthly, it will increase flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors, and set the rates at which prosecutor costs in private prosecutions can be recovered from central funds. Seventhly, it will amend the time limit within which the Attorney General can refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it is unduly lenient. Finally, the Bill will amend magistrates court sentencing powers for six either-way offences, bringing them in line with other offences.
The Opposition have not sought to amend, and will not seek to oppose, a number of the Bill’s measures, and I am sure there will be cross-party support for many of them, but we wish to push the Government to go further in other areas.
The first group of amendments relates to the provisions that are meant to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearings. It is important to lay out the value of offenders attending such a hearing. Open and transparent justice is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is often said that it is important not just that justice should be done, but that it is seen to be done.
There is something tangible and direct about an offender being present in court to hear all the elements of the sentencing hearing at first hand, in front of victims and their friends and family, the offender’s own friends and family, and potentially the wider public and the press, who help to share what happens more widely. In particular, victims and their friends and family may want to see it happening. This will often be true of the sentence itself, and the remarks that reflect back some of the impact of a crime, but it will be particularly true for the parts of the sentencing hearing when we hear directly from those affected by a crime.
Victim personal statements, commonly known as victim impact statements, are a crucial reform of our justice system that tries to give a voice to victims and their friends and family. As we will consider later in proceedings, they might not be working as well as they could be, but they remain incredibly important. Many people want to see the offender hearing those statements, and want to know that the offender cannot escape the consequences of their actions or from hearing directly from the people they have impacted. The statements may be read out by the victim themselves or by their friends and family. The authors may or may not be present. We heard evidence from Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims about the positive impact of victim personal statements in her experience of the judicial system.
I am sure we have all read and heard about recent examples of offenders having derailed the process, escaped accountability and robbed victims and their families of its healing power. In the evidence session the hon. Member for Knowsley spoke about the case of her constituent Olivia Pratt-Korbel, whose killer refused to attend the sentencing, and whose mother Cheryl has campaigned hard to right that wrong for others. I have met and spoken with Ayse Hussein, another member of Justice for Victims, who campaigned for something to be done in memory of her cousin Jan Mustafa. The Minister and I have met and spoken with other campaigners.
Kyle Clifford raped his former partner, Louise Hunt, who was 25, and used a crossbow to shoot both her and her sister Hannah, who was 28, having already fatally stabbed their mother, 61-year-old Carol, at the family home in Bushey. He was given a whole-life order—which I will return to—and refused to attend his sentencing.
As MPs, we know that behind every case reported in the media will be cases that are not. But the experiences of those people are no less important, which is why the previous Government committed to introducing powers to try to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearing. I am pleased that this Government have agreed with that in principle.
Although I welcome the aim, the shadow Justice team have looked afresh at how best to achieve the right outcome and tabled good-faith amendments to make it more likely that we achieve it. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and I are both committed to never being shackled by historical thinking and approaches when it comes to ensuring that we deliver for victims and their families, and we are doing that in two vital ways.
Amendments 13 and 14 would introduce a duty to consult the victim or their family as part of the enaction of the powers in clauses 1 and 2. I talked earlier about the different people and groups that derive a benefit from the offender attending the sentencing hearing, but of all those with an interest in seeing that happen, victims and their families can be considered the most important. Although the evidence we heard was clear that not every victim would want an offender to be there, and not every victim would want to see force used and risk the disruption of proceedings to make it happen, some would.
The representations we heard from victims groups almost universally supported the idea that the process should involve consultation with victims and their families. All agreed that it would be a welcome reform. Consultation is part and parcel of what the Government do day in, day out; I am sure the Minister has spent many hours reviewing and reading consultation results. The law often requires meaningful consultation before the Government or many arm’s length bodies make significant decisions. As MPs, we all undertake our own consultations, in which we give constituents the chance to let us know their views on something that affects them.
Surely a Bill about victims—named as it is—should reflect its commitment to delivering for victims and would want wherever possible to orientate its measures to victims. A measure on consultation would do just that. Specifically, the amendments would require consultation on occasions when a judge is minded to make a decision to deny victims and family members the opportunity to see the offender at the sentencing hearing. In that scenario, it is important that victims and family members can at least know for certain that the judge was not ignorant of how important it was to them and how they would feel should the judge decide not to compel the offender’s attendance. They would be able to explain their views to the judge directly. Victim personal statements were introduced to give a voice to victims when determining sentences; we are saying victims should also be given a voice on another important matter.
The proposed change is modest but important. Just like victim personal statements, it would not dictate the outcome—a right to be consulted does not constitute a right to decide—and it would not encroach on judicial independence, as the decision rests with the judge. The pain that can be caused when an offender refuses to attend sentencing is profound. Families can feel indirectly silenced, robbed of their moment to see justice done. We should at least ensure that victims are afforded the right to know that decisions about them are not taken without them. The amendments are about respect, participation and dignity. No decision that can have a profound impact on a victim should be taken without first simply speaking to them.
I ask Members of all parties to support our amendments, knowing that doing so will demonstrate a commitment to victims and their families, and ensure that their voices are heard as part of the process, as we seek to ensure that attendance at the sentencing hearing becomes as close to mandatory as we can possibly make it. I know that will be a commitment everybody shares.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank the shadow Justice Minister for introducing the amendments he tabled, and the Government appreciate his support of the Bill in principle. The amendments would place a statutory duty on judges to consult victims or their families before deciding whether to use their powers under the measures in clauses 1 and 2 to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing.
I want to stress that victims and their families have been at the forefront of this legislation, and clause 1 will help to ensure that their voices and the impact of the crimes they have suffered are heard and understood by the perpetrators. We anticipate that, in making decisions, judges will take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the wishes and views of the victims and their families. However, mandating a duty to consult victims risks undermining judicial discretion and the ability of judges to make decisions based on the facts in front of them.
Judges will of course consider any representations put to them by the prosecution on behalf of victims and their families, but they must also take into account the safety of prison and court staff, the efficiency and fairness of proceedings and the risks that a disruptive or resistant offender may cause further distress to victims and delays to justice. Retaining judicial discretion in such cases is therefore crucial to ensure that courts can make decisions in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including those of victims and their families. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I understand the Minister’s desire to ensure that all the things she listed remain the purview of the judge, which is why the amendment makes it clear that they will. Nothing about consultation removes the judge’s ability to decide the factors that they wish to consider, to hear representation from others and to take in mind the safety and wellbeing of court staff and other people in the court. A duty to consult is simply that: a duty to ensure that victims are taken into account.
I draw the Minister’s attention back to victim personal statements. Prior to them being a statutory requirement, people would have made the same arguments. Of course, the judge would have provided an opportunity to consider what victims had to say, but we were clear that such an opportunity was too important, and that we needed to ensure, on a statutory basis, that the victims and their families had the opportunity to say what they wanted about the impact of the crime. I do not think this is any different. A consultation provision would guarantee that victims have a voice as part of the process, while retaining judicial independence to make the ultimate decision whether someone attends a sentencing hearing.
The Opposition will not withdraw the amendment. We think this issue is important, and I cannot reasonably think that Members will be able to explain to their constituents why they did not want to guarantee that a judge would simply have a conversation with a victim or their family about whether someone should be compelled to attend a sentencing hearing.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 4, line 24, leave out from “force,” to end of line and insert—
“so long as it is not grossly disproportionate.”
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“41C Power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender
(1) This section applies where during attendance at a sentencing hearing an offender is disruptive of court proceedings.
(2) The Judge may order the offender to be restrained and gagged to reduce their disruption.
(3) When a Judge is minded not to make an order under subsection (2) and instead remove the offender from the court room they must consult the victim or their family if the victim is deceased.”
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to open this further debate on clauses 1 and 2. In our debate on amendments 13 and 14, we considered how we could improve the way a decision is taken. It is disappointing that Labour MPs did not feel they wanted victims and their families to have a statutory right to be heard in relation to that decision. Amendments 15 and 16 relate to how the decision will be enacted.
A decision, no matter how considered, is of little use if the tools to make it a reality are inadequate. In a further clear demonstration of our commitment to bringing renewed thinking to policy, the shadow Secretary of State and I will always seek to ensure that the balance between criminals and the victims and their families is always tipped in favour of the victims and their families, as far as is reasonable.
Members will, I hope, know that legislation that provides legal protections for those who exercise force, as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, has been on our statute books for some time now, via section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what “grossly disproportionate” means?
Dr Mullan
I direct the hon. Lady to the statute book and to the case law that has evolved around that phrase. If the courts, this Government or our previous Government did not think it was a meaningful distinction, I do not know why we would have it on the statute book. It was introduced to provide the greatest possible benefit to those using force, in terms of legal protection and understanding that they would not be unfairly or unduly judged as a result. As I said, it has been on the statute book for quite some time. It is a legally recognised phrase, as distinguished from “reasonable force”.
Alex McIntyre
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the short answer for his response to the hon. Member for South Devon is no?
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people wishing for further clarification of the phrase “grossly disproportionate force” might be advised to consider the guidance on the matter issued by the Crown Prosecution Service?
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. It surprises me that Members think it is a novel concept when it has been on the statute book for quite some time.
We want to ensure that the individuals tasked with using force to bring offenders to court have the legal protections they need in order to act with confidence. We do not want offenders to think that all they must do is attempt to resist violently in order to escape the outcome sought by the families who have campaigned for a change in the law.
Although the notions of additional time to serve and prison sanctions may change behaviour in some cases, we must reflect on the sort of people we are dealing with and the sentences they serve. We should expect a willingness to offer violence from the sort of person who will barge into a family home and shoot into it without any thought to the family in it, as the perpetrator who killed Olivia Pratt-Korbel did. Do we really think that a man who is willing to violently murder three people with a crossbow, and who is never getting out of prison, would be particularly perturbed by not being able to go to the gym or watch TV? These are the sorts of people we are dealing with, and if we do not make physically forcing attendance our main goal, the Bill risks failing in its aims.
Some victims and families might prefer that someone gets punished if they do not attend, but what many of them will really want is attendance. Our amendment would make it more likely that we achieve that. I urge Members who do not want to look back on a missed opportunity, which will lead to offenders again and again not attending hearings, irrespective of the measures in the Bill, to support the amendment.
It is one thing to bring an offender to court, but we have to consider how they will behave. Amendment 23 would give judges the power to restrain or gag disruptive offenders in the courtroom rather than remove them entirely. Crucially, if a judge is minded not to issue such an order but instead to remove the offender, the amendment provides that they must consult the victim or their family. If offenders learn that all they need to do if they are dragged into court is scream and shout and disrupt proceedings, what do Members think is really going to happen? Is the sort of man who brutally murders two women and stores them in the freezer, as the killer of Jan Mustafa and Henriett Szucs did, and knows that a long sentence awaits him really going to be impacted by a short addition to his custody time?
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Member believe that people capable of such violence would be equally violent with a probation officer or a police officer taking them to court?
Dr Mullan
I absolutely believe that people will be violent, which is why we tabled amendment 15 to ensure that officers are able to use the level of force necessary to compel offenders to attend. If we do not do that, what are we going to achieve? The kinds of offenders who have brought this issue to our attention will be more than happy to resist physically. Are we really saying that the purpose of these measures is just to punish people? I do not think it is. I think their purpose is to get people into court for their sentencing hearings. In combination, our amendments would ensure that that happens, or at least make it significant more likely.
Caroline Voaden
We absolutely agree that it is preferable to have the perpetrator in court to face justice and hear their sentence. However, I listened carefully to the evidence of Baroness Newlove, who said that we want to avoid this becoming a spectacle and all about the offender. The sentencing hearing is the moment when the victim hears what sentence the offender will get for the crime that they have been subjected to. It is about the victim, and justice for them; it should not become some circus sideshow for the offender to create havoc in the courtroom. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a point at which it is not beneficial to bring the offender into court to create such a sideshow?
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. If Members wish to catch my eye, I do not think they will have any difficulty, but we cannot have interventions turning into speeches.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member raises an important point. That is why amendment 23 specifically includes a duty to consult victims and their family members on the use of the power. We heard evidence, which I had anticipated, that some victims and their families will not want to see the offender. That is why the judge should consult them and, if that is their clear and settled view, take that into account when making the decision. The point is well made, and that is why our amendment takes that issue into account.
I have spoken directly to several people involved in these types of cases. I mentioned Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims. She was absolutely clear that even if exercising the power in the amendment meant someone disrupting proceedings and creating a spectacle, as the hon. Member for South Devon described, she would want to see it happen, and there will be many other people who feel the same way. For those who do not, there is no pressure for it to happen. That is why we have said that the judge should speak to people about the power before using it, for the important reasons that the hon. Member gave.
I return to the point that I fear that we will end up worse off because we will have told the public, “We can get these people into court,” but actually the worst offenders will just not come or resist. That is why we need to increase the level of force and ensure that they cannot just make a noise to get out of the whole process. The people on whole-life orders, for example, are some of the worst offenders, who we most want to see in court. They are the ones who would be least bothered by the sanctions, and they would just make a noise in order to not have to be in court.
If we overcome that first hurdle, as a result of our amendments on the use of force, and get offenders into the dock, we also need the power to ensure that they cannot just scream or shout their way out of it. I have to say that I was genuinely shocked by Labour Members’ questioning on this measure during the evidence sessions. Restraint of people through force is practised in a wide variety of settings by a wide variety of people on a regular basis. I have no doubt whatsoever that the practice can be extended to our courts.
As much as I respect the training and expertise of aeroplane crews, I do not consider them to be uniquely qualified in the ability to restrain people in a chair. I urge Members to reflect on any initial resistance that they may have to this measure. Do they sincerely think that what aeroplane crews can achieve up in the air is not achievable in a courtroom? Common sense tells us that this measure is eminently achievable. I was pleased to hear evidence from a senior police officer and a senior staff member of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—and, indeed, to hear the Minister herself accept—that it is possible in principle. I am confident that the majority of the British public will agree with us, and I wonder how Members who choose to vote against the measure will explain that action to their constituents.
I will deal briefly with how someone might be gagged —that is to say, silenced—by giving a simple example. I only need to do so briefly, because it really is a very simple matter. In August 2018, a US judge, John Russo, asked for a robber, Frank Williams, to be silenced after he refused to be silent and continued to disrupt the court’s proceedings despite being issued with 12 warnings. Based on their questioning during our evidence sessions, I know that Members struggle to conceive of how that might be done, so I will alleviate their concerns and tell them how it was done: they just placed some tape over his mouth. The US legal system is quite clear about the legal right for an offender to be restrained and gagged. Members can, should they wish, look up the relevant rulings in the US judicial system.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I am struggling to see how a piece of tape can silence somebody. Somebody with respiratory conditions, or whatever, might even suffocate as a result. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the medical reasons for not gagging somebody?
Dr Mullan
Absolutely, and it would be for the judge to decide in all circumstances whether it is appropriate. I will be happy after this sitting to send the footage from that case, and the evidence of someone successfully being gagged by having tape placed over their mouth. This is really simple stuff that is being done in other parts of the world and I do not understand why Members find it so difficult to understand.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The hon. Member is clearly suggesting using physical restraining techniques in a court setting. Does he agree that those techniques could be used in any other part of court proceedings, including, perhaps, during the trial itself? We would be setting a precedent for our system here. It would not just be about sentencing; you are arguing that we can use physical restraint, including gagging, within the court setting, which is not currently what we do in our courts.
The Chair
Order. Let me lay down some ground rules. Can we try to stick to parliamentary language? In this case, “you” means me, and I am not arguing anything.
Dr Mullan
If the hon. Member wants to suggest where else such restraint might benefit victims and their families, I will absolutely support his case if I think it is legitimate. As I have said, my focus and the balance I want to strike is, as far as possible, in favour of victims and their families, and it is not about overly concerning ourselves, outside of clear medical reasons, with the rights and wellbeing of the criminal, who at this point has been convicted. This is not rocket science. Putting a bit of tape over someone’s mouth is effective. It is done in other countries. I really do not see why Members find it so difficult to understand.
Earlier, I touched on the matter of victims’ and their families’ views about this measure. I have heard directly from family members of victims who accept that this sort of approach could be disruptive but still support it. I mentioned Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims. Another member of Justice for Victims, Katie Brett, suffered the loss of her sister Sasha, who was raped, stabbed more than 100 times and had her body set on fire by her killer. Katie would have wanted him to be restrained and gagged, if that was what it took.
I could go on, but I think that the point is made. I am, of course, mindful that not everyone will feel that the way that we have included in our amendment the requirement to consult victims and their families is appropriate, given earlier votes against that approach. However, I think that our amendments, in combination, will provide an effective measure that balances what some victims will want against what other victims may not want.
Members will have to decide who they want to get behind: the kind of people who seem to feel uncomfortable about restraining and putting tape over the mouths of rapists, child abusers and murderers; or victims and their families who want to see that done. The choice is clear, and we on the Opposition Benches are clear what measure we will support.
Alex Davies-Jones
Amendments 15 and 16 would change the circumstances in which force may be used to bring an offender to court. They would effectively extend those circumstances to situations in which disproportionate—but not grossly disproportionate—force is required to secure attendance.
Based on the debate we have had, it might be beneficial if I explain how the system currently works. The use of force by prison officers is currently justified, and therefore lawful, only if it is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. We are quite deliberately legislating to permit the use of lawful force, which is a test that is well understood and used throughout the criminal justice system. I remind hon. Members that the previous Government used the same test in their attempt to get this measure passed.
Prison and prisoner escort staff are trained to employ the lawful use of force and are experienced in making judgments about the circumstances in which the use of force is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. They are also trained in the use of existing approved techniques for moving reluctant or resistant prisoners safely around the prison and court estate. In recent cases, such as that of Nicholas Prosper, we have seen how they effectively employ the same techniques to restrain offenders and bring them to court to hear justice being done.
Clearly defined boundaries for the use of force, which are well understood by custody officers, ensure that escorting staff are not subject to unreasonable or unmitigated risks when bringing offenders to court. Where it is deemed unsafe or unreasonable to use force, prisons will discuss with courts how best to proceed. Where attendance is considered necessary, the court can consider making a direction for the offender to appear via live video link. That option is more manageable for the prison to enforce and minimises the potential for impactful disruption to proceedings, which can, as we have heard, lead to a spectacle in the court.
An offender who is deemed too violent or disruptive to attend court in person or by live link would, under these measures, be found in contempt of court and subject to a further prison sentence or other punishment. We are going further than the previous Government and ensuring that, where offenders do not take responsibility and face victims’ families, they are punished.
Offenders should not be forced to attend court if it would risk the safety of custody officers or court users, or disrupt proceedings, causing undue distress and further delay to victims and their families. Our measures strike the right balance in requiring that the use of force must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary, ensuring the safety of all court users and minimum disruption to court proceedings.
Amendment 23 would give judges the power to order a disruptive offender to be restrained and gagged in court during their sentencing hearing. It would also introduce a duty on the court to consult victims or their families before making a decision to have the offender removed from the hearing instead. The Government appreciate that an offender’s refusal to attend their sentencing hearing, or their disruptive behaviour during that hearing, can cause anger and upset for victims and their families, and we heard that during the evidence sessions. That is why the measures in the Bill reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearings and behave appropriately in court. They give judges the powers they need to do what is right in each individual case.
Decisions on the use of restraints to manage offender behaviour are a matter for prison officers and prison escort staff. They will make decisions about the use of force depending on the circumstances of each individual case. The use of force must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and restrained prisoners must be brought to court using approved techniques in our prison system for moving individuals safely. Gagging prisoners is not an approved technique in our prison system and is unlikely to be considered a lawful use of force in these circumstances. Its use may in fact increase the risk of violence or disruption to the point where officers would have no choice but to remove the offender from court. Amendment 23 is therefore unlikely to achieve its intended outcomes.
We will not allow offenders to achieve the outcomes they intend of continuing to traumatise victims and families or disrupting proceedings, by not attending court or causing a circus or spectacle. Should a judge deem it necessary, the offender will be removed and the judge can add an additional sanction to punish them properly. Forcing disruptive prisoners to remain in court at any cost would jeopardise officer safety and delay proceedings and could cause unnecessary distress for victims and their families. Is that what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle intends with his amendments? They are unlikely to achieve the intended objective of the Bill, which is to ensure that offenders face up to their crimes and hear the impact of their actions on victims and their families. A more productive and realistic approach would be to punish the offender for disobeying the order to attend their hearing and failing to show any respect for victims and their families or the court.
The measures in the Bill were produced in consultation with families; they asked for them and we listened. Our measures give judges the option to punish any adult offender who, following an attendance order, becomes disruptive in court and is removed from the hearing, by ordering up to two additional years in prison, an unlimited fine and/or the imposition of numerous potential prison sanctions. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw his amendment because of the risk of unintended consequences and the prevention of justice for victims and their families.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for her response. She says that judges will have the powers they need. As I think I clearly explained, those powers might be helpful in some circumstances, but for the very worst offenders—the kind that have been in the news and have caused us to think more clearly about this issue, in particular those on whole-life orders, for whom a sentence extension means nothing—
Alex Davies-Jones
I implore the hon. Gentleman, in his efforts to ensure that offenders face families and justice, to explain why none of the additional measures that he proposes were in the previous Government’s Bill.
Dr Mullan
As I have said very clearly, I am a shadow Justice Minister now, and the new shadow Secretary of State and I make justice policy. I am not afraid to go further than previous Governments, and I will not be restrained by what they did. I did not make those previous policies; it was not my decision how they were enacted. I am confident that the public will respond positively to our attempts to go even further on these measures.
As I was saying, the worst offenders, who are in our minds when we consider these offences—those on a whole-life order, for example—do not care about a custody extension because they cannot have one. They are never getting out of prison, so they are never paying a fine. The Minister listed examples of sanctions, which included not being able to watch TV or go to the gym. Do we really think those are the sorts of measures that will have hardened, violent criminals quaking in their boots? I do not think they are.
The Minister said the measures in the Bill were developed in consultation with victims. I have absolutely no doubt that victims will welcome them—the sanctions, prison time extensions and fines. They are all welcome sanctions and will be appropriate for a whole range of victims, but some of the very same victims that she consulted—I spoke to two of them—would also welcome a further strengthening of the measures. If all a criminal has to do to get out of being in court is make noise—that is literally the test we are putting before ourselves today—there will be very many of them who are happy to do that in order to ensure that they do not have to face the accountability of the system.
The Minister talked about what is legal now. We are legislating—we are making the law—so it is up to us what is legal. We can make the decision that something is legal. I have given a concrete example of another jurisdiction where the sort of restraint that we propose is used successfully—it has not been tried and found not to work; it is used successfully. There is absolutely no reason not to assume that we can make it a success in certain situations in this country.
Our amendment 23 would not compel the judge to act—there is no compulsion. The judge would remain able to decide, but they would be given the clear power to act in this way if they think it is appropriate in all the circumstances. I am confident in the validity of the amendment and the positive impact it would have on victims and family members who were willing to see it used and felt that the potential disruption to the court proceedings was a price worth paying.
As the HMPPS staff member and the police officer we heard evidence from attested to, such a change in policy would take training and resource. Of course, we would expect the Government to develop training in support of the enactment of the measure. A lack of such training right now is no reason not to make the power available to judges.
I am conscious of the time, and the fact that we might wish to push this measure to a vote at a further stage, so I will not seek a Division today. However, we remain convinced of the legitimacy of this measure and will ensure that it is voted on at a later stage so that the public can understand which side Government Members are on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I just want to say a few words about the provisions in this Bill on attending sentencing hearings and related prison sanctions, because this issue is incredibly personal to me. I do not think we would be sitting in this Committee today, with this Bill in our hands, without my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who have fought hard to make this happen.
Many of us will know Cheryl’s story: just quickly, for the record, her nine-year-old daughter, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, was tragically shot and killed in their own home in 2022. As if that was not horrific enough, the man who killed her, Thomas Cashman, did not turn up to court and did not attend that sentencing hearing, which meant that Cheryl did not get to read her victim impact statement out to him. There was confusion at the court; she did not know what was happening, and it came very late in the day. This has been a source of pain, because she felt out of control and that she had a lack of agency.
In my first surgery, Antonia and Cheryl came in and told me about their case, and I have had the pleasure and the privilege of supporting them. I want to thank the Government and put on record today that I have been in every meeting with them, with the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and this Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. That was not just consultation; it was Antonia and Cheryl’s suggestion about sanctions and attending the sentencing hearing that put this measure in the Bill. I thank the Government for listening to and acting for people. I know that there were other families on the frontline who were listened to as well.
This measure is because of those family members, and I pay tribute to them. This is what a Government can do when they really listen to people and act in that reality. That is why we have this Bill today.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful speech. I place on the record my thanks to her and her constituents for all of the brilliant work that they have done in ensuring this measure becomes law, and to ensure that no other families have to face what her constituents and, sadly, many other families have had to face.
I will speak to both clauses 1 and 2 at the same time, as they are very much linked. In recent years, as we have heard, several murderers—most recently Lucy Letby and Kyle Clifford—have refused to attend their sentencing hearings. That causes victims’ families significant further distress. It can be seen as a final insult, denying the families the opportunity to see the full administration of justice for their loved ones and allowing offenders to avoid having to hear and confront the consequences of their horrific crimes. The provisions in clause 1 and 2 recognise the impact that such behaviour has on victims and their families in compounding their trauma.
Clause 1 inserts proposed new sections 41A and 41B into a new chapter 2A within part 3 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Proposed new section 41A introduces an express statutory power for the Crown court to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing. It makes clear that an offender who refuses to attend their hearing without reasonable excuse commits a contempt of court, meaning that adult offenders are liable for an additional two years’ custody and/or an unlimited fine, or, in the case of a child offender, a maximum penalty of £2,500. That also applies to offenders who, following an order to attend, commit contempt by misbehaving or disrupting the proceedings and are removed as a result.
Proposed new section 41A makes it clear that, for adult offenders, reasonable force, where necessary and proportionate, can be used to give effect to the court’s order to deliver them for their sentencing hearing. The final decision on whether to use reasonable force will remain with the prison and escorting staff. Children will not be subject to reasonable force for this purpose, in line with existing policy.
The second part of clause 1, proposed new section 41B, goes further than ever before by introducing a new power for Crown court judges also to impose prison sanctions on any adult offender who is subject to an attendance order and commits a contempt of court by refusing, without reasonable excuse, to attend their sentencing hearing, or who attends, but is removed from the hearing because of their conduct. That can be instead of or alongside any other punishment imposed by the court.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that, unamended, this measure will simply require an offender to make a lot of noise in order to get out of all the things that she is saying about them actually being at the hearing? Sanctions are there, but in terms of them actually being at the hearing, all they will have to do is make some noise.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention, but I disagree with the hon. Member. We have seen most recently cases in which offenders have been brought to court despite their reluctance. The prison officers and court staff have been able to get them there with the use of reasonable force. Then they have started to disrupt proceedings, but once the judge has explained to them some of the measures that are available currently—not these sanctions, because we have not yet made this law, but those measures that are currently available—that has resulted in the sentencing hearing being allowed to go ahead. What the hon. Member says is not always the case.
Alex Davies-Jones
We need to be careful on what we deem as noise. If, as we have heard in the Committee’s evidence sessions, an offender is beginning to make the sentencing hearing a spectacle or a circus and that is causing more distress to the victims and their families and preventing the course of justice, the judge will have the power to remove the offender from the court. However, with our new measures, the judge will have the power to impose these sanctions on them in prison, issue the unlimited fine and impose more time in prison. That will still be a measure even if they attend, cause a spectacle and have to be removed. They will be punished, and that will be explained to them if they continue to carry on.
I go back to the Armed Forces Act and the effect that these new measures will also have on service courts, because that is important. We need to remember that justice is done in a number of courts in our country and not just in the Crown court. Offenders before service courts who commit a contempt are liable for a fine or 28 days’ service custody—or, alternatively, the offence may be considered by a civilian court for the purposes of contempt of court proceedings. Where an offender is ordered to attend a service court from prison, but fails to do so or—as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said—attends, but is removed from the hearing because of their conduct, they may similarly receive a prison sanctions order.
I recognise that these provisions may not guarantee that every offender will attend their sentencing hearing when so ordered or that they will not create a spectacle during the sentencing hearing. However, these measures reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearing and behave appropriately. We need to ensure that justice is seen to be done by victims, their families and the wider public, to create trust in our justice system. The measures will ensure that offenders are appropriately punished for failing to do that. Judges will retain the discretion to make decisions based on the facts of the case in front of them. I therefore urge that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing: armed forces
Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 2, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim and their family if they are deceased.”—(Dr Mullan.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Brewer
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“for a serious sexual offence committed against a child.”
This amendment would extend the provision of restricting parental responsibility where a parent is sentenced for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, regardless of whether it is their child or on the length of sentence handed down.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 6, line 1, leave out
“of 4 years or more”
This amendment would ensure that where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence the court would be under a duty to make a prohibited steps order.
Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 6, line 2, leave out
“for whom the offender has parental responsibility.”
This amendment would ensure the court was under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence against a child, whether or not that child was one for which they had parental responsibility.
Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 6, line 43, at end insert—
“10CA Duty to consider make prohibited steps order where serious sexual offence committed against any child
(1) This section applies where the Crown Court sentences a person (‘the offender’) to a term of imprisonment or detention of less than 4 years, for a serious sexual offence committed against any child.
(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.
(3) A prohibited steps order must be made if the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to children of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further serious sexual offences.
(4) In making that assessment, the court—
(a) must take into account all the information that is available to it about the nature and circumstances of the offence,
(b) may take into account all the information that is available to it about the nature and circumstances of any other offences of which the offender has been convicted by a court anywhere in the world,
(c) may take into account any information which is before it about any pattern of behaviour of which any of the offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) forms part, and
(d) may take into account any information about the offender which is before it.
(5) The reference in subsection (4)(b) to a conviction by a court includes a reference to—
(a) a conviction of an offence in—
(i) any proceedings under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (whether before a court-martial or any other court or person authorised under any of those Acts to award a punishment in respect of any offence), or
(ii) any proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;
where ‘conviction’ includes the recording of a finding that a charge in respect of the offence has been proved), and
(b) a conviction of—
(i) a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or
(ii) an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1059),
where ‘conviction’ includes anything that under section 376(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is to be treated as a conviction).
(6) The order must be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.
(7) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—
(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,
(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or
(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
(8) Further, the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—in respect of any child in respect of whom the offender has parental responsibility—the Court is of the opinion that—
(a) the removal of parental responsibility is not in the best interests of that child; and
(b) there is no significant risk to that particular child of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further serious sexual offences.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), each child in respect of whom the offender has parental responsibility must be considered separately.
(10) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if—
(a) the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or
(b) the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more, but see section 10D.
(11) Sections 1, 10 and 16 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.
(12) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.
(13) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.
(14) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.
(15) In this section ‘serious sexual offence’ shall have the same meaning as that in s.10C.
(16) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list of offences in Schedule ZA1.”
New clause 13—Restricting parental responsibility of certain offenders—
“After section 10B of the Children Act 1989 insert—
‘10CA Duty to make prohibited steps order where serious sexual or violent offence committed
(1) This section applies where the Crown Court sentences a person (“the offender”) to a life sentence, or a term of imprisonment or detention of 10 years or more, for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for a child.
(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.
(3) The order must—
(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and
(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.
(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—
(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,
(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or
(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if—
(a) the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or
(b) the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more,
but see section 10D.
(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.
(7) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.
(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.
(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.
(10) In this section—
“life sentence” means a sentence of imprisonment, detention or custody for life, or during His Majesty’s pleasure;
“serious sexual offence” means an offence listed in Schedule ZA1;
“violent offence” means an offence of homicide, assault or robbery.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list of offences in Schedule ZA1.’”
Alex Brewer
It is very clear that a child of a sex offender is at risk, regardless of whether the sex offender has committed that offence against their own child or another child. The amendment would seek to broaden the provisions for removing parental responsibility from children of sex offenders.
I would like to share some of my professional experience. I used to work in a domestic abuse charity, where I ran a women’s refuge and had safeguarding responsibility for the families that have fled violent and often sexual abuse. There were numerous occasions when we had to facilitate parental contact by enabling a mother and her children to meet the perpetrator of that abuse, which was court mandated, even though they had fled that abuse, supposedly to a position of safety. As a person with safeguarding responsibility, that puts professionals in an impossible situation, but that is nothing compared with the position in which it places the parents, who have to take their child to a position that is desperately unsafe.
We would seek to broaden the measures in clause 3 so that somebody who is convicted of a serious sexual offence, regardless of the length of the sentence and of who that sexual offence was committed against, would not have parental responsibility for their children. If they have been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, their own child is at risk. At the moment, the children of sex offenders are at more risk than other children in society. We believe this is a very important measure, and it needs appropriate resource allocated to it.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of our amendments 17 and 18. As has been said, the Bill currently requires prohibited steps orders, which remove parental responsibility, only for those receiving custodial sentences of four years or more, and only if they have parental responsibility for the victims of those offences. In the evidence session earlier this week, the witnesses were absolutely clear that this provision, as currently drafted, is too narrow.
Amendment 17 seeks to widen the court’s duty to protect children from those convicted of serious sexual offences. It would move the threshold and ensure that anyone imprisoned for a sexual offence triggers the court’s duty to protect children by considering a prohibited steps order. We believe that is a more appropriate line to draw for this measure, which is essentially when an offence reaches a level of seriousness that hits the custodial threshold.
Amendment 18 is of even more vital importance, and it was also strongly supported by the witnesses in their evidence. It would close a troubling loophole in clause 3—although I am not sure whether “loophole” accurately describes it; it is an enormous omission. At present, the duty to make a prohibited steps order applies only when the child victim is someone for whom the offender has parental responsibility. That is an unacceptable narrowing of protection, and the logic of this measure is indefensible.
The Government believe that it is right to remove parental responsibility for someone who is convicted of a very serious sexual offence against a child, but only if it is against their own child or a child for whom they have parental responsibility. That makes no sense, and it is no surprise that the witnesses were universally against it. Amendment 18 would ensure that anyone convicted of a sexual offence against a child that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence is subject to a prohibited steps order, regardless. Again, I ask Members to think about how they might explain their position on this amendment to their constituents.
Amendment 24, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is essentially aiming for the same outcome, but perhaps we have a slightly different interpretation of where we place the threshold. Amendment 24 specifies “serious sexual offence”, while we have used the custodial limit as the trigger in attempting to achieve the same outcome. It is something that we could commit to looking at in future stages of the Bill, if we can secure a better understanding of how we distinguish between serious and non-serious offences.
We are sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat aims, and I think we have a shared aim on not just the threshold, but particularly the fact that this measure will be enacted only when the child who has been the subject of the crime is one for whom the person has parental responsibility. I do not see the logic in drawing the line in the way that the Government have, separate to any questions about the level of severity.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments: amendment 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato); amendments 17 and 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde); and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.
Amendments 17 and 24 seek to remove the four-year custodial threshold for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. The restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious and far-reaching measure. It must be applied with care and in a manner that is a legally robust, while also protecting the most vulnerable. The requirement for a four-year custodial sentence provides a defined marker of seriousness.
This thresholds aligns with existing sentencing frameworks. Section 244ZA and schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 specify a list of serious offences, including child sexual offences, that are considered serious enough to warrant that the offender must serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than the standard half when they are sentenced. The amendment would lower this threshold and require the Crown court to make the prohibited steps order when the offender is sentenced for any period of imprisonment or detention.
I want to be clear that any offence against a child is unacceptable and one of the most heinous crimes in society. Restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious step and not a decision to be taken lightly. That predetermined marker of seriousness ensures that any order made by the Crown court happens automatically only where the offender has committed serious and grave offences against a child who they are supposed to look after.
Dr Mullan
The Minister has a wealth of colleagues around her who are covering these issues, including—as I understand it—the Home Office Minister responsible for safeguarding, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). What does this Minister say to the Home Office Minister about her previous position that a provision of the kind that the Government have drafted was too narrow? Has this Minister spoken to her colleague about that, and does her colleague personally agree with the measure as currently drafted by the Government?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know, having been in Government before the election, how Government collective responsibility and consultation with other Government Departments work. The safeguarding Minister and I are responsible for the Government’s strategy on violence against women and girls, which commits to halving it within a decade. Of course, the family courts are playing an integral role in that, and we seek to build on it. I will talk more about that shortly. Where we need to go further, this Government will.
We have used the statutory framework because it reflects the Government’s view that the offences are exceptionally serious. It is therefore appropriate that the same threshold be used to determine when an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility should apply. I understand and appreciate the rationale but, because there are existing processes to seek the restriction of parental responsibility, it is essential that there is a threshold and a clear marker for it to happen automatically.
Alex Brewer
There are mechanisms in place, but they put undue onus on the non-offending parent. Does the Minister agree that the onus should be shifted to the offending parent?
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree that the current situation in the family courts is difficult, and it can be traumatic for parents who are seeking to have a parental order removed. That is why we have taken the measure in the Bill. It is a new approach, through which we seek to remove parental responsibility on automatic conviction in the Crown court. As I said in oral evidence, this is not something we do lightly, but we feel that it is necessary in order to protect offenders’ and perpetrators’ own children from the most serious offences. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for North East Hampshire to consider what further work we can do to reform the family courts. The Department is working closely on that, and we know we need to get it right in order to protect all children from these crimes, whether or not restrictions to parental responsibility are sought via the family courts or automatically, with this measure, in the Crown court.
Amendments 18, 24 and 8 seek to expand the circumstances in which the Crown court should make a prohibited steps order to include cases in which the offences were committed against any child. Again, it is important to be clear that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime that leaves a lasting impact on victims and their families. Those affected have my deepest sympathies, and it is they who we must have in our minds when we debate the measure.
The current provision is carefully targeted. It ensures that automatic restrictions on the exercise of parental responsibility apply only when there is a direct and recognised relationship between the offender and the child victims. Our focus on offenders who have committed a serious child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility is based on a desire to tackle the cases involving child sexual abuse with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. This is, as I have already said, a novel and untested change to the law, and the response from perpetrators is unpredictable. We know that perpetrators often seek to use the family courts, as we have already heard, to further traumatise victims, and they could therefore seek to appeal the removal of responsibility.
Caroline Voaden
Does the Minister agree that somebody who has been convicted of a serious child sexual offence against a child for whom they do not have parental responsibility still poses a danger to their own child?
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree with that point. It is important that we recognise, as I have stated, that there are other measures to remove a person’s parental responsibility for their own child through the family courts. I stress that this is a novel approach. We need to look at the justice system as a whole; we cannot consider our various courts in isolation. The measure being carried out in the Crown court could make an impact on the delays that exist in the family courts, thanks to the backlog that we inherited from the previous Government. I do not wish to exacerbate that, or to traumatise any other children and families who are going through the family courts, by further increasing that backlog. For that reason, we wish to keep the measure quite small and novel, as it is untested at present; however, once we have seen how it works, there is the possibility perhaps to go further in the future.
Dr Mullan
We all recognise that this is a novel measure. I do not think that anyone is suggesting introducing a blanket measure. For example, we have used the custodial threshold as a narrowing measure and the Liberal Democrats have used a serious sexual offence as a narrowing measure. The Minister is talking about the balance that needs to be struck, but surely the balance is not being struck correctly when the decision is that only a child for whom someone has parental responsibility brings this measure into scope. Surely that is not the right balance, despite the weighing exercise that I appreciate the Minister has to undertake.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to note that a line does need to be drawn, as the hon. Member has recognised; there does have to be a balance. In the previous Government’s version of the Bill, there was a different threshold, which was child rape of any child. We have changed that.; in this version, the measure is any child sexual offence where there is four years or more in custody, but only of the offender’s own child. As a Government, we have determined that as the necessary threshold. That is different from the previous Government’s threshold, which was only child rape. I think that recognises the difficulty in drawing a balance here.
We need to take a more limited approach for the time being, especially initially, to ensure that, as I have already said, the family court is not overwhelmed by endless appeals from perpetrators causing even more traumatisation to victims, and especially children. This is essential so that other victims and families with cases in the family court are not detrimentally impacted.
Our intention with clause 3 is to tackle the cases with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. That is why we have chosen to focus the measure in the way that we have. It is important that we properly understand the impact any additional family court proceedings will have on the children and families involved. The cohort in scope of this measure is at the highest risk of immediate harm from the perpetrator, which is why we have chosen to focus on that cohort. This does not prevent an application being made to the family court for parental responsibility to be restricted in other circumstances, as is already available.
Amendment 8 suggests using the Crown court to gather evidence on the best interests of the child and the level of risk the offender poses to the child. Doing so would place a significant new burden on the criminal court, meaning less capacity to hear criminal cases and even longer waiting times for those seeking justice. The proper forum for that consideration to happen is the family court, where the judge can hear from all relevant professionals and have access to any necessary reports before making a decision that will always be based on the best interests of the children involved.
We are already going further than the previous Government did with their Criminal Justice Bill. Those proposals were limited to child rape; our measure includes not only child rape, but a broader range of child sexual offences. Most important of all, the previous Government talked of change, but failed to deliver. We will deliver this change to protect children. We all have a huge amount of sympathy for families in these circumstances, and I want to do all we can to support them in getting the right outcome for their children.
New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, seeks to expand the instances where the Crown court will be under a duty to restrict the exercise of a perpetrator’s parental responsibility at the point they are sentenced to 10 years or more for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for the child.
I reassure the hon. Member that there are already clear powers in the family court to restrict parental responsibility where it would be in the best interests of the children involved. If a parent or other interested party wishes to make an application, they can do so. Where relevant, the family court is able to and will remove parental responsibility or restrict it to the point that it cannot be exercised in any meaningful way.
The existing law is clear that in every case, the court’s paramount consideration must be what will be in the best interests of the child. We cannot rule out that sometimes it may not be in the child’s best interests for parental responsibility to be removed or restricted, particularly where the child is not the direct victim of the offence. However, as the Lord Chancellor and I have said, we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure. While we cannot support new clause 13, we remain committed to ensuring that the law robustly protects children. I reassure hon. Members that the Government will continue to work to strike the right balance on this issue.
For the reasons I have outlined, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments so that we can continue to develop this important legislation in a way that is principled and practical and gets the balance right for children.
Alex Brewer
I thank the Minister for her comments. While I understand that this is a novel approach and I welcome the measures in the Bill as a first step, we believe that they do not go far enough and still leave children at risk.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Brewer
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 6, line 19, after “justice” insert—
“or of a child and the non-offending parent”.
This amendment would mean that a judge could have discretion to decide not to make a prohibited steps order when it was not deemed in the interest of a child and the non-offending parent.
This is a small amendment that would continue to put children at the heart of this Bill. There are times when a court should not make a prohibited steps order in relation to a child. In the evidence session, we heard from many charities that children are not sufficiently heard as victims of crimes, and that their voices are not carried forward. We would like to include a small amendment that would put children and the non-offending parent at the heart of that decision making in the courts.
Alex Davies-Jones
Amendment 25 was tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, for whom I have much respect, and seeks to amend clause 3 to allow the Crown court discretion not to make a prohibited steps order in cases where it considers such an order not to be in the best interests of the child or the non-offending parent. Let me begin by acknowledging the intent behind this amendment. It is of course right that we consider the welfare of children and the rights of non-offending parents in all decisions made by the court. However, the Government cannot support this amendment for several reasons.
The clause as drafted already strikes a careful and considered balance between protecting children and respecting judicial oversight. We have included a narrowly defined exemption to allow the Crown court the flexibility not to make a prohibited steps order, which is a section 8 order under the Children Act 1989, where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. That provision is intended to cover exceptional circumstances where the Crown court does not consider it to be in the interests of justice, which may arise from unusual facts or a case that is particularly complex. It ensures a degree of flexibility without undermining the core safeguarding purpose of the provision in the Bill.
The family court is the appropriate forum for determining what would be in the best interests of children and navigating the complexities of individual family circumstances. It is uniquely equipped to consider the full facts of each individual case, drawing on the expertise of all relevant professionals and supported by any necessary reports. That enables the judge to make a fully informed decision, one that is always guided by the paramount principle of the child’s best interests. The Crown court simply is not equipped to carry out that detailed consideration.
Legislation already provides a route for family members to bring an application to the family court, so it can consider whether the order should be varied or discharged and whether a more tailored order or other family court orders are required, and ensure that any order is consistent with the best interests of the child or children involved in the individual circumstances. This avenue is still open for families where the Crown court has made an order under the provisions of clause 4.
Alongside that existing route into the family court, we are also providing a clear new route in certain circumstances. If the offender is acquitted of the relevant offence, or their sentence is reduced to less than four years—I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify this point, because it was raised when I gave evidence to the Committee—the local authority is under a duty to bring the matter back before the family court. This ensures that decisions remain responsive to the best interests of the child, without compromising the initial safeguarding intent of the judge. The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system protects children from further harm from such offenders. The provisions in clause 3 are a vital part of that commitment.
I also place on record the Government’s commitment to consulting on a new victims’ code, specifically with the intention of addressing concerns, raised by the hon. Member for North East Hampshire, regarding how we can ensure that child victims are at the centre of the justice system. As she has said, for the first time ever, children are considered victims in their own right for crimes such as domestic abuse, in law; but, as we know, in practice that sadly is not the reality for many child victims. Therefore this Government are determined to go further. Under our new consultation on the victims’ code, which we are hoping to launch later this year, we will make it a key focus to ensure that the code works for all victims, with a particular focus on children in mind.
I understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Eastbourne has tabled this amendment, but I hope that he and the hon. Member for North East Hampshire are reassured that there are already strong provisions in place to ensure that the family court can consider the interests of the children involved in these types of cases, and their families. As such, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 25.
Alex Brewer
I thank the Minister for her assurances. As with our previous amendment, I look forward to working with her on improving the family court. However, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, women’s and children’s charities, and victims strongly urged us all to ensure that children and non-offending parents are at the heart of the criminal justice system, so I believe that this is an important amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “not” to end of line 25 and insert
“ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal.
(5A) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more.”
This amendment would ensure that a prohibited steps order would cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal. It would also require that a prohibited steps order remain in effect where a sentence is reduced on appeal so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more.
I will keep my remarks brief. As we have said, these measures require balance and consideration for all parties concerned. We were surprised that the Government’s proposed measure would not cause a prohibited steps orders to automatically fall away if someone is acquitted of an offence. It might seem obvious to say this, but if someone is acquitted of an offence, they are innocent. They have not done anything in the eyes of the law, so I struggle to see why we would continue to insist that, if they are subject to a prohibited steps order, the onus is on them to get it removed.
On the other side of things, if a prohibited steps order is in place and has not been challenged, and someone remains guilty but is on a lesser sentence, the balance falls in the other direction and it should remain in place. Although she may tell me that this was our position in government too, I am interested in hearing from the Minister why the Government do not feel that it is appropriate for such an order to be removed if someone is acquitted.
Alex Davies-Jones
The amendment seeks to amend the process in clause 3 if an offender has been acquitted or had their sentence reduced on appeal. The Bill provides a clear route for considering a prohibited steps order following an appeal that has resulted in an acquittal or a reduction in the offender’s sentence. In such cases, the relevant local authority will be under a duty to bring an application to the family court to consider whether the original order should be upheld, varied or discharged.
The drafting of the amendment is deficient and risks creating confusion. It would provide that any prohibited steps order made under proposed new section 10C of the Children Act 1989 would cease to have effect where a person is acquitted, effectively discharging the order. In practice, there would be no order in place to discharge the original prohibited steps order, and therefore no documentary evidence that the order had been discharged. Compounding that, the amendment would retain an obligation for the relevant local authority to make an application to the family court to consider the prohibited steps order, under proposed new section 10D(2), and yet there would be no order for the family court to consider, because it would have ceased to have effect.
In short, the amendment would not make sense in practice and would risk creating confusion in a context where clarity is particularly important.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for that feedback. Perhaps we need to consider how the amendment is drafted, but does she accept the principle? There is no other example I can think of where someone is acquitted of an offence, because they are innocent, but they remain subject to any provisions whatever that were related to the conviction. Perhaps the amendment needs to be redrafted, but surely the Minister agrees in principle that someone should not be subjected to a consequence of a conviction that has been overturned.
Alex Davies-Jones
We need to remember that for a criminal case to have been brought, the child or another party will have made an allegation of serious sexual abuse committed against that child, and that will have been followed by criminal proceedings and an initial guilty verdict. The relationship between the child and the accused parent may have completely broken down during that process. When the family court reviews the case, the judge will undertake a holistic review of all the circumstances, including the acquittal, before deciding what is in the best interests of the child.
We must also remember that the prohibited steps order does not form part of the sentence when it is made by the Crown court. The order is not part of the punishment, or an additional punishment, for an offender; it is a tool to protect children who have been the victims of a dreadful crime, and their families. Even where the individual is acquitted—I have huge sympathy for those who are found innocent and acquitted—it is likely that the case will have gone through lengthy proceedings, and complex family dynamics will be involved. We must keep in mind the overarching aim of protecting children and doing what is best for them. That is why the order will not be automatically discharged following a successful appeal.
I think it is important that if there is a successful appeal, there is a clearly defined process during which the best interests of the children involved are considered, which is why we have put that measure in place. We understand that following a successful appeal, it is important that decisions about a prohibited steps order are made quickly. That is why the process already included in clause 3 requires the local authority to make the application within 30 days of the acquittal. By placing the duty to make the application on the local authority, we are reducing the burden on the families involved, at what will already be a difficult and potentially traumatic time. Moving the proceedings to the family court centres deliberations in the correct forum. The family court will consider whether varying, discharging or, indeed, upholding the order will be in the best interests of the children involved, which I am sure we can agree is what we all want.
Mike Wood
I am struggling to understand either the legal or the ethical distinction that says that someone who is acquitted at trial should be in a fundamentally different position from someone who is acquitted following an appeal and has their conviction overturned. Surely the practical results should be the same. In every other part of the criminal justice process that I have encountered, they are.
Alex Davies-Jones
That goes to the heart of why we have kept these measures as niche and tight as possible—because they are quite novel. We are restricting parental responsibility where an offender has been found guilty in a Crown court, with a jury and a judge, of any sexual offence against their own child for which they will be sentenced to four years or more in prison. That is incredibly traumatic for the child and family involved. The person will have already been found guilty. This is not similar to cases in which someone is acquitted and a prohibited steps order can be removed immediately. We have to consider the impact on the child. These are offences that the perpetrator will have been found guilty of, in a court of law, against their own child.
Mike Wood
As the Minister will be aware, where the Court of Appeal overturns a criminal conviction for a serious offence such as this, it will generally be because there was a serious flaw in the original trial that has left it invalid. Even in those circumstances, the Court of Appeal may grant a retrial rather than overturning the conviction. I understand the point the Minister is making about the trauma to the family and child, but would that not apply equally to someone who is acquitted at the original trial, in which case should the court not also be considering it in the event of a not guilty verdict? I really am struggling to understand why a conviction being overturned on appeal is substantively different from a not guilty verdict.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily answer that point. We are not saying that we would not remove the prohibited steps order; of course there will be a route to remove it. If the offender or alleged perpetrator is then acquitted through the Court of Appeal, there should always be a route to do that, and there will be within 30 days. However, the correct route for doing that is the family court, which will have all the reports available to determine the best interests of that child’s welfare, given everything they have been through, rather than the Crown court, which is not equipped to make that assessment.
Dr Mullan
Can the Minister give me any other example in our legal system where someone who has suffered a consequence directly as a result of a conviction that is then overturned is required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows from that overturned conviction? I cannot think of any. If someone is exonerated, everything falls away. This measure is specifically linked to someone being found guilty; if they are then essentially found not guilty, they will have to take further steps. Nobody else who is essentially found innocent has to do other things to get things removed from them.
Alex Davies-Jones
The shadow Minister cannot think of any and, off the top of my head, stood here right now, I cannot think of any either, but that goes to the heart of the reason why we need to keep these novel measures quite tight—it is because of their potential impact. Primarily, my interest, and the interest of the Government, is to protect children and child victims, and I put my faith in the family court system to do what is in the best interest of the child following an acquittal, given everything that that child—that victim—has been through. We must remember that if the perpetrator is acquitted in the Court of Appeal, there is still a child victim and a crime that has been committed against that child.
Dr Mullan
With respect, there is not a victim. The person has been acquitted, and there is not a child that has suffered anything, any more than if the person was found not guilty in the first place. I respect the Minister’s comments on how the amendment might be better drafted, but the Government have to accept that they are introducing an extremely unusual interpretation of what happens to someone when they are found not guilty, compared with every other bit of the justice system that I am aware of. Someone who is found not guilty is innocent; the court has decided that the accusation made did not transpire.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is exactly why we have included a route to remove the prohibited steps order, and we feel the appropriate route for that is the family court. That is the measure in the Bill, and it still stands that that is the safest route to protect the welfare of the child in the circumstances, given what—I was going to say, “I can only imagine”, but I cannot even imagine it—will be an immensely traumatising and awful experience for everyone involved. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
The Minister made heroic efforts to explain the logic and context of how we ordinarily deal with these matters. We think the prohibited steps orders are an important enhancement for the safeguarding of children, but I cannot imagine a scenario, even in circumstances in which the offence has not been found proven, in which the children the Minister talks about will not have had the involvement of social services and other steps taken to ensure their wellbeing more generally.
This measure is specifically about parental responsibility, and I find it difficult to understand why the Government are setting a precedent that an innocent party should be required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows specifically from their conviction. I appreciate the feedback on the drafting of the amendment, and I will not press it to a vote, but the Government need to think very carefully about the precedent they are setting in relation to what happens to innocent people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Hon. Members may wish to remove their jackets. Please make sure that electronic devices are switched to silent mode. Hansard will be grateful if you email speaking notes. I remind Members to rise in their place if they wish to speak.
Clause 42
Information about complaints for detained patients
Question (17 June) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering clauses 43 and 44 stand part.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I know that the Committee has been waiting in earnest for me to deliver this speech on clauses 42 to 44. As the temperature gets to almost 30° today, I will try to maintain the same gumption that President Trump had when introducing his flagpoles, because this is an exciting topic and I am keen to treat it with verve.
Clauses 42 to 44 will introduce new duties on hospital managers to provide information about complaints procedures to patients under different legal regimes within the Mental Health Act 1983. The clauses move important safeguards from the code of practice into primary legislation, thereby giving them statutory force, which is a welcome step. I acknowledge the Government’s intentions to strengthen patients’ rights and accountabilities within the mental health system.
Clause 42 concerns information for detained patients. Under the current law, section 132 of the Mental Health Act 1983 requires hospital managers to give patients information about their rights under the Act, including their rights to apply to the mental health tribunal and to access independent mental health advocates. Although complaint procedures are mentioned in the code of practice, however, they are not explicitly covered in statute. Clause 42 will amend section 132 to impose a new statutory duty to provide information on how to make complaints about: the carrying out of functions under the Act, any medical treatment received while detained, and the outcome of any such complaint, including routes for escalation such as through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Importantly, the information must be provided both orally and in writing, and steps must be taken to ensure that the patient actually understands it. Those duties must be carried out on initial detention and then repeated either annually for restricted patients or on the submission of renewed report under section 20 of the Act. The Opposition welcome that positive and necessary step. We know from independent reviews, including the Wessely review, that many patients do not know how to complain or fear that doing so will affect their care. By placing these requirements in primary legislation, we provide more robust legal protection.
I would be grateful if the Minister clarified some points. How will “understanding” be assessed or evidenced in practice? For example, what guidance will be issued to ensure that the needs of patients with a learning disability, cognitive impairment or limited English are met? Will independent mental health advocate services play a formal role in supporting patients to understand the Act with regard to this information about complaints? Is that part of their expanded role? Will complaints about poor complaint handling, not just about the original matter, be clearly included in the framework, as implied in the explanatory notes? To whom would such complaints be reported: NHS England, the Department, the integrated care board or a regulator such as the Care Quality Commission?
As we are talking about complaints, I notice that paragraph 327 of the explanatory notes states:
“New subsection (2A)(c) ensures the duty covers information about the patient’s right to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman about the maladministration of complaints about medical treatment.”
That is very welcome, but it brings up an entirely new set of questions about the role of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in this guise—an institution that embodies the public’s right to accountability, redress and justice when our health and public services fall short. In essence, it is the final arbiter; at best, it is the final safety net for those who feel they have nowhere else to turn. In particular, I want to focus on its critical yet often underappreciated work in relation to mental health complaints and how it intersects with the new Bill.
The ombudsman investigates unresolved complaints about NHS services in England, including those related to mental health care, alongside complaints against Government Departments and other bodies. For many families affected by failings in mental health provision, be that in crisis care, discharge planning or secure settings, the ombudsman provides a route to independent evidence-based resolution. We must therefore ask whether it is functioning with the efficiency, compassion and authority that patients deserve.
To pick just some of the data, in 2022-23 the PHSO received more than 35,000 complaints, which was an increase of 20% on pre-pandemic levels. If we look at timelines, performance remains under pressure: only 32% of investigations were completed within 13 weeks, 50% within 26 weeks and 81% within 52 weeks—that comes from the annual report. In the mental health sphere, such delays can exacerbate trauma and deepen distrust in public systems, in particular if the complainant is already experiencing severe distress.
The PHSO has reported a rise in callers exhibiting suicidal ideation, a tragic indicator of the depth of need and the urgency of timely reform. Over the past few years, to its credit, the ombudsman has introduced reforms for a new case severity assessment framework to triage cases more effectively; investment in digital case management; training for frontline staff to deal more sensitively with mental health complaints; and a proactive push for transparency, including publishing more case outcomes and data.
That is important work, but there is still some way to go. What assurances can the Government provide that PHSO’s funding is sufficient to cope with increased volumes of complex mental health cases, especially as it has a somewhat unique structure? The PHSO reports to the Public Accounts Committee. It does not have a departmental home. It is appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister, after scrutiny by the PAC, but it is funded through the House of Commons Commission. That makes the PHSO rightly independent, but we need to ensure that it has the ability to deal with the top level of complaints about severe cases of mental health issues.
Under this legislation, we will be creating more automatic referrals to tribunals; we are rightly empowering more patients to complain; and we are putting more reports in for accountability. We need to ensure that when there are complaints—as there could well be—they will still be dealt with. Therefore, has an impact assessment been carried out, or will one be carried out, about PHSO funding, capacity and ability to deal with more mental health complaints?
As we debate a new Bill, we must ensure that accountability mechanisms fully integrate with any legislative reform. The Bill will, rightly, enhance patient rights and restrict inappropriate detention, but the ombudsman must be equipped to robustly investigate breaches of those rights. We should also ensure a clear reporting pathway for detained individuals when their families go to the ombudsman. My overarching question for the Minister, which I hope he will address is: how will the Bill, empowered in this way, interface with the PHSO? Will it strengthen the ombudsman’s ability to investigate complaints relating to involuntary treatment or detention?
Clause 43, on information about complaints for community patients, will make an equivalent amendment to section 132A of the Mental Health Act, which governs patients subject to a community treatment order. Again, patients are currently told about their rights to tribunal and IMHA support, but not necessarily about how to raise concerns or complaints about their care in the community. The clause will therefore require hospital managers to provide information about how to make complaints about functions carried out under the Act, about medical treatments for mental disorder while on a CTO, and about the outcome of any such complaint.
Clause 43 will also add a new requirement to repeat the information as soon as practicably possible after the CTO renewal. Again, that seems sensible and overdue, because clear repeat information can help to balance the power dynamics and support the patient voice. However, what steps will be taken to ensure that community patients who do not have regular contact with hospital staff are still given the information promptly and meaningfully? Will that be the duty of the new community clinician, for example? What is the role of community mental health teams or primary care staff, such as GPs or community psychiatric nurses, in delivering or enforcing the duties? Will the Minister confirm whether patient carers or families beyond the nominated person will be supported in understanding how someone can make a complaint?
Finally, clause 44, on information for conditionally discharged patients, will introduce proposed new section 132B of the Mental Health Act, extending the same principles to patients who are conditionally discharged, including restricted patients under section 42, 73 or 74. Such individuals often remain subject to significant restrictions in the community, such as curfews, reporting conditions or residence in supervised accommodation, and they can be recalled to hospital at any time, yet under the current law they have no statutory right to be informed of how to complain about or challenge decisions that affect them.
Clause 44 will require hospital managers to inform those patients about which section they are discharged under, how the Mental Health Act continues to apply, their rights to apply to a tribunal, and—crucially—how to make complaints about the carrying out of MHA functions, medical treatments and complaints outcomes. That requirement must be met as soon as practicable, in both oral and written form. A copy must also be given to the nominated person.
The explanatory notes state that the duty applies to
“patients subject to transfer directions”
from prison, and that the information should be given before discharge if possible. That is welcome, but it raises a question why, unlike clause 42, clause 44 does not impose a duty to repeat that information periodically. Given that conditionally discharged patients may remain under conditions for many years, have the Government considered adding a requirement to re-provide the information, say, annually? What support or advocacy will be available to conditionally discharged patients, particularly those in forensic or community forensic services, to help them to make complaints or understand their rights? Finally, will the Minister clarify how the provisions will work for patients who lack capacity, or who have no nominated person? Will there be a fall-back or safeguard in those cases?
In clauses 42 to 44, the Government are rightly seeking to embed the right to complain, and to understand that right, into the framework of the Mental Health Act. These are technical but powerful reforms. As ever, however, the challenge lies in not what is required but how it is delivered, especially for the patients who are most marginalised, restricted or isolated. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurances about monitoring for compliance, clear statutory guidance, and the support of the advocacy structure, particularly at the very top, for dealing with complaints.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I will respond to the questions that have been asked.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon asked what training would be provided to staff on communicating the information clearly and compassionately. We will seek to clarify the complaints process and, when we come to revise the code of practice, we will consult on the guidance for how information on complaints should be provided. The Department will work with the NHS, Social Work England and other partners to develop appropriate training for staff on the reforms. Once the code of practice has been updated, professionals working under the Act will be required to undergo training to maintain their competence and awareness of the Act.
The hon. Member also asked how to ensure that information is genuinely accessible. It is important that the complaints process is accessible to all patients. Hospital managers must take practicable steps to ensure that patients have understood complaints procedures, and information about complaints must be provided both verbally and in writing. We expect all healthcare organisations to meet people’s communication needs to support equitable access, experience and outcomes, including when someone is in hospital for their mental health.
NHS England sets out guidance for providers on how to support individuals with their communication needs. That support may involve providing access to interpreters, providing information in a range of formats—such as in translation, large print, braille and easy read format—or the use of augmentative and alternative communication, video clips and visual diagrams to aid understanding. The accessible information standard requires all applicable organisations to identify, record, flag, share and meet the information and communication support needs of patients, service users, carers and parents with a disability, impairment or sensory loss.
On the question of whether there will be an audit of whether patients feel genuinely informed and empowered to complain, we know that some service users are not aware of the avenues by which they can make a complaint. The changes in clauses 42 to 44 seek to address that problem, and to increase awareness of the complaints system. To ensure that patients are supported and empowered to exercise their rights, we are expanding the right to an independent mental health advocate to all mental health in-patients. Complaints information must be provided to both the patient and the nominated person. Family and carers also have a right to complain about care and treatment given under the Mental Health Act.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley asked for reassurance on oversight, and that feedback from complaints will identify issues. I think that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury also asked about that, as well as asking what mechanisms will be in place to give feedback on how the system is working. Complaints data enables CQC Mental Health Act reviewers and mental health inspectors to understand trends and focus on areas of concern in their respective monitoring and inspection activities. Focused activity— for example, a focused Mental Health Act visit or inspection activity—can also be scheduled in response to concerns raised in MHA complaints. When looking at trust and provider-level MHA inspection activity, complaints information informs the CQC’s questioning of trusts or independent providers about their complaints processes.
Dr Evans
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 45, page 57, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert—
“(1) All eligible patients shall have a right to create an advance choice document.
(1A) For the purposes of this section, an ‘eligible patient’ is a patient who—
(a) has previously been detained under Part 2 or Part 3 of this Act,
(b) has been diagnosed with a mental disorder which may lead to the possibility they will be detained under this Act in the future, or
(c) is an English qualifying informal patient (see section 130CA).
(1B) NHS England and each integrated care board must make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for—
(a) ensuring that all eligible patients for whom it is responsible for the purposes of this section are informed of their right to create an advance choice document, and
(b) helping an eligible patient to create an advance choice document.”
This amendment gives all eligible patients the statutory right to create an advance choice document if they so wish.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 32 and 33.
Amendment 18, in clause 45, page 57, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) An ‘advance choice document’ under subsection (3) should include consideration of the person’s financial circumstances.”
This amendment ensures that the advance choice document includes matters relating to the patient’s financial circumstances.
Government amendments 34 and 35.
Clause stand part.
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to clause 45 and amendment 46. I will also speak to the amendments from the Government and the Liberal Democrats.
The Bill introduces advance choice documents as a new tool to empower people with lived experience of mental health conditions. This is a significant development in mental health law and policy. Currently, people who are detained or treated under the 1983 Act often have limited ability to influence decisions about their care at times when they lack capacity. Although the Act includes some mechanisms such as advance statements, they have been criticised for their limited legal weight and inconsistent application.
Clause 45 will insert proposed new sections 130M and 130N into the Act, and place duties on NHS England, integrated care boards in England and local health boards in Wales to facilitate access to information about ACDs and to provide support to individuals who want to create such documents. As the Government’s explanatory notes state, ACDs are written statements
“made by an individual while they have capacity or competence …setting out their decisions, wishes and/or feelings about matters that may be relevant to their assessment for admission…and treatment”
should they lack capacity. That extends the scope of patients’ involvement in care planning and respects autonomy in a way that the current law does not fully achieve.
I commend the Government for recognising the importance of enabling people to set out their wishes in advance, especially when they have previously been detained or treated informally. That can help to reduce stress, improve trust between patients and professionals, and potentially prevent crisis escalation to detention. Nevertheless, I have some constructive questions that I hope the Committee will consider.
On the strength of duty on the NHS bodies, proposed new section 130M(1) will require NHS England and each ICB to
“make such arrangements as it considers appropriate”
to provide information about and support with ACDs, which leaves considerable discretion. Will that discretion lead to inconsistencies across regions and vulnerable populations? Should the Bill include clear minimum standards or benchmarks for what constitutes “appropriate” arrangements, for example by mandating proactive outreach to high-risk groups, such as those in secure children’s homes or immigration centres, where awareness of rights or access to support is often poor?
There is then the legal status and practical use of ACDs. The clause defines ACDs but does not specifically set out their legal weight in decisions about treatment or detention. How will clinicians balance these documents with their clinical judgment or clinical care needs? The explanatory notes mention that ACDs may include
“advance decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”
The Bill could clarify how conflicts will be resolved; this is a recurring theme in our discussions. It would be helpful to have explicit guidance on safeguards to ensure that ACDs are given full weight and respect while maintaining clinical safety.
I turn to the issues of training, resourcing and monitoring. This is a big change, and supporting people to make meaningful ACDs requires skilled staff and resources. Who is expected to provide that support? Is it the CPN, the community clinician, the IMHA or even the GP? Will there be training programmes for clinicians and care staff on how to discuss, record and use ACDs effectively? Furthermore, will there be monitoring and reporting requirements so that Parliament and public can hold the services to account? Who will those requirements sit with if NHS England is abolished? Will it be the CQC, the ICBs or even the Department of Health and Social Care?
We then have the issues of access and equity. We have already identified that people with learning difficulties and certain racial groups find themselves in contact with mental health services more than other groups. These groups can be less keen then to interact with services, either by choice or due to ability, so how do the Government intend to ensure that ACDs are accessible to people from diverse backgrounds, including those with communication difficulties, learning disabilities or limited English? What consultation will there be with charity and representative groups to ensure that documentation is accessible enough for all, yet thorough and robust enough to properly reflect wishes correctly?
Clause 45 is a welcome step towards enhancing patient autonomy and improving mental health care, but to ensure that the new powers deliver real benefits, the Government should consider how to strengthen the duties placed on various bodies. That leads me to amendment 46, tabled in my name. Embedding ACDs into mental health is long overdue, but the clause places duties on NHS England and integrated care boards only to “make such arrangements” as they consider “appropriate” for providing information and support for ACDs. The intention is good, and a marked step from where we were, but the language risks creating a postcode lottery in which patients’ access to this important right depends on where they live or how proactive their local systems happen to be.
That is why my amendment seeks to move from discretion to entitlement. It would replace the current discretionary wording of the clause with a clear legal right for eligible patients to create an advance choice document. The amendment defines “eligible patient” as a patient who has previously been detained under parts II or III of the Act, who has a diagnosis that may lead to future detention, or who qualifies as an informal patient under proposed new section 130CA. It would also require NHS England and ICBs to proactively inform eligible patients of their rights and offer them support in exercising them. This is a targeted and proportionate amendment. It would not mandate ACDs for all, nor would it impose burdensome new duties; it would simply create a right to be offered and supported to make an ACD.
The letter of 3 June from Baroness Merron to my colleague in the Lords appears, in part, to address the issue, so I will talk a little about what she wrote. I thank Baroness Merron for the letter and the tone of the letter, which reflects genuine engagement on the issue and acknowledges the importance of reflective care after detention. She notes:
“The impact assessment for the Bill accounts for multiple hours being spent with the individual by health and care professionals to inform and support them to make choice in advance of a potential future mental health crisis.”
That is welcome. She also stated that the Government had tabled an amendment that day that
“requires commissioners to make arrangements for bringing information and help available regarding ACDs, to the attention of people…especially those in the 12 months following their discharge from hospital.”
I believe that that is a reference to one of the Government amendments to this clause. I hope I am right; if so, I will return to that amendment once I have set out the position on ours. As set out in the letter, the Government amendment is another step forward, and I acknowledge that the Government have appeared to move in response to concerns raised by my colleagues in the Lords and by many stakeholders, but I gently suggest that it falls short. It retains the same permissive language—duties to do what is a “appropriate”, decided locally by commissioners. That may allow for good practice in some areas, but it does not create enforceable rights for individuals. Without a clear entitlement, patients who need this the most may never even be told that it was an option.
Let me give a practical example to illustrate why statutory rights matter. A person with bipolar disorder may be detained under the 1983 Act during an acute episode, but once well, they may want to specify in writing that in future they do not want a particular medication or that they want to be admitted to a specific hospital near family. Those are reasonable, clinically relevant requests, but unless the person is informed of the right to make an ACD and offered support to do so, that opportunity could be lost, especially for those facing health inequalities or language barriers, or those who have a history of mistrust with services.
The Government have said that those conversations will happen anyway within the care planning or under the community mental health framework, but the reality is that the systems are patchy. People discharged from hospital often face month-long waits to be re-engaged by community teams. They may not have a named worker. They may receive support only from overstretched primary care. ACDs must not rely on assumptions about care pathways, which too often do not work as intended.
On trauma and mandating reflection, I want to take seriously a point that Baroness Merron raises in her letter: for some individuals, reflecting on past detention may be traumatic, and that support should be user-led. Absolutely—that is why my amendment would create a right, not an obligation. No one should be forced to make an ACD, but people should be informed that they can, and they should receive its support if they so choose. Choice is not trauma; it is autonomy.
Let us remember that, for many, reflecting on what went wrong in past care is not re-traumatising but restorative. It is how people regain control and how the services learn. I believe this is a thoughtful and sensible amendment. It would strengthen clause 45 by creating clear, predictable entitlements for those most at risk of future detention. It would respect clinical discretion while affirming patients’ rights. It would not undermine the Government’s intent but fulfil it. We all agree that ACDs could be transformative. Let us give them the best chance to succeed by ensuring those who need them the most are offered them, not just as a maybe.
I will touch quickly on amendment 18, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and spend the rest of my speech addressing the Government amendments. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for highlighting an important part of dealing with mental health, but I simply wonder whether primary legislation is the correct place to do what he suggests. Could it be done in codes of practice? What if people are admitted, but when they produce plans do not want to disclose their financial arrangements? Might compulsions have to be created for them to do so? I wonder about the unintended consequences of amendment 18, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s addressing them.
I think the Minister in the other place was referring to Government amendments 32 and 33, so I am grateful to be able to address what has come forward. Government amendment 32 appears to be a step in the right direction. It seeks to insert new paragraph (c) into proposed new section 130M(1), with the following wording:
“bringing the availability of that information and help to the attention of such people as it considers appropriate.”
That is welcome, as it moves beyond simply making information available, which could mean leaving a leaflet in a waiting room or uploading something to a website, and instead encourages proactive communication. However, the language still leaves a significant loophole: it is limited to
“such people as it considers appropriate”.
That allows NHS England or integrated care boards to withhold communication for individuals who may be eligible, based on subjective judgment or resource constraints. Although it improves the duty, it still falls short of a universal and consistent approach to ensure people with serious mental health needs know their rights.
Government amendment 33 will insert two further subsections, (1A) and (1B). Proposed new subsection (1A) states:
“The arrangements that must be made…include such arrangements…for people to be given information or help by having a conversation with someone who is suitably qualified”.
Proposed new subsection (1B) states:
“NHS England or an integrated care board must have regard to the particular benefits to a person of making an advance choice document within 12 months of their discharge”.
The amendment rightly recognises that a conversation, not just a form, is often essential for meaningful care. It also acknowledges that the post-discharge period is a crucial window in which individuals are stabilising and may be open to shaping a future care plan in a thoughtful way, but again the language is discretionary. There is no guarantee that the conversation will happen, even where a person is recently discharged from hospital and known to be at high risk of readmission. Who is “suitably qualified”? Is it the clinician, an independent advocate or a voluntary sector worker with lived experience? If the amendment is to be meaningful, the Government must provide clarity in the codes of practice or in regulations.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points about the importance of patients being offered advance choice documents and being supported to make them, as the Bill describes. The evidence submitted from the General Medical Council makes it clear that it supports the duties as set out in the Bill, and it says that they are in line with the current good medical practice guidelines for professionals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill, as it stands, fits very well with current medical practice?
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point. It would be interesting to know if that advice came when the Bill was debated in the Lords, because these clauses were not in place, but were introduced through the Government’s amendments. This is an extension to that. Our amendment to give a right to a patient would be a further strengthening. I entirely agree that the Bill is a good step forward, but if we are not going to address this again in the next 40 years, the Opposition would like that right to be enshrined. To be offered the opportunity is the key bit here—no mandation. It is good practice to let people know their rights, and we are affirming that. The worry is that while there is good intention to allow it based on the system, what happens if times are stretched? The amendment would give someone a statutory chance to say they have that right, and that it is upheld in law. That is what the Opposition are pushing for.
In essence, we are both trying to solve the same problem, but taking different approaches. The key distinction between the approach of the Government and that of the Opposition is that the Government’s creates a duty on the system, but no individual entitlement, while the Opposition’s proposes a patient right matched by a clear responsibility to inform and support the individual. The Government’s clause says that NHS England and ICBs must make arrangements as they consider “appropriate”. We say all eligible patients should have an informed right to create one. I anticipate that the Government might turn around and say, “Well, this is too rigid,” or that it imposes unfunded burdens on the ICB. I argue that it is targeted; we are not extending the right to everyone with a mental health condition but only to those at the most risk of future detention.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
As a clinician, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand what I am trying to say. There are many mental health patients who do not have any insight into their illness and often refuse to take medications. It is important that, as the clause says,
“‘qualifying person’ means a person who has capacity or competence to make the statement,”
so that people do not make inappropriate decisions in their advance choice documents. It is important to keep the clause as it is, whereby a qualifying person is someone who can make a competence decision.
Dr Evans
The hon. Gentleman is spot on. We do not want people making decisions about their care when they do not have capacity. The whole point of what we are trying to do—as is the Government’s intent—is to allow people to make advance care decisions when they have capacity, so that when they are not lucid in the future and come back into contact, their preferred decisions are already set out. The clause does allow for a handbrake mechanism for clinical safety, to overstep them. However, what I am worried about is finding ourselves in a situation where patients never even find out that they have the right to create one of these ACDs.
The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do from my time, that good clinical practice is to ensure that patients have a plan. We do that for asthma: we expect patients to have an emergency plan for what happens, who they contact, where they go, what they take and what it looks like, personalised to them. Why should mental health be any different? My amendment actually gives ACDs legal footing, rather than simply saying that the system should offer it to them.
The amendment is cost-effective. Evidence suggests that ACDs can reduce the use of coercive powers, prevent relapse and improve continuity of care. That reduces costs, not adds to them. It is already good clinical practice; many mental health trusts already encourage care planning conversations. Our amendment would simply raise the standard across the country.
The Opposition understand that the Government have the numbers on this Committee. Will the Government clarify the role of the code of conduct? Do the Government intend to issue national guidance or benchmarks to ensure that ICBs do not apply widely different criteria for who is appropriate to be informed or held? Could the Government explain further, in response to the letter and in this Committee, why they do not accept ACDs as a basic right, narrowly defined, for only the most vulnerable individuals to be offered this opportunity? What mechanism will be used to monitor compliance with these new duties? How will patients know whether they are being fulfilled?
To my eyes, Government amendments 34 and 35 will do the same as amendments 32 and 33, but covering the Welsh system and local health boards, so I will not rehearse the arguments that we have just had. However, I would be interested to know whether this creates an issue for data collection on compliance across the two countries. We touched on this in relation to clause 2, but if different health authorities take different approaches to monitoring data, does that not risk making it even more opaque when we try to see both good and bad performance? Could the Minister address that point?
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly to clause 45, Government amendments 32 and 33, Lib Dem amendment 18 and Opposition amendment 46. I am very supportive of clause 45. The ability to make an advance choice document is incredibly important to people who may come under the scope of the 1983 Act and be subject to detention under mental health legislation.
We have spoken at length about the importance of patients’ input into their care and the improvements in outcomes when they feel that they have been involved and their wishes and feelings are taken into account. An advance choice document allows someone at risk of being detained under the Act to set out their choices, thoughts and opinions before becoming so unwell that they may need to be admitted to hospital. Other hon. Members have spoken about how an advance choice document can help prevent detention in a mental health unit, as it can stop issues escalating to the point where there is no option but detention, to ensure patient safety or the safety of others. I am broadly supportive of clause 45, and I urge the Committee to be.
I turn briefly to Opposition amendment 46. I have heard the thoughts of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. My understanding is that clause 45, along with Government amendments 32 and 33, will effectively create the rights for those who should have an advance choice document to be able to take advantage of them. Government amendments 32 and 33 will go further in ensuring that people who may benefit most from an advance choice document are informed of their ability to do so.
I note that Government amendment 32 will put a duty on an integrated care board to bring information to such people as it deems appropriate. I welcome the duty being on an integrated care board or commissioner locally, particularly because there are such nuances in localised care and localised populations. There are areas of the country in which the prevalence of things like learning disability and autism is higher than in others. The amendment will allow an ICB or local commissioner to consider what may be appropriate for the population in their area.
Dr Evans
I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying. There are differences—rightly so—and regional variation. By definition, different regions will take different approaches to dealing with this issue. My argument is simply that someone with a learning disability should have the right to decide to make an ACD, as should someone with bipolar disorder or anorexia. There should be no regional variance in that; it should be a right given to the individual there and then. Regional discrepancy should not come into the system to deal with this. I appreciate that there will be regional discrepancy, but, fundamentally, we want to engage the right, not just the responsibility for the ICB to decide who it thinks is appropriate. I am interested in the hon. Lady’s take—I think this goes to the heart of what we are trying to do.
Jen Craft
I agree on the notion of a right; where we vary is that I think that the Bill as written, and Government amendments 32 and 33, enshrine the notion of a right without it having to be spelled out as such. Local variation includes localised populations, such as those from marginalised communities. We might consider different translations of support that is available. That will not be the case across the board—it will vary from area to area. This does not remove people’s ability to make an advance choice document; it simply gives local commissioners the ability to determine what is most appropriate for their area, how that support should look and how it will be targeted.
Without getting ahead of the Minister, I hope that he will say what guidance on best practice for local commissioners and ICBs will be set out, particularly in relation to those with learning disabilities and autism. We have spoken about easy-read documents, for example, which should probably be made available, as should advice on how commissioners can best make sure that all those who might benefit from an advance choice document are meaningfully engaged and informed of their right and ability to do so.
The Minister has agreed previously to make sure that he works with disabled people’s organisations, including those run by and for people with learning disabilities and autism, on bringing forward a code of practice on the Mental Health Bill. Input on patient experience into how best to contact and meaningfully engage people who would benefit from an advance choice document would be particularly beneficial.
Very briefly, the aim of Liberal Democrat amendment 18 is to include consideration of financial circumstances in an advance choice document. I have looked into this—in my opinion, it is outside the scope of what an advance choice document does. An advance choice document sets out how an individual would wish to be treated if they became so unwell that they were unable to make those decisions for themselves. I am not fully sure how one’s financial circumstances fit into how one would be treated relative to detention or, potentially, in a community-based setting. I understand that financial circumstances have an impact on people’s mental health—we have talked about that in debates on other clauses—but they do not necessarily have a place in this specific part of the Bill.
I encourage the Committee to support clause 45 and to adopt Government amendments 32 and 33. This is, once again, a big step forward in ensuring that those with serious mental illnesses are able to input into their care and treatment in a real and meaningful way.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. In the previous sitting of the Committee, I spoke extensively about the close link between money worries and poor mental health. That link is why I have sought, through amendment 18, to ensure that advance choice documents include a specific section on money. This would give people greater choice and control over their finances when they are in crisis. Without that provision, financial worries could be an even greater hurdle to recovery.
We have talked a lot about financial problems being a major contributor to mental health crises, and they can make it much more difficult to recover from one. I will not go through all the details again, but the numbers show how significant the problem is. Last year, nearly 21,000 people in England alone were struggling with problem debt while in hospital for their mental health, so it is not a small cohort of patients for whom this is a specific issue. Ensuring that people’s finances are taken into consideration when they are in a mental health crisis will prevent future illness, reduce waiting lists and help people to return to daily life more smoothly, including to work. If we ignore it, that will end up costing the NHS more in time and resources.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to speak in support of amendment 46. It is eminently sensible and would give all eligible patients the statutory right to create an advance choice document to record their treatment preferences in a formal legal document. Those preferences would be enjoyed only in the event of a future mental health crisis or detention under the Mental Health Act.
The amendment would give important control to patients and to those around them to know that their future care decisions would be applicable at the point at which they become incapacious. It would quite rightly place a requirement on NHS England—for as long as it continues to exist—and ICBs to ensure that those individuals are aware of their rights and, more importantly, that they are not just aware of them but are supported in creating an advance choice document if they so wish.
The amendment is all about empowering patients. The more we can empower patients who face these challenges, the better. It would increase their autonomy and help with the planning of their future care. It would help both in the understanding and the honouring of patients’ wishes. Critically, it would reduce conflict. In these circumstances, tensions are high and pressures are acute, so conflict can arise in the most unintended of ways. Having an advance choice document minimises that risk.
If the Government will not support amendment 46, what reassurances can the Minister give in relation to the code of practice? How will this be accounted for in the code of practice to ensure consistency in the information imparted to patients across the country by NHS England and the ICBs? We must ensure that there is not a postcode lottery and that everybody, regardless of where they live in the country, gets the consistency of care that they are entitled to.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak in support of amendment 46, tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, which seeks to strengthen clause 45, an already welcome and progressive clause, by creating a statutory right for all eligible patients to create advance choice documents if they so wish.
Let me begin by saying that I think everyone on the Committee recognises the importance of advance choice documents. They are an excellent initiative, and I am glad that the Bill introduces a framework to support their use. I hope we can all agree that they represent a constructive and compassionate shift in how we think about mental health care—one that puts the patient’s voice at the centre. ACDs are fundamentally about empowerment. They allow individuals, while they are well and have full capacity, to record their wishes, preferences and concerns regarding their treatment, so that during future periods of unwellness, when they may lack capacity, their past self can still be heard and respected. As Bipolar UK has rightly put it:
“The idea behind an ACD is that you use your past to plan your future.”
That simple principle holds immense power. Individuals with lived experience of severe mental illness like bipolar disorder are often experts in their own care. They know what works, what does not and what signs to look out for. An ACD allows that hard-earned knowledge to be recorded, shared and used to guide clinical decisions. By identifying early warning signs and outlining preferred treatments, ACDs can enable families, friends and professionals to intervene earlier, potentially avoiding a crisis or reducing the severity of an episode. This is not just about better care; it is about safer care and, crucially, more timely care.
The research is persuasive. Studies suggest that ACDs can reduce rates of compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act by up to 25%. That is not a small statistic; it is a significant reduction in trauma for patients, in the use of force and in resource pressures on services. It is hard to think of a better example of a policy that both improves outcomes and reduces system strain. ACDs can also play a vital role in reducing inequalities, especially among racial minority groups, who, as we have all said, are statistically more likely to be detained under the Act. Ensuring that those patients can express their wishes in advance gives them greater agency and helps to address long-standing disparities in the system.
ACDs are not just a useful administrative tool; they are, as Earl Howe put it in the House of Lords,
“are a major component part of one of the Bill’s key strands, which is to give mental health patients better control over their own care—which, of itself, carries a therapeutic value.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2025; Vol. 843, c. 79.]
I absolutely agree, which brings me to amendment 46. The clause as drafted places duties on NHS England and integrated care boards to consider making information about ACDs available, and to help those people whom they consider “appropriate” to create one. That is a start, but it falls short of what is needed. The shadow Minister’s amendment would take us further and create a statutory right for eligible patients to create an advance choice document. It would define clearly who is eligible—for example, those previously detained under the Act, those diagnosed with a condition that may require future detention and qualifying informal patients—and would put a clear duty on NHS bodies to inform these patients of their right and to help them to exercise it. This is not about placing a burden on services; it is about ensuring that everyone who stands to benefit from an ACD knows that they can make one and is supported to do so if they wish.
I appreciate that the Government have tabled amendments 32 and 33 to clause 45, and I welcome the intention behind them. Amendment 32 requires that NHS England and integrated care boards must bring the availability of this information and help to the attention of such people “as it considers appropriate.” Amendment 33 expands on how that might be delivered, including through conversations with qualified individuals and by having specific regard to the benefits of ACDs in the 12 months following discharge from hospital.
Although these are improvements, I must respectfully say that they stop short of what is needed. They continue to frame the duty in terms of who the board considers appropriate, yet the very point of ACDs is that we should not be gatekeeping access. We should not be making assumptions about who would or would not benefit from having one. Every eligible patient should be offered the choice, not just those whom the system deems suitable. We are dealing here with people’s autonomy and right to shape their future care, and if we start from a place of selective provision, we immediately disempower many of the very individuals we claim to support.
Jen Craft
I would welcome the hon. Lady’s thoughts on where clause 45 or the Government’s amendments allow for selective provision. My understanding is that they place an onus on mental health commissioners to make sure that all those who are deemed appropriate to be in receipt of an ACD should be given the ability to make one. I do not think that is selective; it is very much related to the purposes of the Bill, and it spells out who may come under the provision.
Aphra Brandreth
The hon. Lady has just made my exact point: that it is who they deem appropriate. That is the point I am trying to make. It is for the individual—of course, with support of people looking after them—to decide whether it is appropriate for them and to be offered it.
Aphra Brandreth
I will make progress, as I know that a few Members wish to speak on this point, and we have a long day ahead.
I will touch briefly on amendment 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, which suggests that ACDs should include a person’s financial circumstances. I recognise the sentiment behind the amendment. As both I and the hon. Member for Winchester have said in Committee, financial stress can be a major factor in mental health, but I gently suggest that prescribing the content of an ACD in this way is unhelpful. The point of the document is choice. The individual decides what they want to include, not us. That is the strength of the approach. It is personal and voluntary; it is theirs.
Amendment 46 respects that principle. It does not tell patients what to include in their ACD; it simply gives them the right to make one, and ensures they are informed of that right and supported to act on it. ACDs can be lifesaving, and they help people to stay well, safe and in control. They are especially valuable for those who have been detained before or who are at risk of detention in the future. We know that they are already supported by a wide range of stakeholders and experts by experience.
The question for us is not whether to support ACDs—I think we all do. The question is: do we want to make access to ACDs a universal right for those eligible, or do we want to continue to leave it to the discretion of the system? I believe the answer is clear: we must empower people, honour their voice and do so not only when they are well and able to speak, but when they are unwell and most vulnerable. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I urge all colleagues on the Committee to support amendment 46 and strengthen clause 45. Let us make the right to create an advance choice document a reality for everyone who needs one.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. You and the Committee will be pleased to know that my hon. Friends have made most of the points I wanted to flag.
In poll after poll and survey after survey, patients feel they do not get information in a timely and constructive way. Our amendment 46 would give patients a stronger say in their future care if they lose capacity. It clarifies that patients must be given clear, proactive support to understand, prepare and use the documents. It is about ensuring that advance choice documents are not just theoretical paperwork, but living, respected statements of a patient’s wishes.
I therefore support the clause and the amendment, and I ask the Minister three questions. How will NHS England and local integrated care boards ensure that commissioners are trained to respect and use ACDs in practice, especially in emergencies? Secondly, what oversight will ensure that ACDs are not simply ignored at the bedside, when a patient is most vulnerable? Will the Government consider a review mechanism so that we can assess how well ACDs are working in a few years’ time, after the Bill is passed?
I turn briefly to Liberal Democrat amendment 18. Like other hon. Members, I feel that the inclusion of financial information in an ACD is not appropriate, both from a practical and a personal security, safety and information point of view. I do, however, completely support the hon. Member for Winchester’s overall view that there is a significant problem with how financial stress can affect a person’s mental health. Like him, I call on the Minister to think about how we as a country, whether in this Bill or somewhere else, can address the impact of financial stress on mental health.
Stephen Kinnock
I will speak first to amendment 46. We agree with the principle of the amendment, but do not think it necessary. Under the Bill, if an individual who is likely to benefit from making an advance choice document approaches services to create one, they should be offered information and appropriate support to do so. The approach that we have taken in the Bill is therefore functionally equivalent to a right to request an advance choice document.
Dr Evans
If I am correct, the Minister said “if” a patient “approaches”. That is the fundamental point: that the onus is on the patient to know what their right is to approach the authorities. We are trying to do it the other way, by saying that their right is to be told about what is going on. Will the Minister clarify what he meant, because this is essentially what we are concerned about?
Stephen Kinnock
What I meant is what I said. I will read it again: if an individual who is likely to benefit from making an ACD approaches services to create one, they should be offered information and appropriate support to do so. The approach that we have taken in the Bill is therefore functionally equivalent to a right to request an advance choice document.
We are also concerned about prescribing that commissioners inform and support some of the groups of individuals identified by the amendment. For example, it may be practically challenging and not always appropriate to contact people who were detained or admitted informally many years ago about making an ACD. We agree, however, that that there is a good rationale for encouraging past voluntary and involuntary patients, especially those discharged in the past 12 months, to create an ACD. That is reflected in the Government amendments to strengthen the duties on health commissioners, which I will come to shortly.
The approach is based on research findings that suggest that the optimal time to write an advance choice document is shortly after discharge from hospital. That also recognises that many of the individuals are likely still to be under the care of mental health services and therefore well positioned to receive support and advice from services to make their ACD. Ultimately, the amendment was debated in the other place and not considered workable. In recognition of concerns expressed by Earl Howe and Lord Kamall, however, my noble Friend Baroness Merron made a commitment to strengthen duties on health commissioners in relation to the advance choice documents.
Government amendments 32 to 35, which we tabled in response to the amendment, will strengthen the duties in three ways. First, they will require that health commissioners proactively make arrangements to bring information on and help with making an advance choice document to the attention of the appropriate people. That is to prevent the risk of commissioners taking a minimal approach to discharging the duties.
Secondly, the Government amendments will require that information and help is provided through discussion with a suitably qualified person, such as a health or care professional, advocate, support worker or peer support worker. That is to ensure that people can rely on the guidance and support of a professional, where they wish to receive it.
Lastly, the Government amendments will encourage commissioners to have regard to the benefits of a person making an advance choice document within 12 months of discharge from a mental health hospital. That builds on research findings that suggest the optimal time to write an advance choice document is shortly after detention.
Government amendments 32 to 35 will help to further secure the success of advance choice documents by ensuring that people who are at risk of contact with the Act are given the opportunity to make an ACD, as well as being offered the dedicated support that they may need to do so.
On amendment 18, we agree that there is value in encouraging people to include details of any relevant financial matters within their ACD. Financial matters, such as problem debt, can worsen or even trigger a person’s mental illness. We expect that doing so will help to ensure that people receive the care and support that they need if they later experience a mental health crisis. We feel that it is important for individuals to have autonomy over what they include in their ACD, however, rather than prescribing the contents in legislation. We therefore think that the intention behind the amendment is better achieved by other means.
We plan to develop guidance and a template ACD to support service users in making their document. Those will include prompts to consider any relevant financial matters. Furthermore, the guidance that we plan to include in the code of practice for mental health professionals will cover the need to support the person to consider any relevant financial matters that may be important to their mental health recovery.
Finally, I turn to the clause in its entirety. Advance choice documents provide a place for people to set out their wishes, feelings, decisions, values and beliefs, while they are well, regarding their care and treatment. That is in preparation for the scenario in which they are too unwell and lack capacity to express such things at the time. At that point, the contents of their ACD should be considered by mental health professionals to inform their decision making regarding the person’s admission to hospital, detention under the Act, and care and treatment.
Research shows that ACDs can have a range of benefits, including reducing the risk of hospital admissions. To help to unlock those benefits and ensure the uptake of ACDs among service users, the clause will place duties on health commissioners to make appropriate arrangements so that relevant individuals are informed and supported to make an ACD. The duty aims to ensure that individuals who are likely to benefit most from making an ACD are proactively given the opportunity to make one while they are well.
Other clauses create the framework to ensure that the contents of a person’s ACD have a real impact on care and treatment decisions, for example the clinical checklist, the compelling reason test and the new framework for creating a nominated person. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth to withdraw amendment 46, and I ask Liberal Democrat Members not to press amendment 18. I commend Government amendments 32 to 35 and clause 45 to the Committee.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 47 stand part.
New clause 21—Duty to provide advice and support to families and carers—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 117B, insert—
‘117C After-care: provision of support and advice to families and carers
(1) The responsible integrated care board must ensure that, as part of the provision of after-care services under section 117 of this Act, advice and support is offered to the family or carers of the person discharged.
(2) This support must include—
(a) information about the person’s condition and recovery;
(b) guidance on how to support their recovery at home and avoid relapse;
(c) access to financial, housing, and social care advice services relevant to the situation of the person’s family; and
(d) procedures for family members or nominated persons to notify the integrated care board of concerns that the person is at future risk of detention under Part 2 of this Act.
(3) Where a concern is raised under subsection (2)(d), the integrated care board must—
(a) consider whether the individual meets criteria to be included on the register of persons at risk under section 125D of this Act; and
(b) take reasonable steps to involve the family or nominated person in planning of subsequent support, subject to—
(i) the person’s consent; or
(ii) if they lack capacity, the person’s best interests.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance under section 125B of this Act on the format and provision of support under subsection (3)(b).’”
This new clause would require the integrated care board, as part of the aftercare services offered under the Mental Health Act 1982, to offer support and advice to the family or carers of the person being discharged from treatment.
Stephen Kinnock
I will set out the details of two important clauses relating to aftercare. Clause 46 will provide the tribunal with an important new power to recommend that plans for aftercare arrangements are undertaken for patients who are not yet ready to be discharged from hospital. Under the Mental Health Act, the tribunal can make decisions about discharge, but it does not have a role in recommending aftercare while a patient remains detained. Giving the tribunal the power to make recommendations that aftercare planning should take place will encourage earlier planning for a patient’s eventual discharge from hospital.
Those recommendations are particularly important for complex cases in which patients may require intensive support following their discharge. Early aftercare planning ensures that the necessary health and social care services are co-ordinated and in place when the patient is ready to leave the hospital. This will help to reduce the likelihood of delayed discharges or failed transitions back into the community.
Although the tribunal’s recommendations are not legally binding, they are intended to carry significant weight with aftercare providers. If recommendations are not taken forward, the tribunal retains the power to review the patient’s case. That will ensure that there is both encouragement and accountability in the aftercare planning process, enhancing patient outcomes by making sure that care is appropriately planned and delivered.
The clause will strengthen the role of tribunals in overseeing the care and treatment of patients under the Mental Health Act, ensuring that a patient’s needs are addressed holistically and in a timely manner. By encouraging earlier and more co-ordinated aftercare planning, we will reduce the risk of patients being discharged without the necessary support in place, leading to better overall patient outcomes and smoother transitions from hospital to community care.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Again, I reflect on stories that I have heard from local constituents on the issues that are being addressed in the Lampard inquiry. Does the Minister agree that these provisions will help to avoid the too early discharges that have led people either to go back into care or to get into even more difficult situations? One of my constituents ended up taking his own life because he was discharged too early from care.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In many ways, the best way to look at the issue of discharge is to start thinking about it almost as soon as the patient is admitted. We need to be thinking holistically about what place they are in, what the aftercare plan might look like and how it might relate to the discharge plan. The earlier we do so, the better. In so many cases, upstream intervention is important to avoid having to scramble to deal with a crisis further down the line. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point.
I turn to clause 47. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act places a duty on the NHS and local social services authorities to provide aftercare to certain patients who have been detained under the Act once they leave hospital. Aftercare services seek to reduce the risk of readmission, and they must be provided until the NHS and local social services authorities are satisfied that the person is no longer in need of such services. However, there is currently no requirement to notify the person when that ends. Clause 47 requires that the provision of aftercare lasts until the NHS and local social services authorities jointly give notice to the person in writing that they are satisfied that the person is no longer in need of such services. This will clarify when aftercare services have ended.
Decisions on entitlement to and responsibility for aftercare services are heavily contested. Deeming rules are used to deem a person to be ordinarily resident in one area, even though they are living in a different area. They ensure continuity of financial responsibility when a person is placed in a local authority area and prevent the local authority from placing someone out of area to ease its financial burdens. Currently, section 117 does not contain any deeming rules.
Clause 47 will apply existing deeming rules under social care legislation to identify which local authority is responsible for arranging aftercare for an individual patient. This change will add clarity and consistency to an often litigious system and more closely align local authority social care and NHS rules for determining ordinary residents. This aims to support organisations to work together to provide and plan for aftercare services and reduce the number of disputes that have arisen in recent years.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Guildford for tabling new clause 21, which seeks to place a duty on the responsible integrated care board to ensure that advice and support is offered to the family or carers of the patient being discharged. The statutory guidance on discharge from mental health in-patient settings sets out how NHS organisations should exercise duties to co-operate under sections 72 and 82 of the National Health Service Act 2006 in the discharge process. This includes providing information or support on housing, social services provision and financial support. The Mental Health Act code of practice also provides statutory guidance on the information that should be provided to patients, families and carers.
We do not believe that it is necessary to place additional duties on integrated care boards to provide information and support, as existing duties are sufficient. We will consider whether to use the revised code to bring together guidance on discharge into one place and explore how to clarify best practice on information and support to carers. I hope that what I have set out satisfies the hon. Member for Guildford and that she will not press new clause 21. I commend clauses 46 and 47 to the Committee.
Dr Evans
I will speak to clauses 46 and 47 and then to new clause 21. Clauses 46 and 47 form a significant part of the Government’s effort to strengthen discharge planning in continuity of mental health aftercare. Clause 46 extends tribunal power. Under the current Mental Health Act, when a first-tier tribunal considers a patient detained under part II of the Act and decides not to discharge them, it may still make non-binding recommendations, for example that the patient be transferred to another hospital or given leave of absence.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak in support of clauses 46 and 47, two vital reforms that place people instead of process at the heart of mental health care.
Clause 46 will empower mental health tribunals to do more than simply decide on discharge. It will give them the ability to recommend aftercare planning even when a patient is not yet ready to leave hospital. As the Minister says, this is so important for the co-ordination of local services. In a previous sitting, I spoke about my constituent who was sectioned and then discharged from hospital in the middle of the night, in winter. The clause is vitally forward-thinking and will ensure that for people like my constituent, the necessary support structures—housing, therapy and community services—are in place early, smoothing the path to recovery and reducing the risk of relapse. It is about planning with people in mind, instead of reacting when it is too late.
Clause 47 will strengthen the legal framework around aftercare itself. It will clarify when aftercare ends and, crucially, who is responsible for providing it. By aligning the rules of ordinary residence with existing social care legislation, it will remove ambiguity and ensure that patients receive care even when they have moved between areas. The impact of care continuity cannot be overstated, especially for people up and down the country who do not have stable housing or support networks, like many of my constituents in Kettering.
My local council used to be Northamptonshire county council, but it then split into North Northamptonshire council and West Northamptonshire council. Some services are separated between the two, but others still operate across Northamptonshire as a whole. Having a local authority that is clearly responsible will be really important to my constituents and will offer a clear, accountable council for their care.
Together, these clauses will reduce delays, improve accountability and, importantly, give people the best chance of rebuilding their lives, preventing them from relapsing or having to be sectioned again. They will promote a more compassionate, co-ordinated and consistent approach to mental health recovery. I am happy to support them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to new clause 21, which would place a clear statutory duty on integrated care boards to offer advice and support to families or carers of patients receiving aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act.
I thank the Minister for his comments about the new clause. I acknowledge what he says about the statutory guidance and code of practice, but I hear from far too many patients and their families living in my constituency of Guildford that advice and support is often not being provided and that authorities are falling short.
This new clause is rooted in a very simple principle: good mental health care does not end at the point of discharge. Recovery is often long, fragile and dependent on support at home, yet families and carers—the people holding things together day in, day out—are often left behind with little or no guidance. This clause seeks to change that: it would ensure that carers are given clear information about the patient’s condition and recovery journey, supported in helping to prevent relapse and readmission, linked to relevant support systems, including housing and social care, and provided with a route to raise concerns if they believe that someone is at risk in future.
Jen Craft
Having looked at new clause 21, I have a rather large concern about consent. The hon. Lady is setting out what the integrated care board would have a duty to do, including giving information about a “person’s condition and recovery” to
“the family or carers of the person discharged”.
I have a significant concern that the person being discharged may not have the kind of relationship with their family or carers that would make that helpful. The clause, as drafted, does not seem to make allowance for consent, except where
“the person is at future risk of detention”
under part II of the Mental Health Act. I would welcome the hon. Lady’s thoughts on that.
Zöe Franklin
The hon. Member makes a really good point. There is definitely a place for ensuring that we work on this further to make sure that it covers that. I will come on to that later, if she will allow me.
We know that early intervention is key. We know that families, carers and those around an individual are often the first to spot the warning signs, and that they need to feel empowered, not sidelined. I hear time and again, as I am sure hon. Members across this Committee Room have heard, from people who have been left out of the discharge planning for their loved ones. They say that they have received no clear information and that they feel unsupported and unable to fully support their loved one when they return home.
Importantly, the new clause sets out a process whereby, if a family member wants to raise a concern, the team must consider whether that individual should be added to the register of persons at risk of detention under part II of the Mental Health Act. We believe that this is a sensible, joined-up approach to prevention, spotting risks early and acting before a crisis point is reached. Finally, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish national guidance and ensure consistency and clarity across the system.
We often speak of carers as the invisible workforce of our NHS. The new clause would make their contribution visible by recognising their role and giving them the information and support they need to fulfil it well.
Dr Evans
Forgive me if I missed it, but I did not hear any discussion of this point. I am slightly concerned about the way the new clause is written, as it could be a duplication of the support, protections and duties put in place through the Care Act 2014. Could the hon. Member set out how the new clause would run in parallel with the Care Act? Is it complementary, or does it work against it?
Zöe Franklin
In my final comments, I was going to say to the Minister that, having considered the points he set out in his opening statement in relation to this clause, I am prepared not to press the new clause. I appreciate that some of the information already exists in the Bill and in the existing documentation to which the shadow Minister referred. I also acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock, that some aspects around consent must be dug into.
However, I ask the Minister to work with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and other hon. Members with an interest in the issue, so that he can hear our constituents’ experiences of where the current guidance is clearly not working, and ensure that appropriate additions are made to the supporting documents for the Bill to address the concerns that we have raised in the new clause.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
If any Member wishes to take their jacket off, I am happy for them to do so, as this is an extremely warm room. I am hoping to finish at 5 pm, so in the interests of making progress, Members should keep interventions to a minimum. If there were no repetition in speeches, that would be very welcome.
Clause 46
Tribunal power to recommend after-care
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Clause 47 stand part.
New clause 21—Duty to provide advice and support to families and carers—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 117B, insert—
‘117C After-care: provision of support and advice to families and carers
(1) The responsible integrated care board must ensure that, as part of the provision of after-care services under section 117 of this Act, advice and support is offered to the family or carers of the person discharged.
(2) This support must include—
(a) information about the person’s condition and recovery;
(b) guidance on how to support their recovery at home and avoid relapse;
(c) access to financial, housing, and social care advice services relevant to the situation of the person’s family; and
(d) procedures for family members or nominated persons to notify the integrated care board of concerns that the person is at future risk of detention under Part 2 of this Act.
(3) Where a concern is raised under subsection (2)(d), the integrated care board must—
(a) consider whether the individual meets criteria to be included on the register of persons at risk under section 125D of this Act; and
(b) take reasonable steps to involve the family or nominated person in planning of subsequent support, subject to—
(i) the person’s consent; or
(ii) if they lack capacity, the person’s best interests.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance under section 125B of this Act on the format and provision of support under subsection (3)(b).’”
This new clause would require the integrated care board, as part of the aftercare services offered under the Mental Health Act 1982, to offer support and advice to the family or carers of the person being discharged from treatment.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I will take a few moments to reflect on clauses 46 and 47. They deal with aftercare, which is at the heart of how we help people to recover from serious mental illness and reduce the chance of their readmission. Clause 46 will give mental health tribunals the ability to make recommendations about aftercare services—a welcome shift in emphasis towards recognising that recovery is something that happens not at the point of discharge, but in the weeks, months and even years that follow.
Until now, tribunals could recommend things like hospital leave or transfer, but they had no say in the vital question of what happens after discharge. Clause 46 gives them a voice in shaping that next phase. It is a step that could help to ensure that aftercare is not an afterthought, but a core part of discharge planning. The effectiveness of this change, however, depends on whether there are services to recommend. As the independent review made clear, the challenge is not just in writing aftercare into law, but in making sure that it is there in practice.
Clause 47 takes a welcome step in providing greater clarity and accountability around which local authority is responsible for arranging section 117 aftercare. By clarifying the rules on ordinary residents, especially for people who received care as children, and by requiring that local authorities and NHS bodies jointly issue written notice when aftercare is ending, the clause helps to ensure that decisions are made in a timely and transparent way. That improved clarity should support smoother transitions from hospital to community, reduce disputes between services and, ultimately, help to prevent relapse and readmission.
Clarity in law must be met by capacity on the ground, which is why the core question is not just what the clauses enable, but whether the system is equipped to deliver on them. I therefore ask the Minister what assessment has been made of the availability of appropriate aftercare services in the community. Can we be confident that NHS and social care teams have the resources that they need to meet the duty effectively?
We know that aftercare, under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, can include support with housing, employment, social engagement and culturally appropriate services, all of which can mean the difference between recovery and relapse, but they only work when they are properly joined up, tailored to the individual and delivered in a timely way. The independent review put it well:
“priority should be given to making sure that good services are available to all…But we also believe that it is right that people who have been detained should have additional support to ensure a successful transition to the community.”
I agree with that principle. If we want to see fewer people detained, we must do better at supporting people once they leave hospital.
I support clauses 46 and 47. They are sensible, necessary reforms that will give structure and clarity to a part of the system that has often been patchy or overlooked. But if we want them to work as intended, they must be backed up by investment in community services, good local commissioning and effective partnership between health and social care. In short, these are good steps but must be followed through with real delivery on the ground if we are to achieve the lasting outcomes that we all want.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Having taken your clear instructions, I will be very brief in speaking to clauses 46 and 47.
Clause 46 is a positive step in principle, but there are concerns that the recommendations remain non-binary and may therefore lack the practical effect—or the teeth —without enforcement or review mechanisms. I have three questions that I hope the Minister will address. First, will he clarify whether there are any plans to give legal weight to tribunal recommendations, perhaps by requiring a written response or justification where those recommendations are not followed? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that resource-constrained local authorities can implement recommended aftercare plans promptly and fully? Thirdly, could he please provide data on the expected impact of this provision on readmission rates?
Clause 47 clearly sets out and improves on the legal clarity, which is welcome, but I have a couple of questions. What steps will be taken to ensure that frontline practitioners understand and consistently apply the revised ordinary residence test? Has the Department conducted an assessment of the administrative burdens or delays that may result from the implementation of the clause? Apart from those questions, I welcome the provision.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I will go through the questions that have been asked.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, asked whether there will be any duty on ICBs or local authorities to respond to recommendations. The tribunal will have the power to recommend that plans are put in place for a patient’s aftercare. To assist in ensuring that these recommendations are followed, the tribunal can reconvene if its recommendations are not acted on, ensuring accountability from aftercare bodies.
The shadow Minister asked what mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes between authorities. There is already a process in place under the Care Act 2014 for resolving disputes and an opportunity to escalate decisions to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers, if required. He also asked what the notice must contain. We will absolutely look at the guidance in the code on the process for ending aftercare and notifying the person.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley asked about plans for legal weight, resourcing and data. I will write to him on his questions about plans for legal weight and data. I think that resourcing will be a constant theme. Obviously, we have to assess all the resourcing implications once the Bill receives Royal Assent, and we will develop an implementation plan on that basis. The first annual written ministerial statement will be the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity to hold the Government to account on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Tribunal powers in guardianship cases: burden of proof
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
Currently, where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal by or in respect of a patient who is subject to guardianship, the patient can be discharged only if they can prove to the tribunal that they do not continue to meet the guardianship criteria. The burden of proof is on the patient. The clause will amend the Mental Health Act so that it will now be for the local authority responsible for the guardianship to prove to the tribunal that the patient continues to meet the guardianship criteria. As the independent review pointed out, the current burden of proof is “out of line” with all other applications to the tribunal. The Government consider that this should be remedied.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I fear that I may test your patience a little further on this occasion, Mrs Harris, but I rise to address clause 48. Although much of the Bill aims to modernise and humanise our mental health framework, and in many ways it does so commendably, clause 47 presents not only an opportunity, but a challenge: to ensure that we get the balance right between liberty and protection.
The clause will make an amendment to section 72(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983. As the Minister said, it will shift the burden of proof in tribunal proceedings concerning patients who are subject to a guardianship order. Under the current legal framework, it is the patient who must demonstrate that the criteria for guardianship are no longer met, by showing either that they are no longer suffering from a mental disorder or that continued guardianship is no longer necessary for their welfare or the protection of others.
Clause 48 would reverse that burden. It would place the onus instead upon the local authority to demonstrate, in the mental health tribunal, that the individual still meets the statutory test. The tribunal would be required to direct a discharge unless the authority can prove otherwise.
Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the principle of this reform. On the contrary, I believe that there is a strong case for rebalancing the legal dynamics in favour of the individual, particularly when we reach situations in which their liberty and autonomy are at stake. The principle of least restriction is not, or should not be, merely aspirational; it should be foundational to any mental health regime in a liberal democracy.
I say with equal conviction that the practical operation of such a change requires careful thought and adequate resourcing. It must be done under clear legal parameters. Precisely on those fronts, I seek clarification from the Minister and, if I may be so bold, I seek some improvements to this aspect of the Bill.
First, we must consider the legal principle at play. A reversal of the burden of proof in this context is not technical or incidental; it marks a constitutional shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Traditionally, as the Minister well knows, the burden of proof lies on the party making an assertion that departs from the status quo. In this case, that would ordinarily be the patient applying for discharge from the guardianship. However, when the state exercises more coercive powers—particularly powers that have an impact on an individual’s liberty and private life—it is appropriate that the state be required to justify those powers afresh, especially when challenged. That is the logic that clause 48 seeks to embrace. In broad terms, as I say, I support it.
The approaches are reinforced by our obligations under article 5 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to liberty and security of the person. It is clear that any deprivation of liberty must be justified not just initially, but on an ongoing basis. Jurisprudence from Strasbourg has repeatedly emphasised that periodic review mechanisms must be substantive and not merely procedural in nature. The state must show continuing justification and must not rely on past assessments or presumptions in its favour.
Clause 48 helps us to move closer to compliance with those principles, but the legislation, as drafted, does leave some important questions unanswered. What, precisely, is the standard of proof that local authorities must meet? Is it the civil standard on the balance of probabilities, or is it something higher, given the gravity of what is at stake? If we are to take this shift seriously, we must also give tribunals clear statutory guidance on how to interpret the new burden. Otherwise, we will fall into the trap of risking inconsistency in decision making, confusion among professionals and a potential increase in appeals and legal challenges.
Secondly, and crucially, I would like to press the Minister on the question of practical implementation. Changing the legal burden is not merely a matter of legislative drafting; it requires a systematic adjustment in how evidence is gathered, how professionals prepare for tribunal hearings, and how decisions are reviewed internally within local authorities. As hon. Members will know, local authorities are already operating under intense financial and operational pressures. Mental health social workers are often working with caseloads that stretch the limits of what may be considered reasonable. Legal teams within councils are often overstretched and under-resourced; if we now place them under a legal obligation to present a comprehensive, evidentially sound case for continued guardianship—perhaps at multiple intervals across an individual’s care pathway—we must ensure that they are adequately supported to do so.
What assessment have the Government made of the financial and operational impact of clause 48? Will local authorities receive new funding to enable them to meet that duty? Will social care professionals receive specific training on the evidential requirements now expected of them? Without such support, we risk not only undermining the intent of the clause, but creating a perverse outcome in which discharges may occur not because the patient no longer meets the criteria, but because the local authority lacks the capacity to make the evidential case in time.
I also caution against the risk of overcorrection. Although I fully support the principle that individuals should not bear an unfair evidential burden, we must not move so far in the other direction that we weaken the legitimate protective mechanisms that should be in place. Guardianship is not detention; it is a community-based measure designed to provide oversight and structure for individuals who may struggle to live independently due to serious mental illness. It is used infrequently and only where strictly necessary.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. I would expect nothing less from him than a fantastic canter through this important clause. I will not repeat a lot of what he said, but I will try to emphasise it.
Although clause 48 is short, it speaks to the much larger principle of the balance between public protection and individual liberty. I will not go through all the details, as the Minister laid out the changes, but the burden of proof is currently on the patient to convince the tribunal that they no longer meet the criteria for guardianship. The clause will change that. Instead, the burden will fall on the local authority or relevant public body to prove that guardianship remains justified. The Government’s explanatory notes put it plainly:
“the patient should be discharged by the Tribunal unless the local authority can prove that the patient continues to meet the guardianship criteria.”
The clause is not just a technical amendment; it is a fundamental realignment of legal principle. It reinforces the presumption of liberty. It aligns guardianship cases with the principle that when the state restricts an individual freedom, it is for the state to justify that restriction, not the individual to justify their freedom. It echoes the evolution of mental health law towards a less restrictive approach, a principle we put in place on the first day of our deliberations on the Bill. Although clause 48 amends only a few words, it reflects a big change in principle: liberty is the default, and restriction must be justified and not presumed.
There are some important questions that I want to echo and emphasise, again leading on from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. Are local authorities prepared for the reversal of burden? Have they been consulted? Do they have the legal resources, documentation, standards and evidential processes to meet the burden before the tribunal? On top of that, we have already agreed that there will be automatic referrals. We would therefore expect more referrals to the tribunal as well as a change in how they operate. This is a huge undertaking. If they fail through a lack of capacity organisation, we risk a situation in which patients are discharged not because they no longer meet the criteria, but because the case was poorly presented. How will the Government ensure that that does not happen?
Secondly, will the Government issue statutory guidance or regulations to ensure that consistency in how the burden is discharged? We do not want a postcode lottery in the quality of guardianship applications or tribunal evidence. Thirdly, we must always consider public protection. The guardianship regime is not designed for high-risk individuals, but it can still apply in cases where behaviour poses a serious risk to self or others—for example, individuals with profound learning difficulties who might place themselves in danger if not properly supported.
We also talked about cumulative or escalating behaviour in one of our first debates. The reason for doing so is that we are at the fringe of significant cases. What safeguards are in place to ensure that public safety considerations are given due weight in cases where the evidence might be incomplete or borderline? Finally, do the Government intend to monitor the impact of the clause? Will data be published on whether tribunal discharge rates increase following this reform, and whether that leads to any unintended consequences?
I want to be clear that His Majesty’s Opposition support the principle behind the clause. We support a mental health system that is rights-based, person-centred and built on the presumption of liberty. But that principle must be matched by a system capable of meeting the duties it imposes. Rights on paper are meaningful only if public authorities are resourced and able to support them and uphold them in practice. I look forward to the Minister addressing those points.
Stephen Kinnock
On the assessment of impact, it might be useful for the Committee to know, for context, that the use of guardianships under the Act is small: the number of new cases has declined from 470 in 2004-05 to just 40 in 2024-25. The number of open cases has also fallen in recent years. I think pretty much all the questions from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley and the shadow Minister are addressed by that point. We are talking here about small numbers, so the cost would be relatively minor.
Dr Evans
That is a staggering drop in numbers. Is there a reason behind it? Is it that the burden of proof was always put on the patient, so they did not feel that they were in a position to do something? If we are inverting that, does the Minister expect the numbers to go back up?
Stephen Kinnock
I do not have any data to suggest that the numbers will go back up. That relates to the question that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley asked about having a statutory review. We will be vigilant. As with all the changes in the Bill, we will closely monitor implementation and impact. That goes right across the board and, hopefully, addresses the Member’s questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
Police stations are not appropriate places to hold people in need of mental health treatment. The Mental Health Act 1983 (Places of Safety) Regulations 2017 amended the 1983 Act to set a high threshold for using police stations as places of safety. Uses have reduced from over 8,000 in 2012-13 to just 322 in 2023-24 across England and Wales. While that number is mercifully low, the Bill will, under the principles of therapeutic benefit, end the use of police cells as places of safety. Instead, when police exercise powers to remove a person from a public space or private premises for the purpose of a mental health assessment, they will take them to a suitable place of safety, such as a hospital.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I declare an interest: my sister practises as a psychiatrist within the NHS, as the Minister knows. She has seen the important shift away from the use of police stations as places of safety and towards making sure that all patients have access to a place of safety in a healthcare setting. I know from my local police that, while they do their best to support people in distress in a police station, it is not the right place. This is the right thing to do, and I support the Government’s move.
Stephen Kinnock
I ask my hon. Friend to pass on our thanks to her sister for the vital work that she does in what I know can often be a challenging environment—we appreciate it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is an important principle. There has been a remarkable drop in the use of police cells, which is to be warmly welcomed. We think that now is the time to make it clear, on the face of the Bill, that a police cell is not an appropriate place for these purposes.
The clause’s amendment to sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act will not change the police’s ability to intervene when someone is in a mental health crisis, nor their ability to detain someone in a cell when exercising their powers in relation to criminal, or suspected criminal, activity. The clause will prevent courts from temporarily detaining people with severe mental illness in prison as a place of safety while they are waiting to access a bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act. Under the reforms, a defendant or convicted person who meets the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act for treatment or assessment must be transferred directly to hospital, or, in the case of children, to a hospital, surgery, community home or other place that the court considers suitable, ensuring that they receive swifter access to the care they need. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
You will be pleased to know that I will be briefer this time, Mrs Harris; I want to leave room for my Opposition colleagues. The intent of the clause is entirely sound: to treat mental health as a health issue, not a criminal one. However, the capacity of NHS services to provide timely and suitable alternatives remains in question.
With that in mind, I have three questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. First, will the Government commit to publishing the implementation plan for ensuring adequate numbers of health-based places of safety across regions before the clause comes into force? Secondly, what contingency measures are currently in place or foreseen if no place of safety is available and police powers have been limited? Thirdly, can the Minister commit to an annual publication of data on hospital-based places of safety, their capacity and their use?
Aphra Brandreth
As we have heard, the clause removes police stations and prisons as designated places of safety for individuals in mental health crises, ensuring that they are instead taken to appropriate healthcare settings. In my view, this is a pragmatic and practical part of the Bill that supports patients going through an extremely challenging time. Perhaps, in the past, it has been all too easy to look to police stations as, if not the default option for those suffering a mental health crisis, certainly an easy one. That is not because police stations are the right place for patients, but because alternative provisions were not readily accessible.
Clause 49 brings about several critical changes. First, it redefines “place of safety” so that for adults it now refers exclusively to hospitals that are willing and able to provide care. For children and young people, the definition aligns with the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 but crucially, it explicitly excludes police stations. Furthermore, the clause repeals section 136A of the Mental Health Act 1983, which previously allowed police stations to be used in so-called exceptional circumstances. The crux of the clause is to recognise that a mental health emergency is a medical crisis rather than a criminal one, and our system must reflect that.
Dr Evans
As we have heard, the proposals set out to remove police stations and prisons as places of safety. It does this in both relation to people detained under civil powers—sections 135 and 136—and in respect of certain part III patients involved in the criminal justice system, who may currently be held in such settings when a hospital bed is not available. The Government’s explanatory notes describe the rationale clearly:
“This is in response to evidence that suggests these settings are not suitable environments for individuals with a severe mental health, in crisis, awaiting assessment and treatment.”
As we have discussed in some of the earlier clauses, it is not just treatment, but the environment that plays a part in helping harbour a holistic care approach, so this is very much welcome. To that end, the Opposition can agree on this position in principle. A police station or prison cell is no place for someone with acute mental distress. They are not therapeutic environments; they can be frightening, disorientating and, in some cases, re-traumatising, particularly for children and young people. The clause aims to remove that contradiction in the law.
As the law stands, when police officers encounter someone in a public place who appears to be suffering from a mental disorder and is in immediate need of care or control, they can detain them under section 136 and take them to a place of safety. Under section 135, a magistrate can issue a warrant to remove a person from their home or another place to a place of safety. Currently, that place of safety includes a police station, although section 136A limits that to exceptional circumstances—for example, when the individual poses an imminent risk of serious injury to themselves. Similarly, under part III of the Act, a person appearing before a criminal court can be held in a place of safety, which can currently include a police station or prison, pending hospital admission.
Clause 49 will remove that. It amends section 55 to redefine “place of safety” and exclude police stations and prisons. It alters section 35, repeals section 136A, which has previously allowed police stations to be used in limited situations, and retains transitional protections for individuals already detained under early directions before the clause comes into place. That is a bold and principled legislative step, and I acknowledge that it builds on progress under the last Government. The 2017 Conservative Government, following public outcry and recommendations from the Care Quality Commission and the Wessely review, pledged to eliminate police cells as a place of safety for children. Since then, the numbers of such detentions have significantly decreased. Data from NHS Digital shows a downward trend in the use of police stations under section 136, which is evidence that change is possible with the right investment and inter-agency collaboration. That work deserves credit, so I thank the Minister for that.
Clause 49 must not only move the law forward, but ensure that the practice can be followed. I therefore want to raise a number of questions, which I hope the Minister will take in good faith. The classic one is “Where would people go instead?” The explanatory notes are right to say that hospitals and healthcare-based settings are more appropriate, but do those settings exist in sufficient numbers, with trained staff, beds and security protocols to receive safely all those who would otherwise have been taken to police stations? If they do not, we risk creating a gap between the law and the real world—a dangerous vacuum, whereby someone in crisis may end up in an ambulance bay, in a police car or in a general A&E without specialist support. It could have wider impact on the safety of not only the individual patient suffering, but other patients in healthcare settings such as A&E, interacting with an acutely ill mental patient. Without proper capacity, we risk many more police officers having to be at health settings to keep the mental unwell patients safe from themselves and others.
I appreciate that the Government have said that it will take 10 years to implement the Bill fully, but this clause will come into force immediately. What assurances can the Government give that there will be not only capacity, but capacity in the right places, so that, for example, people are not transferred to other areas of the country to ensure that the legal requirement is met? Although it is welcome not to be in a police station, being miles from family and support circles would be just as detrimental.
What provisions are being made for children and young people? The clause rightly states that for minors, the place of safety must now comply with the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, but excluding police stations. Are there sufficient CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—crisis beds and child-friendly places of safety in each region? What guarantees are there that children will not end up in adult settings, or worse, in informal or unlawful detention?
I turn to the transitional support given to the police. Officers may no longer be able to use their custody suites, but what training, resources and alternative pathways are being made? What happens in the middle of the night in a rural police force, where there is no mental health professional on call and the nearest hospital bed is 80 miles away? How would the Government monitor performance? Will the Government commit to publishing annual data on delays in finding a place of safety, the use of inappropriate settings post reform, and outcomes for those detained under sections 135 and 136? Will the CQC or another body be tasked with auditing local compliance?
Clause 49 reflects a consensus that mental healthcare belongs in health settings, not custodial ones. I urge the Minister to answer the questions in the good faith in which they were asked, because we all want to see this become a reality.
Stephen Kinnock
I think it is probably right to say that the questions asked by the hon. Members for Solihull West and Shirley and for Chester South and Eddisbury and the shadow Minister basically all relate to building capacity to ensure that we are ready to absorb this change. We have committed to lay an annual report on implementation, which will set out progress made and future plans for implementation. We are working closely with the Home Office, the police and NHS England to better understand the implementation requirement for switching on this change. There is considerable variation across the country in the way in which police stations are being used, so there is a need to target support.
I would add that the number and shape of dedicated health-based places of safety that are needed in a local authority will depend on the mental health needs of that population and the wider mental health crisis pathway provision. We are taking steps to ensure that people in crisis receive support and treatment sooner, so that fewer people need to be taken to a place of safety. It is worth noting that the Government have hit the ground running on this issue since we came into office last July. We are committing £26 million in capital investment to open new mental health crisis centres, which will aim to provide accessible and responsive care for individuals in mental health crisis.
Evidence from systems with established crisis centres indicates that they can help to streamline urgent mental health care pathways and reduce unnecessary conveyance to A&E by ambulance, health-based transport or the police. We have also selected six areas to trial a new approach to mental health support by providing 24-hour neighbourhood mental health centres, seven days a week, bringing together all aspects of community mental health services.
Dr Evans
The Minister has partially answered my question. He talked about the £26 million investment being targeted at certain areas of the country, but will that be based on the areas of highest priority? The danger is that if the highest priorities are all in the north, the south will be left out.
Stephen Kinnock
We have selected six areas, but off the cuff I cannot tell the shadow Minister exactly what they are or whether they have been announced yet. If they have not been announced, I will not be able to tell him, but if they have been, of course I can share that information. I suspect that the areas will primarily be based on assessed need, but they are trial pilots, so there is no reason to suspect that they will be limited to six. Let us see how much traction they get.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 50
Removal of patients by authorised persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
We have previously discussed Government amendments 26 to 29, which seek to overturn amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Kamall, Earl Howe and Baroness May, which added police and other authorised persons to sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. As I said in the earlier debate, the police currently have no powers under those sections, and the decision makers on whether to use those sections are health and social care professionals. We do not support extending police powers to health and social care professionals in this way, and the police do not support such an extension either. We are therefore seeking to remove clause 50 from the Bill.
The clause extends legal powers currently held by the police under sections 135 and 136 to other professionals. That would enable other professionals to enter premises by force, if necessary, to remove a person believed to be suffering from a mental health disorder under section 135. Under section 136, other professionals would have the power to remove a person from a public space to a place of safety. Both those changes would represent a major shift in roles and responsibilities for health and care professionals.
Indeed, the co-chair of the approved mental health professional leads network has said that extending police powers in this way to health and care professionals would have
“disastrous unintended consequences for both individuals in crisis and those responding to mental health emergencies.”
Nine organisations, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, have made a joint statement of concern about extending police powers to health and care professionals in this way.
Anna Dixon
It is clear from what the Minister is saying that there are widespread concerns among health professionals about the change that was proposed in the other place, which would effectively give police powers to health and care professionals. Can he reassure psychiatrists such as my sister, and others working in mental health services, that they will always be able to rely on and work closely with their police colleagues to have that back-up when they are entering somebody’s home to potentially detain them?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There has to be a team-based approach to this work. In any successful team, it is about ensuring that everybody knows their role and that everybody’s role within that team is appropriate. There has to be good collaboration and co-ordination.
That is why I must say that I am quite taken aback by the attempts in the other place to insert these clauses; I do not think that is a safe way to make legislation. That is why it is so important that we remove the clause from the Bill.
The statement that I referred to earlier, by all those eminent organisations, called it a
“radical proposal with a number of serious and potentially dangerous consequences”.
It also says:
“Delegating police powers to professionals without consulting them, or patients would be a very damaging way to make policy.”
It is important to restate what I said in an earlier sitting, namely that the majority of assessments under the Mental Health Act happen without police involvement, and that action is already under way to further reduce the amount of police involvement. However, we of course recognise the pressures that the police are facing and that police involvement can be stigmatising for people who are detained. Almost all police forces in England and Wales are implementing the “right care, right person” approach, a police-led initiative to reduce inappropriate police involvement in cases where people have health or social care needs. There has already been a 10% decrease in section 136 detentions in the year ending March 2024.
There remain certain circumstances in which the police play a vital role in keeping particular people and the wider public safe. A blanket approach of extending powers in sections 135 and 136 to other professionals may not necessarily address the issues being faced by police officers and could create other unintended challenges. For example, while the current Act deliberately sets out who has what powers in what situations, a blanket extension of the police’s powers under sections 135 and 136 to other professionals—giving multiple agencies the same powers—risks confusion over who should respond in an emergency situation and could lead to delays in action as services try to decide who should act. That would be counter to our shared aim of ensuring that people in a mental health crisis get the right support as rapidly as possible.
We are also concerned that giving health and social care staff statutory powers that increase the number of situations in which they may have to use reasonable force could have unintended risks for the safety of staff, patients and the public.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I rise to speak briefly to clause 50, which expands the authority to remove individuals under Mental Health Act powers by allowing trained and authorised non-police personnel to carry out removals that previously could be carried out only by police constables. A couple of key changes arise from the clause.
First, the clause provides for the inclusion of authorised persons by amending sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act. That will allow individuals other than police officers, if they are authorised—“authorised” is the important word—to remove and transport people under Mental Health Act powers. That provides wider operational flexibility, and includes removals under warrant, by virtue of section 135, and without a warrant in public places. It is predicated on the fact that those authorised persons are appropriately trained and designated. Prior to the clause being inserted into the Bill, only police officers could carry out removals.
Anna Dixon
I am hearing that the hon. Gentleman supports clause 50, despite the very clear joint statement from organisations such as the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. They see huge risks, not least the risk of the measure having an impact on the therapeutic relationship between clinicians and their patients. Is he ignoring that?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am doing no such thing. I hope that I am doing my constitutional duty, which is to scrutinise the legislation and put some respectful challenges to the Minister about the operability of the clause were it to remain part of the Bill. Call me old fashioned, but I think that is what we are here to do.
The intent behind clause 50 is to support a more health-led response to enabling trained healthcare or crisis responders to act. That aligns with the Bill’s broader goals of reducing the perception of criminality around mental health illness and improving patient experiences.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that section 136 is used when the police are alerted to a disturbance in a public place? If I saw a disturbance outside the Palace of Westminster, I would call the police, not a mental health professional. If the police arrive and think that the person is suffering from a mental illness, they will use the power under section 136. How can we give powers to health professionals to attend a public disturbance?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a huge amount of experience and knowledge in this area. Of course, what he describes would be the default setting, but there may be scenarios in which a qualified healthcare worker is in the vicinity and can provide the support that that individual needs before the police can get there. The clause seeks to provide that flexibility. I acknowledge the split in the Committee on this, but the clause has some significant advantages: reducing police involvement in mental health crises, where that is most appropriate; improving response times, as I have just touched on; and supporting de-escalation.
I accept that there are operational and legal questions to be addressed, but we are here to look at all the potential scenarios. The Minister has clearly set out the consequences of removing the clause from the Bill, but it is perfectly possible that a Government Member on the Committee will choose to support it, and I therefore seek some clarification from the Minister on the operational and legal challenges around training, oversight and the uniformity of authorised roles were the clause to remain part of the Bill. How would training standards be mandated for authorised persons and who would accredit them? How would consistency in practice be ensured across NHS trusts and ambulance services? Will the Minister also clarify the liability position in a case in which an authorised person used force or restraint during a removal?
Dr Evans
I am pleased that the Minister has clarified that the Government intend to take out clause 50, because that allows me to take out some of my speech. It would not be appropriate for me to retread the entirety of the argument—we have been through it, and I am aware of the numbers on the Committee—but I will address a few points, because the clause is important.
The clause would keep the role of authorised persons for the purposes of sections 135 and 136. Hon. Members will know that this is not a new issue, as we debated the removal of the definition of authorised person in relation to clause 5. On that occasion, I expressed my concerns about the risk of doing so, which were shared by Baroness May, who rightly argued that we must stop treating mental health as a policing issue and start enabling care to be delivered by the right person in the right way at the right time. This clause gives us a chance to make that principle real.
Clause 50 allows certain non-police professionals, defined as authorised persons, to use existing powers under section 135 to enter premises under a warrant and remove a person in a mental health crisis to a place of safety or assessment of care. It also allows those professionals to use powers under section 136, which is even more sensitive, permitting the removal and detention of a person from a public place without a warrant if they appear to be suffering from a mental health disorder.
The clause is not about weakening safeguards. It is about strengthening the frontline and moving away from a model where the police are the default responders to every mental health crisis, which is often not because they are best placed, but because no one else has the authority. As modelling has shown, 95% of mental health-related police calls do not require a criminal justice response. Officers are spending hours, even days, sitting in A&E with patients in distress, because no one else is trained and empowered to act.
Clause 50 helps to break that cycle. It creates a legal basis for trained health professionals—mental health nurses, paramedics and approved mental health practitioners —to intervene in crisis situations, rather than relying solely on the police.
The hon. Member for Ashford asked how we decide, but we already triage people when they ring 999 or 111. How do we decide who gets an ambulance for what sounds like a heart attack or stroke? That decision is made by clinicians. We have the ability to make those triaging decisions, and I think it is completely appropriate to try to empower the health services to find a better way of dealing with these people.
Anna Dixon
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that health professionals do not wear stab vests or cameras? They are not equipped to go into dangerous situations. It is essential to protect healthcare workers and not put them at risk. We should maintain the current situation, whereby they work in tandem with the police, but the police are present for the detention.
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A paramedic never knows what they are going to when they are called out. It could be a terrorist incident; it could just be a person in distress who is hysterical. A paramedic never knows, but that is part of the point—when they get there, they would be able to make that assessment rather than having to call the police out. At the moment, they do not have those powers, so that is a reason to give them the option. I am not saying that that is always the right option, but it gives them the option. The clause allows us to think of new, innovative ways to deal with the complex, changing world of mental health in the modern age.
The Government have argued elsewhere that the definition of who detains could be too rigid or unnecessary, but I would say the opposite. Professionals on the ground need clarity—a lawful mandate to act in the best interests of a person in crisis, with clear boundaries of competence and training. The Lords were right to include a definition of “authorised person” that sets out the conditions of suitability. Clause 50 builds on that framework.
Having these powers in the Bill gives NHS trusts the chance and confidence to design alternative crisis responses. The clause is by no means a blanket approach—it actually drives innovation. Health professionals have the clarity to act and police forces have the breathing space to return to their core purpose: preventing and investigating crime.
Of course, the power must come with safeguards; it is not a blank cheque. The use of coercive powers by the police or anyone else must always be subject to training, regulation and oversight. Entering someone’s home or detaining them in public is a profound interference with their liberty and dignity, so the power must be exercised with care and caution.
We believe that clause 50 takes us in the right direction towards a health-led approach to mental health crisis, rather than a security-led one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said. It supports the police by lightening a burden from which they have long asked to be freed. It supports patients by increasing the chance that they will be met by someone who understands their needs. It supports the wider public by allowing police officers to return to doing what they are trained to do and passionate about doing: keeping communities safe. We should be building on this type of reform, not rowing back from it. I urge the Government to reconsider.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that interventions are meant to be short and to the point, and that responses are meant to be short and to the point.
Stephen Kinnock
Extending the police powers in section 135 and 136 to other authorised persons would represent a major shift in the roles and responsibilities of health and social care professionals. Our key health and social care stakeholders have warned us that extending the powers could have dangerous consequences, and that making changes to them without proper consultation is not the right way to go about making policy. I again extend my thanks to those stakeholders for their efforts to share their views on the role of police in mental health-related incidents.
We of course recognise the pressures that police face. However, I must emphasise that the majority of assessment under the Mental Health Act already happen without police involvement. Action under the “right care, right person” approach is already reducing that further: there was a 10% decrease in section 136 detentions in the year ending March 2024.
Simply taking the blanket approach of extending the powers may not actually address the issues the police face and could have unintended negative consequences, such as risks for staff, patients and the public, and delays in response. The Government are profoundly concerned about making such a change without proper engagement with the groups that would be impacted. I therefore do not commend clause 50 to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 51 will reform the Bail Act 1976 to prevent courts from remanding a defendant for their own protection where the only concern relates to their mental health.In response to the independent review, a commitment was made to end the use of prison as a place of safety. Those reforms were welcomed, but concerns were raised about the use of a similar power under the Bail Act 1976 to remand a defendant to prison for their “own protection”. That power can sometimes be used when the court is concerned that the defendant’s mental health presents a risk to their own safety.
Nobody should be sent to prison because they are struggling with their mental health, so the clause will amend the Bail Act to prevent the remand of a defendant for their own protection solely on mental health grounds. Instead, courts will be directed to bail the defendant and work with local health services to put in place appropriate support and care to address risks to their safety.
The clause does not amend the court’s power to refuse bail in respect of a child or young person for their own welfare, because it is already the case that youths cannot be subject to a custodial remand solely for mental health reasons. However, in exceptional circumstances it may still be necessary for a court to remand a child to local authority accommodation for their mental wellbeing, and for that reason the power is preserved.
On clause 52, patients from the Crown dependencies—the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—currently cannot be transferred to England and Wales under sections 35, 36 and 38 of the Mental Health Act. The clause will introduce new powers to enable the Crown dependencies’ courts to send patients who are subject to their equivalent of remand under sections 35 or 36, or an interim hospital order under section 38, to suitably secure hospitals in England and Wales for treatment and assessment. The changes will ensure that that vulnerable cohort of patients can receive appropriate and secure treatment in England and Wales, while enabling the Crown dependencies’ courts to maintain control of the criminal proceedings, so that justice can be done swiftly and efficiently.
Finally, clause 53 will ensure that where provisions in the Mental Health Act provide for the processing of personal data, any such processing, including the sharing of data, is subject to data protection legislation, including the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK general data protection regulation principles. For example, personal data—including special category data such as health data—is likely to be contained in a report produced under clause 4, which inserts clauses specific to people with a learning disability and autistic people, so that their care, treatment and differing support needs are identified, and recommendations are made to ensure that those needs can be met. That report will be shared with the bodies set out in the clause, including the patient’s responsible clinician, the relevant integrated care board and the local authority.
Clause 53 will ensure that such processing of personal data must comply with the controls and safeguards in the legal framework that governs the use of personal data. That includes compliance with key principles such as lawfulness and fairness, and adherence to high standards of information security, privacy and transparency.
In essence, the provision means that where there is a duty or power under the Mental Health Act to process personal data, the processing—including the sharing—of the information must be done in a way that will not contravene data protection legislation, including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. In turn, among other things, that requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and transparently, and confers certain rights on data subjects to access that data and have any errors rectified. That gives vital reassurance to patients about the processing of their personal data under the Mental Health Act. For those reasons, I commend clauses 51 to 53 to the Committee.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I ask for a series of clarifications from the Minister about all three clauses. On clause 51, how will the courts be supported in identifying community-based alternatives to remand? What training or guidance will be provided to judges in applying the provisions effectively? What assurances can the Minister give that support pathways will be available before and after the changes have taken effect?
I accept that clause 52 is a technical a change to the legislation, but it is an important clarification none the less. It will require some robust co-ordination between jurisdictions and clearer procedural safeguards. How will the Government monitor the implementation of proposed new schedule A2 to ensure that patients’ rights are preserved during transfers? Will guidance be issued to courts and practitioners in the UK and the Crown dependencies about the new procedures, particularly their cross-jurisdictional nature? What consultation has taken place, and will continue to take place, with authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man before the measures are implemented in law?
Finally, I recognise that clause 53 is arguably a sensible safeguard. The challenge will be to ensure compliance on the frontline, especially where legal duties to share information and duties to protect confidentiality can butt against some degree of tension. With that in mind, what support or training will be given to health and care professionals to navigate overlapping legal duties? Will the Minister publish sector-specific guidance on data sharing as a consequence of the Bill? How will the Government assess whether the legal framework strikes the right balance between patient safety and privacy?
Dr Evans
Clause 51 amends the Bail Act 1976 to restrict the court’s ability to remand individuals in custody for their own protection or, in the case of children, for their welfare, where the sole concern is mental health. Under existing law, the court may refuse bail to a defendant if it is satisfied that the individual should be kept in custody for their own protection. For those under 18, the relevant test is whether custody is required for their own welfare. Those provisions are found in schedule 1 to the Bail Act.
There is currently nothing in statute that precludes the court from remanding someone entirely on the basis of their mental health conditions—for example, if the defendant appears to pose a danger to themselves but no suitable mental health provision is immediately available. Clause 51 aims to change that. It amends all three parts of schedule 1 to the Bail Act—those dealing with imprisonment and non-imprisonment offences—so that the adult defendant, aged 18 or over, may not be remanded in custody for their own protection if the only concern is mental health.
Paragraph 360 of the Government’s explanatory notes states:
“Evidence suggests that in some cases this power is being used by the courts to remand defendants into custody where they would otherwise have been bailed were it not for the court’s concern for their mental health.”
The intent here is good: to end the inappropriate use of custody—especially in prison, as we have been discussing—as a place of safety for people with acute mental health needs. The clause is consistent with the wider direction of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that people in crisis are met with healthcare and not handcuffs. Although I support the clause, I have a few questions and concerns about how it will operate in practice, and invite the Minister to consider further safeguards.
Where is the alternative provision? That is a question we will keep asking, not in the form of an attack, but as something helpful for our consideration. We are told that instead of custody, courts may impose bail conditions under section 3(6) of the Bail Act, such as requirements to engage with mental health services or, where the statutory criteria are met, remand the person to hospital under the Mental Health Act. That sounds reasonable, but the reality on the ground is often different. We know from NHS data, and from countless reports by inspectors and charities, that community mental health services are stretched, beds are scarce and out-of-hours support can be lacking.
What assessment has been made of local mental health capacity to absorb those individuals who, under clause 51, will no longer be eligible for a custodial remand? Do the Government know, for example, how many are currently in that position? If the law changes overnight, how much extra provision will be needed for these specific patients? How will the Government, specifically on remand patients, ensure that there are places? What are the requirements, if any, on NHS integrated care boards to ensure that a place of safety or support is available in every local area? Without that, there is a real risk that the courts will be left with no safe options, particularly when a person presents in crisis late at night, in distress and with nowhere else to go.
Are the bail and hospital powers workable substitutes? The explanatory note refers to courts using the power to remand for mental health reports or treatment, but the orders depend on medical evidence, the availability of beds and local agreement. They are not always available at the moment when bail is being considered. Meanwhile, bail conditions, however well-meaning, cannot guarantee care or prevent harm if services are not responsive. Has the Department considered issuing new statutory guidance to accompany the clause, outlining what courts should do when no hospital or community support is available, but the defendant is clearly at risk? Further to that, will there be a formal route for courts to escalate concerns to NHS bodies where no safe custodial options exist?
We also need to consider children and young people. As I read it, the clause applies only to adults. The Government are arguing that section 98 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 already prevents the remand of children solely for mental health reasons. Does that not potentially leave a loophole? I am no lawyer, but the Bail Act still allows for remand for the child’s own welfare, and the revised wording in clause 51(2) and (4) does nothing to prevent that being interpreted in practice as the mental health concern that we have been discussing. Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to clarify in statute the status of children? They must not be remanded to custody solely on the basis of mental health-related welfare concerns.
Finally, how will we track the effects of the changes? I suggest that there must be ongoing scrutiny of how the clause operates. To that end, will the Minister commit to releasing annual statistics on the number of people refused bail under the provisions, to reporting on incidences where a safe, non-custodial alternative was not available, and to monitoring outcomes for those affected by the changes? Does the data fall under NHS or Ministry of Justice datasets? It is important that we understand who is responsible.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley asked how the courts would be supported in training for judges and so on. To safely enact that reform, it is vital that the appropriate pathways are in place from first contact with the criminal justice system into the right care and support, whether that is community mental health services or receiving treatment in hospital under the Mental Health Act, where appropriate. We will work with courts, health service commissioners and clinicians to ensure that sentencers have the confidence to bail vulnerable defendants into the community, with the appropriate package of support and smooth pathways into treatment in a healthcare setting for those who need it. We will confirm the timelines for commencement in due course.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, asked about people who are under 18. Custody should be a last resort for children, and the legislative threshold for remanding a child to custody is already very high. Under-18s are not included in this provision, as the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 already precludes the remand of children to custody solely for mental health reasons. When the court’s concerns relate only to the child’s welfare, the preferred option would usually be bail. In exceptional circumstances, a court might remand a child to local authority accommodation, such as a children’s home or foster care, for their own mental wellbeing. Including children in this provision would remove that important safeguard.
On the question of legal limbo, courts in England and Wales will not be able to exercise any criminal jurisdictional powers in relation to these patients. Their powers are restricted to renewal of the remand or interim order, ancillary powers and recommendations for the patient’s return, as well as obligations to inform the Secretary of State. We have included additional provisions in the Bill to allow courts in England and Wales to order a section 36 for treatment for a patient who has previously been transferred from the Crown dependencies on the equivalent of a section 35 for assessment. That is aimed at enabling access to treatment for the patient and preventing the need for the patient to be required to travel back and forth between jurisdictions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 and 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Review of duty to notify incidents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Age-appropriate treatment for children—
“(1) Section 131A of the Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1), insert—
‘(1A) A patient to whom this section applies must not be detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward unless the managers of the hospital consider that—
(a) there are exceptional circumstances which justify the patient’s detention in, or admission to, an adult ward; and
(b) the decision is in accordance with the best interests of the child.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Where a patient has been detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward, the managers of the hospital must record in writing the reasons for the admission, including—
(a) the reason, or reasons, why other options for accommodation were not available or suitable for the patient;
(b) details of the measures to be taken by the hospital to ensure that, while the patient is detained or otherwise accommodated in the adult ward, the patient is provided with care in a safe environment; and
(c) unless it has been determined that an adult ward is the most appropriate environment for the patient in accordance with subsection (1A), the steps being taken by the hospital to transfer the patient to more appropriate accommodation.
(3B) Where a patient to whom this section applies is—
(a) detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward or placed out of area; and
(b) the detention or admission is of more than 24 consecutive hours’ duration,
the managers of the hospital must notify the regulatory authority immediately, setting out why they consider that the requirements under subsection (1A) above are met and providing the information set out in subsection (3A).
(3C) Subsection (3D) applies when—
(a) the managers of a hospital accommodate a patient to whom this section applies in an adult ward for a consecutive period of at least 28 days; or
(b) detain or admit a patient to whom this section applies who—
(i) was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted in the area of a local authority other than the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated, or
(ii) was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority.
(3D) Where this subsection applies, the managers of the hospital must immediately inform the appropriate officer of the responsible local authority—
(a) of the patient's detention or admission, and
(b) when the patient's detention or admission ceases.’
(4) Leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) In this section—
(a) “adult ward” means a ward in a hospital to which persons aged 18 or over are detained in or admitted to;
(b) “the appropriate officer” means—
(i) in relation to a local authority in England, their director of children's services, and
(ii) in relation to a local authority in Wales, their director of social services;
(c) “hospital” includes a registered establishment; and
(d) “the responsible authority” means—
(i) the local authority appearing to the managers of the hospital to be the authority within whose area the child was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted, or
(ii) where it appears to the managers of the hospital that the patient was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority, the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that children are only placed on adult wards where there are exceptional circumstances, and it is in their best interests. It includes procedural safeguards for determining the reasons behind (and suitability of) admitting a child to a hospital environment in which adults are simultaneously accommodated or in an out of area placement.
New clause 17—Children detained on adult wards—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 131A (Accommodation, etc. for children), insert—
‘131B Children detained on adult wards
(1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of children detained on adult wards.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”
This new clause would require the number of children detained on adult wards to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved.
New clause 20—Report and Guidance: Transition to Adult Mental Health Treatment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on improving provision for patients transitioning from treatment in a hospital environment for children and young people to one for adults when they attain the age of 18.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the current pathways and outcomes for young people transitioning between hospital environments for children and for adults;
(b) any gaps in care or support experienced by patients during this transition;
(c) best practices for ensuring safe and effective transitions.
(3) Following the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish guidance for integrated care boards, local authorities, and providers of mental health treatment on improving outcomes and ensuring continuity of care for patients transitioning to a hospital environment for adults.
(4) The guidance under subsection (3) must include—
(a) specific steps to guarantee continuity of care for patients transitioning between treatment in a hospital environment for children and young people and one for adults;
(b) measures to identify young people requiring transition support at an appropriate stage;
(c) provisions for joint working and information sharing between providers of treatment for children and young people and for adults;
(d) requirements for the review and updating of care and treatment plans to reflect the needs of patients transitioning to a hospital environment for adults.
(5) Integrated care boards, local authorities, and providers of mental health treatment must have regard to guidance published under subsection (3).
(6) In preparing the report under subsection (1) and the guidance under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) young people with experience of transitioning between children and young people’s and adult mental health services, and their carers and guardians;
(b) relevant professional bodies;
(c) integrated care boards;
(d) local authorities;
(e) providers of mental health treatment;
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) The Secretary of State must update the guidance under subsection (3) at regular intervals, and no less frequently than every three years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the transition of patients from children's to adult mental health settings for treatment at age 18 and publish guidance for relevant bodies on improving provision and ensuring continuity of care during this transition.
Stephen Kinnock
I rise to speak to clause 54 and to a number of new clauses relating to the treatment of children and young people.
I turn first to clause 54. The Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 require the CQC to be notified of specified events, one of which is where a child is placed in an adult psychiatric unit and the placement has lasted more than 48 hours. When the CQC is notified, the circumstances are reviewed and the risk is assessed. These notifications can trigger further assessments and inspections, and require the trust to provide regular updates and give assurance that the children concerned are being safeguarded.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the Minister for his comments on new clause 17, but I will speak to it briefly along with new clause 20, and then consider not pressing it later.
New clause 17 aims to end the harmful and inappropriate practice of detaining children on adult mental health wards. We know that children in mental health crises are among the most vulnerable in our care system. Placing them in an adult ward is not only developmentally inappropriate; it risks causing further trauma and harm. The practice continues not because it is clinically justified but because of a lack of specialist child and adolescent mental health provision.
Despite the existing statutory guidance under section 131A of the Mental Health Act, hundreds of children are still admitted to adult settings each year. That is a systematic failure. The new clause sets a clear goal: reduce the number of children detained on adult wards to zero within five years. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish within six months a concrete plan of how this will be achieved, including how children’s mental health services will be expanded. It is a question of not just capacity but political will. I urge the Committee to support the new clause if we press it to a Division. I say to the Minister that we are still looking for timelines. We need to protect young people from going into inappropriate adult mental health settings, as I have heard too often from residents in my constituency.
New clause 20 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report within 18 months how to improve transitions between in-patient settings for children and young people and those for adults. I heard a particularly distressing case in my constituency recently, where an individual turned 18 and almost the next day was placed in an adult mental health setting. It was completely inappropriate for that individual, and no real transition work had been done. I appreciate that the Minister says that there is clear guidance, but that guidance has clearly not been adhered to at all times.
The new clause would require statutory guidance for integrated care boards, local authorities and providers, covering essential components, such as clear pathways and timelines, joint working across services, early identification of those needing transition support, and updates to care plans that reflect changing needs. We believe that the new clause is clear, proportionate and achievable. It asks for a plan and for consultation and guidance that can support more stable, person-centred care at a critical point in a young person’s life.
The Minister has indicated that he will not support the new clause. If he is unwilling to do so, my request is that he sets out how the Government will ensure the issues around transitioning between child and adult mental health services are addressed—particularly a clear timeline. He has mentioned a number of documents coming forward that start to address these issues, but as I have expressed, clearly the guidance already exists but it has not been adhered to in all cases, so we would like to see the timeline.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mrs Harris. The Minister has set out in detail the function of clause 54, so I will not cover that in detail for reasons of time. I welcome the clause, which represents a step forward in regulating the placement of children and young people in adult treatment settings, and in ensuring their safeguarding. I welcome the fact that it recognises the need to review the existing safeguards available to young people.
The independent review of the Mental Health Act made recommendations in this area, including that when an under-18 is placed on an adult ward, the CQC should be notified within 24 hours, and that the reasons for and the proposed length of the placement should be recorded. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out what consideration the Government have given to those recommendations, and whether they will form part of the review.
I turn to the important matter of children and young people who are under 18 placed in adult treatment settings. I think we all recognise the extremely difficult context in which these detentions take place. We know that there is a serious shortage of specialist in-patient beds for children and young people, which means that places are often full or may not be available at a time of urgent crisis.
When someone under 18 is placed in an adult treatment setting, they are more likely to witness or even experience high levels of restraint, be denied support from their peers, and lack access to educational opportunities. These placements can actually cause further harm to children and young people’s mental health, and therefore be detrimental to their recovery. I will be grateful if the Minister can assure me of the actions that the Government will take to further safeguard those children and young people who hit crisis point and find themselves in adult treatment settings because of the shortage of beds. How will we ensure that they are protected from being placed in inappropriate treatment settings?
I do not wish to test your patience, Mrs Harris, but before I conclude I want to examine the point about children and young people a little further, given the interaction of clause 54 and associated new clauses with their treatment. I welcome the Government’s consistent restatement of the importance of getting the Bill right for children and young people. I know that the Minister takes such matters incredibly seriously, and I have listened carefully to what he has said this afternoon and throughout the Committee.
The Minister has stated that a number of the reforms relating to children and young people will be addressed in the code of practice, but that contrasts with the approach of many of the welcome safeguards set out for over-18s in the Bill. Will the Minister clarify why these issues are being addressed differently when it comes to children and young people, compared to adults? Children and young people are a uniquely vulnerable group.
On the point about the code of practice, I note that any deviation from that would need to be justified, but my understanding is that the code cannot impose duties on practitioners or require them to exercise their functions under the Act. I am concerned that putting safeguards for under-18s on a different footing from those for adults could make it harder for young people to access those safeguards. I welcome much of the work being done by the Bill, and I want to make sure that children and young people can also access its safeguards. I will be grateful if the Minister can address those points in his response.
In conclusion, I welcome the step forward that clause 54 represents, because it addresses an important issue that we need to get to grips with. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clause 54, but with the caveat that it would be much more effective if new clause 12, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, were added to the Bill.
Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 requires healthcare providers to notify the Care Quality Commission of certain serious incidents. However, it may not comprehensively cover all mental health-related admissions of minors. Clause 54 responds to concerns about transparency and safeguarding in child and adolescent mental health services, and aims to ensure that all relevant incidents are properly monitored and reported.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, we welcome the Government’s shift to improve these standards; there is support for that across the Committee. The clauses about children and young people are some of the most vital parts of the Bill. They are vital not only to get the Bill right but, more importantly, to ensure that children are protected. That is why new clause 12, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, is so essential to strengthen the Bill.
The new clause would amend section 131A of the Mental Health Act 1983, which governs the accommodation of children in mental health settings. It responds to ongoing concerns about the inappropriate placement of children on adult wards, which can be distressing and unsafe, and which is clearly contrary to best clinical practice. The new clause would introduce a requirement that hospital managers must justify such placements in writing, including an explanation of why no alternative was available, and the steps being taken to ensure the child’s safety and transfer to more suitable accommodation. The new clause would also introduce mandatory reporting to regulatory authorities when a child was placed on an adult ward for more than 24 hours, and to local authorities when the placement exceeds 28 days, or involves an out-of-area admission.
The new clause would ensure that children are placed on adult wards only when absolutely necessary. It requires the written justification and formal notification of placements. It involves local authorities and regulators in monitoring prolonged or out-of-area placements, and strengthens and clarifies existing provisions of the Mental Health Act. Most importantly, it aligns with clinical guidance on age-appropriate mental health care.
I turn to new clauses 17 and 20, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I think that their purpose is in some ways similar to that of our new clause 12. However, they put the cart before the horse, or the horse before the cart —it depends on which way round we are. We are trying to fix the system by ensuring that nobody enters an inappropriate place unless there are exceptional circumstances; new clauses 17 and 20 try to exclude those circumstances, but without necessarily fixing the problem in the first place. Although I understand, as ever, the motivations and sentiments of the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats, I do not think they will have the intended consequences; at least, I do not think they will be effective.
I have two questions for the Minister about clause 54. First, will the Department publish regular summaries of the notifications mentioned in the clause showing trends and disparities across the services or regions? Secondly, will the Care Quality Commission be resourced and empowered to act swiftly where patterns of overuse or misuse emerge?
Aphra Brandreth
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of new clause 12, which has been tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, and to comment on clause 54, which has been grouped for this debate alongside it. Those two provisions both deal with the care and treatment of children and young people admitted to hospital for mental health reasons. In doing so, they touch on one of the most sensitive and critical responsibilities we have as legislators: safeguarding vulnerable children at a moment of profound crisis in their lives.
Clause 54, as introduced in the Lords, will place a duty on the Secretary of State to review whether the current requirement to notify the Care Quality Commission should be extended. Currently, notifications are required only when a child or young person is placed in an adult ward for more than 48 hours. The clause asks whether that threshold remains appropriate, and whether other scenarios—for example, where a child is admitted for assessment or placed in an adult setting even for less than 48 hours—should also trigger notification. That is a welcome first step, and I support the clause.
However, I also recognise the limitations of a clause that asks the Secretary of State only to review existing safeguards, rather than requiring that those safeguards be strengthened. That is why I also support the aims of new clause 12, which sets out a more detailed and practical framework to ensure that children are admitted to adult wards only when there are truly exceptional circumstances, and always with appropriate scrutiny and documentation.
The issue has been a consistent concern across multiple reviews, including the independent review of the Mental Health Act, the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Each has made clear that existing protections are insufficient and that too often, vulnerable children are still being placed in inappropriate settings. That concern was echoed in evidence submitted to this Bill Committee by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition. Their written submission sets out the risks in stark terms.
In 2023-24, the CQC was notified of 120 instances in which a child or young person was placed on an adult ward. We also know that between December 2023 and November 2024, 319 children were sent out of area to receive treatment, often far from their families, schools and local support networks—that is nearly one child every single day. Those are not just numbers; they are children and teenagers, many already facing significant trauma, mental health challenges or adverse life experiences. They are often the most vulnerable young people in our society. How they are treated in the days and weeks following a mental health crisis may have lifelong consequences for their wellbeing, development and future.
The Mental Health Act and the code of practice are already clear: children should not be admitted to adult wards except in emergency situations, and even then, only if it is in their best interests. But as the Committee heard in written evidence, that standard is not always met in practice. Young people have reported feeling terrified on adult wards, with an expectation that they behave like adults in environments that were never designed for their needs. That is why new clause 12 is so important: it would give legal weight to existing guidance by requiring that any such admission was explicitly justified in writing, with clear reasons why no other options were available or suitable.
The new clause would also ensure that steps were taken to protect the young person during their time on the ward and, crucially, to transfer them to a more appropriate setting as soon as possible. It would also require immediate notification to the regulator when a child was placed on an adult ward or was out of area for more than 24 hours. Those are simple procedural safeguards, but they really matter. Requiring decisions to be explained and recorded helps ensure they are properly thought through, and provides transparency, oversight and a route to accountability.
I appreciate that the Government are seeking to address the issue through updates to the Mental Health Act code of practice. I welcome that intention and I recognise the role that the code can play in setting out professional guidance, but, with respect, I do not believe that is sufficient on its own. When children are being placed in adult psychiatric wards, potentially for weeks at a time, or being sent far from home in moments of crisis, we must do more than issue guidance—we must provide clear legal safeguards. This is not about placing unrealistic constraints on the NHS or criticising frontline professionals, who we know are working under significant pressure with limited resources. It is about ensuring that when difficult decisions are made, they are made transparently, in the best interests of the child and only when absolutely necessary.
We have a rare opportunity in the Bill to put those protections in place. I hope the Minister will consider the evidence submitted to the Committee, the recommendations of previous reviews and the cross-party consensus on the importance of getting this right. Let us not miss this opportunity to ensure that our mental health system treats every child with the care, dignity and protection they deserve, and to set out clearly and transparently the standards we expect when they are at their most vulnerable.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
You will be disappointed to know, Mrs Harris, that the notable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Chester South and Eddisbury and for Farnham and Bordon mean that my contribution will be even briefer than usual. [Interruption.] Rapturous support across the Committee—exactly the consensus-building that we are seeking to achieve.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 12. It necessarily addresses the inappropriate placement of children on adult wards, which is not just distressing but deeply damaging to those involved. The issue is about having child-centred safeguards. It is essential that we ensure that children under 18 are placed on adult wards only when it is absolutely necessary and there is no alternative. The new clause would not only support best practice—it aligns with clinical guidelines on age-appropriate care—but provide welcome legal clarity. It would strengthen and clarify the existing provisions within the Mental Health Act. For those reasons, I encourage all hon. Members to support it.
On clause 54, the Minister would be disappointed if I did not put a couple of questions to him.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
That is an invitation that I will remember as we go on in this Committee. On this occasion, I have just two questions. First, will any interim guidance be issued while the review is ongoing? Secondly, can the Minister commit that the consultation will be undertaken on a wide basis, and include patient advocates, child psychologists and safeguarding boards?
Because I cannot count, I will add a third question: did the Government consider an alternative to a two-year review period, either through an immediate extension of regulation 18 or perhaps a shorter period, so that these important changes can be put in place without delay?
Dr Evans
I will first speak to clause 54, to give context to my comments about new clause 12, which is in my name, and new clauses 17 and 20, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
Currently, under regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, registered providers must notify the CQC if a child under 18 is placed in an adult psychiatric unit for longer than 48 continuous hours. The notification duty enables the CQC to monitor such placements and take appropriate action to protect young people.
The clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to review whether the duty to notify should be extended to other cases when a child is admitted to a hospital or registered establishment for treatment or assessment of a mental disorder—that bit is really important. It also requires a review of whether the current 48-hour notification timeframe remains appropriate. As the explanatory notes make clear, the purpose of the review is
“to ensure that where a child is admitted...notifications are made to the CQC in appropriate circumstances”,
so that the regulator can respond effectively. That is a welcome and sensible provision. It recognises that safe-guarding in mental health settings must be comprehensive and responsive in changing circumstances. For example, children placed in settings other than adult psychiatric units, such as specialist units or community hospitals, may also face risks that warrant timely CQC oversight.
However, I have a few questions for the Minister. Given the potential risks to children placed even briefly in adult psychiatric units or other settings, is the 48-hour threshold for notification too long? Would early notification—perhaps on admission—provide better protection for young people? Are there known gaps in the current notification system? For instance, how often do incidents involving children in mental health treatment go unreported under the existing framework?
The review is to be completed within two years of Royal Assent. Given the urgency of safeguarding children’s mental health and wellbeing, would it be possible to provide interim updates to Parliament to maintain transparency? Will that be part of the written statement, or stand alone? Will the review consider notifications from private and third sector providers, as well as NHS trusts, to ensure that no setting is overlooked?
We must look at the role of the CQC. In another letter from Baroness Merron, the Minister in the House of Lords, she addressed some of the issues raised and laid out the rationale for her confidence in the CQC as it stands. The letter emphasises the CQC’s “multiple roles” under the Mental Health Act as an independent regulator of services, an investigator of complaints and part of the national preventive mechanism to safeguard human rights. It points out that in 2022-23, the CQC carried out 860 monitoring visits and spoke to over 4,500 patients and 1,200 carers. Those impressive figures speak to a considerable degree of activity and reach.
However, as we have debated, the Bill puts significantly more requirements on the CQC, and clause 54 is a further one. The letter also stresses the CQC’s evolving role and notes that the creation of a new chief inspector of mental health is under way—a recommendation from Professor Sir Mike Richards. The aim, we are told, is to
“put mental health on an equal footing with physical health in CQC”
and to ensure “better information sharing” and
“stronger focus on Mental Health Act compliance.”
All that is welcome, but we also need to scrutinise what is not said. While the letter asserts that
“we will have a regulator that all of us can trust”,
it concedes that that
“will take time to achieve.”
That is a fair admission, but it weakens the case for relying on the status quo while reforms are still being bedded in. If the CQC’s systems are currently being rebuilt or recalibrated, can we be confident that they are robust enough right now to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns, especially when they are about children?
Then, there is the 48-hour threshold for notification when children are placed in adult units, which clause 54 seeks to address. Do we really believe that a child being in an inappropriate or unsafe environment for 47 hours is acceptable? Should the default not be real-time notification on admission, with durations used only to prioritise the level of scrutiny? We should aim for real-time notification in the 21st century—after all, we can track a bus on our phones anywhere in the world. Should we not aim for real-time data to spring services into action? Forty-eight hours is a long time in a young person’s life.
The clause rightly instructs the Secretary of State to review those questions, but I urge the Government to approach the review with openness—not just to minor procedural tweaks, but to the possibility that more fundamental changes might be necessary. On that point, does the Minister envisage the review as a desktop-type data review, or will it engage with children and families who have experienced these placements? Will it examine how well the notifications currently translate into timely action by the CQC? Seeing the data is important, but acting on it is more so. How will Parliament be kept informed before the two-year deadline for reporting? Will that be part of the written statement?
All that leads me to our new clause 12, which aims to address a lot of the background I have set out. At present, the Mental Health Act provides for the detention of patients who require treatment for mental health disorders, including children. Section 131A of that Act governs the accommodation of patients in hospital wards, but lacks explicit safeguards preventing children from being placed in adult wards, except in limited circumstances. That has led to troubling examples across the country, where children have been admitted to adult wards because of a lack of appropriate CAMHS beds.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member for Guildford asked about timelines. There is the timeline for the review on the face of the Bill, and then there is the broader question about implementation and how all the moving parts fit together. We have now had the spending review, which will provide a financial envelope for mental health more broadly, and for implementation of the Bill. We will be ready to move forward with implementation on that basis, which will include the code of practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford asked about a time limit for notification. It is already a legislative requirement for the CQC to be notified when a child or young person is placed on an adult ward for a continuous period of longer than 48 hours. In addition, the previous Government assessed that the current requirement of 48 hours was sufficient. As part of the review that is mentioned on the face of the Bill, we will consider whether that remains the case for receiving notifications, and whether it remains appropriate.
My hon. Friend also asked about further safeguards for children and young people, including those in inappropriate settings. Obviously, the placement of a child or young person on an adult mental health ward only happens following a thorough clinical assessment. Trusts are required to have robust local safeguarding protocols in place, including mandatory staff training on safeguarding and incident-reporting mechanisms, to ensure accountability and oversight. Staff are appropriately trained in child and adolescent mental health care, and they must meet level 3 competency in safeguarding children.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon asked about data. The CQC already publishes “Monitoring the Mental Health Act”, a statutory annual report that must be laid before Parliament, in which it reports on the number of people under 18 who are admitted to adult wards. Additionally, it reports qualitative information on placements for children and young people, such as placements on children’s general wards. I hope that I have addressed that point.
Stephen Kinnock
The new clause takes forward a commitment made in the Lords by Baroness Merron to address issues relating to the unequal application of the Human Rights Act 1998 for some mental health patients. Sadly, this issue was highlighted following the death of Paul Sammut. I extend my deepest condolences to his family.
We now wish to take action to ensure a more equal application of the Human Rights Act, with the aim of extending its protection to certain mental health patients. Under this amendment, private providers will be taken to be exercising a function of a public nature for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when they are carrying out certain services and when those services are arranged and/or paid for by either local authorities or the NHS. Those functions are section 117 aftercare; services provided in pursuance of arrangements made by a local authority in Scotland, discharging its duty under section 25 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003; and in-patient treatment and assessment for mental disorder, whether or not a patient is detained under the Mental Health Act.
When carrying out those services, private providers will be required to act compatibly with the convention rights set out in the Human Rights Act. Many patients in private facilities already have those protections. Private providers are already taken to be exercising a function of a public nature for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when caring for patients detained under the Mental Health Act or providing care for patients due to the effect of section 73 of the Care Act 2014. The new clause seeks to extend those protections to other mental health patients in private provision, where care is arranged and/or paid for by the NHS or a local authority. As the new clause is a modification of the Human Rights Act, this is a reserved matter and the amendment will therefore apply in all four nations.
Government amendments 37 and 38 are minor technical amendments to the Bill’s extent provision in clause 57 to ensure that our amendment—new clause 10—relating to the Human Rights Act extends UK-wide. The Human Rights Act, which the new clause 10 seeks to modify, extends UK-wide. The amendments are therefore necessary to ensure that the same Human Rights Act protections extend to all four nations. I hope that hon. Members feel able to support the amendments.
Dr Evans
I welcome the opportunity to speak on these important provisions, which apply the Human Rights Act 1998 to certain private care providers delivering mental health services. At present, the Human Rights Act applies directly to public authorities and to those exercising functions of a public nature. However, an increasing proportion of mental health care and aftercare services are delivered by private providers, under arrangement with NHS bodies and local authorities. The current legislation leaves some ambiguity about whether private providers are legally bound to comply with the Human Rights Act when delivering such services. That creates a potential accountability gap that risks undermining the protections that we want to guarantee to vulnerable patients.
The Government’s proposal to explicitly extend the application of the Human Rights Act to registered private care providers when they deliver specific services commissioned or paid for by public authorities is a welcome step towards closing the gap. By doing so, it will ensure that these providers are treated as performing public functions under section 6 of the Act. That means that they will be directly accountable for upholding the rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act, including the rights to liberty, dignity, privacy and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment.
This approach is not without precedent. For example, in the case of prison outsourcing, courts have established that private companies running prisons are subject to the Human Rights Act because they perform public functions. Similarly, private care providers delivering publicly funded mental health services should be held to the same standard as NHS bodies or local authorities.
It is worth noting that although this explicit statutory extension of the Human Rights Act to private providers is a new provision in the Mental Health Act 1983 for England and Wales, similar principles already apply in Scotland through case law and existing legislation. Under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide aftercare services, which may be delivered by private providers. Scottish courts recognise that when private providers perform public functions, such as delivering those statutory services, they are subject to the Human Rights Act, following key judgments such as YL v. Birmingham City Council.
This Government proposal provides much-needed clarity and an explicit statutory footing across all four nations of the UK. It also ensures consistency across the four nations, referencing equivalent legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This helps to remove ambiguity and ensure consistency. However, we must also consider the practical impact. Although these changes strengthen rights and protections, they also increase the regulatory burden on private providers. Providers may face new compliance costs, legal challenges and the need for enhanced training and oversight. That could have a knock-on effect on service availability, particularly in a market already facing staffing pressures and financial constraints.
The Government should therefore consider how to support providers to meet the new obligations without destabilising service provision. There is also a need to ensure that commissioners and regulators have the necessary resources and powers to monitor and enforce compliance effectively. In that spirit, I will pose some questions to the Minister for clarification and look for reassurance.
How will the Government monitor compliance with the Human Rights Act among private providers, and what enforcement mechanisms will be used? Has there been any consultation with private care providers about the potential operational and financial impacts of this extension, and will the extension apply only to services arranged or paid for by NHS bodies? What protections exist for patients receiving private mental health care outside these arrangements? How do the Government plan to ensure consistency in application across all four nations? Do the Government foresee private provision of mental health-related services expanding? If so, by how much?
I agree that the final two amendments look like two small consequential amendments that clarify and ensure that the human rights extension applies equally across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The insertion of “subject to subsection (2)” appears to be technical. I would just welcome confirmation from the Minister that it will not inadvertently limit the scope of the new protections. Otherwise, Opposition Members will support them.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. I will have to get back to him in writing, because the questions that he asks obviously have an important legal dimension, and it was physically impossible to get the information in the time between his sitting down and my standing up to speak. I am not a human rights lawyer either, so it is best if I write to him on those points.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Victims and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 3, page 7, line 4, leave out from “and” to end of line 9.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 7, line 14, leave out from “and” to end of line 16.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 7, leave out line 20.
This amendment, along with Amendments 20 and 21, would ensure that there has to be a review by the family court in all instances where a prohibited steps order is issued.
Dr Mullan
We return to consider the measures on parental responsibility. There was significant debate in our earlier sitting on the need to balance the measures, and the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to widen the Bill’s scope in ways that I think would have been proportionate and necessary to secure the maximum possible benefit from a novel measure to protect children from people who would not ordinarily be able to exercise their parental responsibility.
The debate was about the need for balance, which is why, at the same time as seeking to widen the scope of the measure, we want to secure balance by making amendments to ensure that the family court has a bigger role to play where we introduce automatic powers for taking this through the family court.
Under the Bill as drafted, a review by the family court is required only if an offender is acquitted or if their sentence is reduced to below a life sentence or a term of four years or more. The amendment deletes those conditions by removing proposed new section 10D(1)(b), which limits review to the specific appellant outcomes I have described.
We believe that automaticity, while preferable to the risk of inaction in relation to children, should be enhanced with a considered approach—when time allows—to taking the necessary protective steps. The amendment would ultimately require such orders to be reviewed on their own merit, in a family court, with children’s welfare as the guiding principle. Our amendments would ensure that the safeguarding lens of the family court is engaged in all cases, not just in those that meet certain technical thresholds. This morning, the Minister was keen to emphasise the novelty of these measures, as well as the importance of the family court in considering these issues more widely.
Our amendment would help to ensure that those correctly put points are enacted more consistently than they currently will be. An automatic power, while important, will inevitably have limitations in understanding the specific circumstances of each case. I have spoken to experts in this area, and they highlighted the rare but compelling cases where, despite one parent being convicted of a very serious offence, there may be similar safeguarding concerns about the other parent. Where parental responsibility is removed in one case, it might be left to a single person whom the family court might also consider inappropriate, in isolation, to be exercising parental responsibility.
As unusual as they might sound, I understand that those scenarios sometimes occur. That is why family court practitioners are concerned about the automatic suspension of parental responsibility. Our amendments are designed to counterbalance those concerns and give greater strength to the desire of both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in broadening the scope of automaticity with a stronger safeguard for those exceptional circumstances where, at times, it might not be considered the best approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The amendment seeks to insert a requirement for the family court to consider every prohibited steps order made under clause 3. The shadow Minister’s intention in moving the amendment is noble. However, the Government must ensure that we are acting in the best interests of all children, and there are several reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted.
First, we must protect the children and families in these horrific circumstances from unnecessary procedural burdens, particularly when there is no challenge to an order by the parties involved. Under clause 3, the prohibited steps order will have been made because an offender has been convicted of serious child sexual abuse offences against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. For the child, that means that the very person who was supposed to protect them has committed some of the most heinous acts of abuse against them.
In such cases, we believe it is right that a prohibited steps order is made automatically, and that it would not be in the best interests of the child or their siblings for their abuser to continue exercising parental responsibility. However, we have provided flexibility for cases to be considered by the family court, where there is an application to do so.
This amendment would require the victim and their family to go through another set of potentially traumatic legal proceedings after the criminal case has concluded. This would prevent them from moving on with their lives, and we do not want to put that burden on victims and their families at what will already be an incredibly difficult time. We think it is right that, instead of mandating further consideration in the family court, the offender and others should apply to the family court to vary or discharge an order.
Furthermore, we must consider the impact this amendment would have on other, unconnected children already involved in family court proceedings. The family court makes difficult decisions about some of the most vulnerable children in our society every single day. This amendment would increase the caseload in the family court and would undoubtedly impact on the time it takes to resolve cases. Every member of this Committee will have constituency casework involving the family court, and we do not wish to add to its caseload. It is important that the family court can resolve cases as quickly as possible, and the Government do not want to add to the volume of cases in the system, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Finally, the amendment has inconsistencies that would create difficulties in its application. It maintains the definition of “local authority” as the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered or the sentence is reduced. As drafted, the amendment leaves open questions as to who the relevant local authority is in cases where no appeal has been made. This would place an additional burden on the Crown court to ascertain who the relevant local authority is and would risk the measure being applied inconsistently.
The good intentions behind this amendment are clear. We all want to ensure that children and their welfare are protected. However, this amendment is not the way to do that. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not think that mandating a family court review is the right approach in these cases, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I would like to make two points. First, on the drafting, I appreciate that the Government are ultimately responsible for the wording of legislation, but I gently say that perhaps the Minister might review this with her officials. The wording of the amendment was taken from the previously approved drafting of a similar measure in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was introduced by the last Government, so there must have been a change of heart in the official advice to the Minister.
On the issue of substance, perhaps the Minister will elaborate on a compromise outside the Committee. These are new and novel measures, and undoubtedly there will be guidance for local authorities when they come into force. The Opposition would be reassured if the Minister committed to ensuring that the guidance highlights to local authorities the importance of carefully considering their role in seeking further review of a case, outside the limited scope of the legislation, in circumstances where parental responsibility is removed through an order. Local authorities will perhaps be in a better position to judge whether leaving someone with sole parental responsibility might not be the ideal scenario.
The Minister will not have a chance to respond, but I would be grateful if she could assure me, perhaps outside in the Committee corridor, that the guidance will be absolutely clear on the burden that will be placed on local authorities, as well as on the importance of local authorities acting swiftly. An automatic order is not necessarily in the best interests of children in all circumstances, when considering the wider factors.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, as I take it in good faith that the Minister will at least have a further discussion with me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clause 4 stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
We have already debated these clauses at length. I do not wish to labour the Committee or subject it to my voice any longer than necessary. The spirit of the clauses has been debated on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Victims’ rights to make representations and receive information etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
New clause 11—Extension of Victim Contact Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—
(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,
(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and
(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for tabling new clause 11, which would expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, ensure timely and sensitive communication under the scheme, and require the Secretary of State to publish a report covering key data on the scheme. I am pleased to reassure him that victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment will already be eligible for the new victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence length. I am also pleased to say that bereaved families whose loved ones have died as a result of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving will also be eligible for the scheme where the offender has received a sentence of 12 months or more.
I wholeheartedly agree that victims of violent, sexual and dangerous driving offences that have resulted in a sentence of less than 12 months should also have a clear route to request and receive information about their offender. That is why the Bill guarantees that these cohorts can request information through a new dedicated victim helpline, and where appropriate, they will receive the information. We think this is the right approach. It targets resources and delivers proactive contact through the victim contact scheme to those who need the information most, while still providing a new dedicated helpline for all victims to request information.
Turning to the second part of the new clause, the hon. Member for Eastbourne is right that victims deserve timely communication that is sensitive to their needs, but this is properly a matter of guidance and practice, not primary legislation. The upcoming consultation on the victims code offers an opportunity to consider how we can improve the delivery of the victim contact scheme, and I would welcome all Members’ engagement with that consultation once it launches.
Dr Mullan
As the Minister outlined, we are discussing changes primarily to the victim contact scheme and victim helpline. We supported the operation of those services in Government, and it is perfectly in order for the Government to seek to expand them further. But, during the Committee evidence sessions, the Minister will have noted the questions about the resources available to individuals for accessing those services. I note that the witnesses from HM Prison and Probation Service and others felt that there were the necessary resources, or at least that the impact of the expansion on the resource requirements would not be particularly significant, but I would welcome the Minister assuring the Committee that she has done the due diligence necessary to ensure that we do not raise expectations in those expansions and additions to victim support services that are not realised.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to reassure the hon. Member on that point. These provisions have been drafted in consultation with colleagues, including from HMPPS, to ensure that we have the necessary resources. He will know that we have provided additional funding for the new helpline, and for the additional resources required to expand the victim contact scheme. That is all laid out in the economic impact assessment of the legislation. We will, of course, keep it under review to ensure that adequate resources are available to support victims, and give them the communication that they require.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 11 would give access to the victim contact scheme for victims of violent and sexual offences where the offender is sentenced to less than 12 months. I think the Minister said that such access is included under the provisions of the Bill.
The new clause also mentions access for
“victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment and…death by dangerous driving”.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. New clause 11 would also require the Government to produce annual reports on the uptake and accessibility of the scheme, increasing transparency and accountability. We believe that it is important to know who is using the scheme so that we can know who is not accessing it. That will help us to improve the scheme, and to widen access to those victims who, for whatever reason, have not heard about the scheme or managed to access it.
On the training for the people managing and running the helpline, could the Minister give me some reassurance that there is funding and capacity available to give adequate training in gender-based violence and the effects of stalking and sexual violence on people, and particularly women, who may be quite scared about the potential release of an offender and what that means?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I can happily and wholeheartedly reassure her on the last point. She will have heard the evidence given the Committee by colleagues in the Probation Service, who were quite forthright about the trauma-informed training provided to call handlers, which is so vital in such cases. They are well used to that, and we have provided additional funding and resources to enable training to continue so that they are well equipped to deal with the increased caseload that the expansion of the scheme and the new helpline will provide. On the annual report, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that there is a duty under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 to provide an annual report on victims code compliance. The victims code includes the right to information—the right to be notified—so that will be included in the compliance report.
However, I take on board the hon. Lady’s comments about the need to make sure that victims are aware of the scheme, and that they are able to apply to it. All that will be brought into the victims code consultation that we will take forward later this year, to ensure that we bring more victims up to speed on what their rights are and what they are entitled to under the criminal justice system. We have a long way to go to ensure that victims are aware of their rights on the whole—not just rights to communication and contact.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Commissioner’s power to act in individual cases relevant to public policy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The next three clauses of the Bill, clauses 6 to 8, pertain to increasing the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In 2024, the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act strengthened the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. Among other measures, it placed a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with the Commissioner’s requests and respond to their recommendations. The Government’s manifesto committed to build on those powers, providing the Victims’ Commissioner with the full suite of tools to drive systemic change. These clauses deliver on that manifesto commitment.
I take this opportunity to thank the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, for her engagement on these clauses and on the vital work she does every single day to support victims and witnesses. The Victims’ Commissioner’s role is fundamental to appropriate scrutiny of, and accountability for, the systems that support victims and of the criminal justice system. The clauses on the Victims’ Commissioner empower the commissioner better to hold the system to account. They are an important step towards building victims’ confidence in the system and rebuilding their trust. They will ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that the system that supports victims of crime and of antisocial behaviour are held to the same standards, and are effectively and thoroughly scrutinised.
Clause 6 bolsters the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to promote the interests of victims and witnesses by giving them a legislative foundation to act on individual cases, which expose systemic failure. Individuals’ lived experiences offer invaluable insights into how the system delivers for victims. Existing legislation lacks clarity on the extent to which the commissioner can act explicitly within the parameters of her existing functions in those individual cases.
The clause makes it clear that the Victims’ Commissioner can choose to act on individual cases and where such cases raise public policy issues. That will promote the interests of other victims and witnesses who may face similar systemic problems. In practical terms, therefore, if the commissioner identifies an issue or a failure—such as a policy not being followed, or the absence of a relevant policy—that may have wider implications for other victims, she may request information from the relevant agencies. That could include an explanation of what went wrong and the steps being taken to address that, and recommendations on how improvements can be made across the system.
To achieve that, the element of the legislative bar preventing the commissioner’s involvement in individual cases will be amended. Other elements of the bar will remain the same, including the preservation of the existing restrictions on the commissioner interfering with certain proceedings and with prosecutorial or judicial functions. The clause will enable the Victims’ Commissioner better to promote the interests of victims and witnesses on the issues that impact on them directly.
Dr Mullan
Again, the role and importance of the Victims’ Commissioner was something that we supported, reformed and strengthened during our time in Government, as the Minister highlighted. I too pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions to discuss a whole variety of issues related to victims. She brings her incredible experience—and that of her wider family, who have their own perspectives —to so many different issues. I welcome measures that seek to strengthen her role.
I only have one question for the Minister. The new power will sit within a number of bodies—the ombudsman and others—who have roles to play. I am sure that Baroness Newlove and her successor will be forceful and proactive in helping to understand how the powers sit within those remits. Nevertheless, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have a convening and overarching role to ensure that, with all the different parties, the new power and the new individual approach do not confuse victims and that it is clear to everyone what the new Victims’ Commissioner role will or will not involve. Co-operation with others will be necessary to pick up cases that might need that. I will be grateful to the Minister for assurance that the MOJ is sighted of that issue, of ensuring that there is not confusion across the patch.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to clarify that the powers in the Bill that we are extending to the Victims’ Commissioner to allow that measure to take place will bring them in line with other commissioners, such as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner, which do those functions and operate well across different agencies. Therefore, it is just a matter of replicating the powers of the Children’s and the Domestic Abuse Commissioners, and how they work in those other jurisdictions. I take that on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Duty to co-operate with Commissioner: anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause places a duty on local authorities and social housing providers, where they are engaged with victims of antisocial behaviour, to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. Antisocial behaviour is more than merely a nuisance. It can erode personal freedom, harm mental wellbeing and, ultimately, shatter the feeling of safety and belonging that defines a home.
Antisocial behaviour is not, however, always a criminal justice issue. Local authorities and social housing providers often play a key role in supporting victims and in finding a resolution. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced a duty for certain criminal justice agencies responsible for providing those victims code services to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. That duty does not apply to local authorities or social housing providers, so there is a gap in terms of ensuring that the commissioner has the tools to do their job effectively for victims of antisocial behaviour. This duty will close that gap and ensure that the commissioner is able to access the right information to identify the systemic issues, make more informed recommendations and scrutinise how the system as a whole responds to antisocial behaviour from a victim’s perspective.
Dr Mullan
Everybody in the Committee today will be familiar with the importance of engaging with local authorities and social housing providers in relation to antisocial behaviour. We will all have seen examples of good work and proactive local authorities and social housing providers, but we have almost certainly also seen examples of where they do not do the basics that we might expect for our constituents as residents of their housing. We therefore welcome the expansion of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner into this area.
My question is about understanding the different roles that agencies will have. First, what discussions did the Minister have with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about ensuring that local authorities are minded and sighted to these changes, as well as on how they will operate and play their convening role when it comes to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the regulators of social housing.
I am sure the Victims’ Commissioner will do their own work and engagement, but the MHCLG and the MOJ will have an important role ensuring that all stakeholders understand and co-operate to make the most of these new powers, for the benefit of all our constituents who experience antisocial behaviour in local authority and social housing.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. He will know that MHCLG already has a legal duty to respond to recommendations in the commissioner’s reports when relating to some of these measures, so it will feed into that more systemically as a result of these new powers. This Government are not legislating in a vacuum; the new powers in this Bill sit alongside and complement the new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before the House, particularly the duty to create the new antisocial behaviour case reviews.
It is really important that we do not legislate in a vacuum. That is something that has been done previously, but this Government are taking a different approach, looking at how we can tackle issues across Government. We have made these Bills complementary because, in order to solve these problems, we have to do things together across Government and across different agencies. That is why colleagues across Government and from different Departments, including MHCLG and the Home Office, have been carefully involved in the creation of these new powers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Duty of Commissioner to report on compliance with victims code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 8 requires the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an annual report to Ministers that will provide an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code. The code sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is part of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and core functions to keep the code’s operation under review.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contained a new code compliance framework that will require criminal justice bodies to provide Ministers with data demonstrating how they are complying with the code, but that measure lacked independent oversight and scrutiny. In recognition of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in keeping the operation of the code under review, this measure will place a duty on them to produce their own independent assessment of code compliance. The measure will strengthen their role within the code compliance framework and enhance independent and victim-focused scrutiny of code compliance, with the aim of improving the service that victims receive from criminal justice bodies.
The report will also form a key part of the evidence that informs the ministerial annual report on code compliance. Once the code compliance framework is in force, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the new report from the Victims’ Commissioner when preparing their own. As a result, we are removing the existing duty on Ministers to consult the commissioner during the preparation of their annual report, as previously set out in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Victims’ Commissioner will also be able to use this report to make recommendations to authorities within their remit, to which those authorities will be required to respond, helping to drive up compliance with the code. As a result, I urge that clause 8 stand part of the Bill.
Dr Mullan
As we have come to the conclusion of the clauses relating to these powers, I thought I might bring Baroness Newlove into the room and quote her view overall on the measures that we are passing. She says:
“These important and welcome reforms give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory powers needed to deliver on the role’s promise: championing victims’ rights, scrutinising compliance with the Victims code, holding agencies to account, and spotlighting the true victim experience to drive meaningful change. This marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first.”
The measures have also been welcomed by SafeLives, Green & Burton ASB Associates and Victim Support, which we heard from during evidence sessions earlier in the week. Therefore we do not intend to oppose this final measure of the three; as I say, they all reflect our long-standing commitment over 14 years in government to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we sought to enhance over time. Of course, as I said, it is right for this Government to think further about other changes that can be made for the benefit of victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Appointment of Crown Prosecutors
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
This amendment and Amendments 2 to 7 ensure that exemptions conferred by sections 1 and 5 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 remain available to persons with rights of audience in relation to certain proceedings in the Senior Courts and all proceedings in the county court and magistrates’ court.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 7.
Clause stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is vital to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Clause 9 supports that aim by increasing CPS recruitment flexibility through the removal of an unnecessary legislative barrier. In turn, this will help to increase the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as Crown prosecutors.
Currently, the CPS is restricted as to whom it can appoint as Crown prosecutors, because of an unnecessary legal requirement. That legislative barrier, set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, provides that Crown prosecutors and those who prosecute cases on behalf of the CPS must hold a general qualification. That definition excludes certain legal professionals, including most Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEX—criminal practitioners. Those legal professionals hold the right skills and the specialist qualifications required to perform the Crown prosecutor role, including rights of audience, but they do not meet the “general qualification” criterion. That restriction limits the Director of Public Prosecutions’ ability to consider a wider pool of legal talent. It also reduces the CPS’s flexibility in managing existing and future recruitment challenges.
The purpose of clause 9 is to remove the requirement for a general qualification under sections 1(3) and 5(1) of the 1985 Act. In so doing, it gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the discretion to appoint appropriately qualified legal professionals, such as CILEX practitioners, as Crown prosecutors for the CPS. It is important to stress that the removal of the “general qualification” criterion does not change the reality that prospective applicants must hold the necessary practice rights and meet the required competency standards in order to become Crown prosecutors. Rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation also remain protected as reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007.
This change reflects the modern legal services landscape. Alternative routes to qualification are increasingly common and professionals from non-traditional backgrounds play a growing role in the justice system. By removing the unnecessary legislative barrier, the clause also supports the recruitment of a more diverse and representative cohort of Crown prosecutors. The measure does not require the CPS to appoint any specific type of legal professional; however, it gives it the flexibility to do so where appropriate and ensures that recruitment decisions remain firmly within the Director of Public Prosecutions’ control.
Government amendments 1 to 7 are technical amendments to address an unintended consequence arising from the previous drafting of the removal of the statutory exemptions in the 1985 Act—it happens to the best of us, Mr Stringer. Although the policy aim was to ensure that only suitably qualified individuals could act as Crown prosecutors, we have since identified that many existing CPS barristers currently rely on the statutory exemption in section 1(6) of the Act to conduct litigation without separate authorisation from the Bar Standards Board. That exemption is appropriate, because those barristers act under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions when conducting litigation. The amendments ensure that the exemption remains in place, preserving the status quo for those who already rely on it, while removing it for other legal professionals, who do not meet the relevant qualification requirement but are now eligible to be designated as Crown prosecutors. This approach avoids unintended barriers for those barristers, supports the CPS’s operational needs and maintains the policy intent of enabling a broader, properly qualified pool of Crown prosecutors.
The amendments will ensure that the clause operates as intended, broadening access to the CP roles while maintaining appropriate safeguards and supporting the CPS to meet its recruitment needs effectively. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
The Opposition recognise that flexibility in how we decide which professionals can perform important functions in our criminal justice system is important, and we do not object to the widening of the scope, for example by including CILEX members. However, the Minister will know that it has not been universally welcomed. In particular, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald described it as a
“cost cutting measure rather than a measure designed to improve the quality of justice”.
We will not oppose the measure, but given the significant expansion of the professionals involved, what plans do the Government have to review the impact of the change to ensure that there have not been any unintended consequences? It would reassure not just the Opposition but wider stakeholders if the Government kept a close eye on the measure and formally reviewed its implementation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily reassure the Committee that the measures will not reduce professional standards in any way. As I have said, they will simply remove unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified individuals from becoming Crown prosecutors. We are all aware, sadly, of the issues with backlogs in our Crown courts and cases waiting a long time to get to trial. Part of the reason for that is recruitment challenges in the CPS.
I respectfully challenge the comments from the previous DPP. The measures are not a cost-cutting exercise. They are about ensuring that we have the broadest level of talent while maintaining the highest professional standards, so that more victims see justice and more perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 11, line 5, after “subsection (3)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, leave out
“persons designated for the purposes of subsection (3)”
and insert “such a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, after “omit ’” insert “but”.
This amendment updates the text to be omitted from section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 so that the provision reads correctly in light of the amendment to that provision currently included in the Bill.
Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 11, line 22, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out
“persons appointed under subsection (1)”
and insert “such a person”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
In 2020, the Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into the private prosecution sector, resulting in the publication of a report, “Private prosecutions: safeguards”, on 2 October that year. I thank it for its diligent work and carefully considered recommendations. It made a number of recommendations to address the systemic issues highlighted by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and the Ministry of Justice has recently concluded a separate public consultation on the regulation and oversight of private prosecutors more generally. We are carefully considering the responses to that consultation, and will in due course publish a Government response on the steps we are taking to improve practice in the private prosecutorial landscape, including legislation if necessary.
Separately, the Justice Committee made a recommendation about the costs recoverable from central funds by private prosecutors. It found that there is a disparity between the compensation available to a private prosecutor seeking to recover their expenses from public funds and a defence practitioner whose client is in receipt of legal aid. A private prosecutor can apply to the court for an order of payment from central funds of an amount that offers reasonably sufficient compensation for their expenses. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes reasonable sufficiency and, as a result, cost orders for private prosecutors tend to be at least five times higher than the rates available to legal aid lawyers, often for acting in the same cases.
The Select Committee referred to evidence that the current cost regime for private prosecutions may give rise to perverse financial incentives, which are unlikely to lead to a just system. The Committee therefore recommended that the Government should review the funding arrangements for private prosecutions to reduce the disparity between payment rates for claims made by private prosecutors and defendants from central funds.
Dr Mullan
I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Select Committee, and I sat on that inquiry and signed off its recommendations. The issue of costs was particularly pertinent to me at the time. I welcome the commitment to extensive consultation, because while the Select Committee absolutely recognised the growing disparity between costs restrictions in non-private prosecutions and private prosecutions, we heard that that was still an important route to justice for some people and we would not want to overly restrict it, so the rate at which costs restrictions are set and the process for that will be important.
The rest of my remarks relate to what the Government are not doing. I note the Minister’s commitment to considering further changes, but she will know that opportunities to legislate do not always come along when we might want them to. Of course, the Government have committed to legislating later in the year on sentencing, and they will almost certainly be legislating on court reform, following Brian Leveson’s review. That is a hefty timetable of legislation in the increasingly short time available in this Parliament, so it may well be that there are not future opportunities to legislate in this important area.
I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with just how badly private prosecutions can go wrong for some people, particularly in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal. While there was some CPS involvement in some of those prosecutions, the majority of them were private prosecutions, and we all know the devastating consequences of some of them. We are yet to see whether criminal proceedings might flow from the inquiry, and the extent to which misconduct may have taken place. That is why, as part of our report, the Committee called for regulation of private prosecutions to bring them in line with the ordinary expectations we have of the good practice of the CPS—they really should not be any different.
I would like to hear from the Minister a clear commitment, rather than a generic assurance, and a timetable, during this Parliament, for when the Government expect to develop and publish proposals for the regulation of private prosecutors and when they hope to legislate to bring them into force. It is all well and good for the previous Government and this Government to speak powerfully about the Post Office and the impact that the scandal has had on people, but I think the public want to see steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. I am sure the inquiry will have recommendations about that, but the regulation of the private prosecutions sector will be important in ensuring that we do not see a repeat. I would welcome comments from the Minister in that regard.
Alex Davies-Jones
On the wider concerns about private prosecutions, the shadow Minister will have heard me say that we will shortly be publishing our response to the consultation that this Government carried out. We recognise that there is more to do in this area, and we will act if the recommendations suggest that we should do so. He will also know that, sadly, this Government inherited a justice system in absolute chaos, which has resulted in us having to bring forward a number of urgent reviews, including into sentencing and court backlogs, and a number of legislative vehicles. I guarantee that there will be ample opportunity for us to legislate on these issues during this parliamentary Session should that be deemed appropriate given their nature.
Dr Mullan
The point I was trying to make is that regulation of the private prosecutions sector will not necessarily be in the scope of legislation on sentencing or court reform. The MOJ will already be bidding for parliamentary time to bring through two potentially big Bills. I ask again whether the Minister might want to reconsider whether this Bill, in which we are literally legislating on private prosecutions, is the right vehicle to address the sector’s regulation, because we may not get another opportunity in this Parliament.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am confident that there will certainly be more opportunities, given, as I have said, the nature of the issues facing the Ministry of Justice and the need for the Government to act to correct some of the difficulties and problems that we inherited. This Government are getting on with action to clean up the mess in our prisons, to reduce the criminal cases backlog and, through this Bill, to ensure that victims’ rights are heard. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for appropriate vehicles; we are getting on with the job, and that is exactly what we are doing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priorities for Water Sector Reform
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Helena Dollimore will speak about the publication of the second report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Priorities for water sector reform”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call other Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Helena Dollimore to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms Lewell. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about our second report of this Parliament. The report is entitled “Priorities for water sector reform”, and it is intended to be the first in a long-term inquiry into reforming our water sector. We will continue to return to this subject throughout the Parliament, as we know how important it is.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made reform of the water sector one of his five core priorities. Sir Jon Cunliffe was appointed by him to lead an independent review of the sector and to make recommendations. Unusually, therefore, our report does not make recommendations to the Government but to Sir Jon himself. It is intended to feed into the work of the Independent Water Commission.
Over the past six months, we have been wading into the water industry and its many problems. Before I come to our findings, I want to thank my fellow Committee members, the Committee staff and the Chair for their hard work in getting this report over the line. Most of all, I thank the campaigners across the country who have helped to expose what is happening in our water industry.
The story of what has happened in the water sector in this country reads a bit like the film “Erin Brockovich”—individuals who care about the state of their sea or their local river, going out to test the water only to find shocking levels of sewage pollution. A shocking number of them have then ended up having to go to court to find out the truth of what is happening. The seas, rivers and waterways of a whole country have been desecrated. In my own constituency, in Hastings, Rye and the villages, we have been at the sharp end of this crisis, suffering at the hands of Southern Water.
In our inquiry, we tried to take the public’s questions to the water bosses, to channel that anger into seeking answers about how we solve the crisis and about how we got here. We hauled in the water bosses one by one, and heard story after story of corporate failure, environmental degradation and a lack of accountability. The boss of Thames Water explained why it put 98 critical infrastructure projects back, instead spending that money on dividends rather than fixing broken pipes. Some companies, including Thames, are now struggling to stay afloat, thanks to the previously high levels of dividends extracted from the companies. That should never have been allowed to happen.
We heard about serious failings during major incidents in which the public were abandoned. In Brixham, during a cryptosporidium outbreak, while residents lay in hospital from drinking the water, the boss of South West Water, Susan Davy, was missing in action. She could not explain why she refused interviews with the media during the crisis.
We grilled the boss of Southern Water, Lawrence Gosden, about major incidents in my own constituency, when residents in Hastings and Rye were left without water for up to eight days. Proper provisions were not made during that time for residents, and communication was seriously lacking. In the Hastings water outage, Southern Water initially refused to cough up any compensation. After I grilled him about it in Committee, the chief executive agreed to reverse the decision and pay compensation. Our Committee has taken the learnings from such incidents to recommend that we have a clear set of guidelines to say what people can reasonably expect from the water companies during a major water outage—such as providing portaloos, showering facilities or food provision as the crisis goes on.
One water boss after another justified taking an eye-watering bonus while presiding over serious failure. They were always quick to justify the need for bonus cheques to deliver good performance, but had no answers for us about why their bonuses were 150%, while the lowest-paid frontline workers out repairing pipes and leaky mains got just 3% or 5%. Bonuses going up while sewage pollution incidents increase—the Committee is not sure how that meets the definition of performance-related pay.
At the heart of the issue is a perception that the water companies are prioritising profits over people and the planet. We found that the current structure of these companies is dominated by private equity and opaque financial arrangements that have been used to take debt to unsustainable levels. Some companies have clearly been bought by irresponsible owners who have prioritised shareholder returns over long-term investment and environmental stewardship.
We were also disturbed by how much of our water industry—a whopping 70%—is in foreign ownership, often that of countries regarded as hostile to the UK. Is it really in the UK’s national interest to have water, a critical piece of infrastructure, in the hands of our adversaries? Major changes are needed to bring about a fundamental shift in leadership. The sector is deaf to the crisis it faces. Vetting or vetoing of owners could be a first step.
We also believe that the commission and the Government should be open-minded about different ownership models. As well as publicly and privately owned businesses, options include not-for-profit enterprises, community interest companies, co-operatives and hybrid approaches. Regardless of the approach taken, other factors may need to be considered, such as the power to vet owners—a power that Ofwat does not currently hold. The commission should conduct a serious analysis of whether alternatives could bring about a culture that is better focused on public service, transparency and accountability.
We know that there is also a need for other changes. The report calls for tighter regulation of financial practices, including limits on debt gearing levels, better oversight over complex business structures and greater scrutiny of dividend policies. We also want to see changes in the regulatory environment, which is too complex and too ineffective. Regulators such as Ofwat have been found asleep at the wheel during the crisis, too often focused on processes instead of outcomes. The rise in pollution incidents shows that regulators need better resources and powers to properly monitor the environment and enforce environmental protections.
The price review process is not working either. Our Committee found that it must be reformed or replaced to better serve the interests of customers and the environment. It has failed to support the necessary investment in the sector and to maintain or improve the resilience of assets, and has allowed money to be siphoned off into bonuses and dividends instead of spent fixing broken infrastructure.
The sector and the regulators have woken up too late to the need for investment in that broken infrastructure, and customers are now bearing the brunt of a huge increase in bills that should have been spread over a longer period. It is the most vulnerable households that will suffer. We welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce a better single social tariff to protect those households and urge them to move quickly in introducing it.
This week, we took evidence from Sir Jon Cunliffe, and impressed on him the importance of seeking fundamental reform of a sector that is failing. This is a time not for tinkering around the edges, but for bold action to meet the expectations of people across this country. This report should serve as a wake-up call and a stark reminder of the challenges in our water sector. It is the first step in a long-term inquiry, but our message is clear: the water sector must change.
We welcome the efforts recently made by the Government and Ofwat to tackle some of the problems of governance, bonuses and financial mismanagement, including the recent announcement of a ban on bonuses for overseeing failure thanks to the new powers introduced in the recent Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. However, we urge the Government to go further. We need a system that puts people before profits, protects our rivers and seas and earns the trust of the public. Let us not waste this opportunity—let us build a water sector that is transparent, accountable and fit for the future.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for that comprehensive overview of what is a really impressive piece of work by the EFRA Committee. It is shocking, but my Hazel Grove constituents will not be surprised, because they are subjected to United Utilities dumping sewage in the rivers Goyt, Tame and Mersey.
Could I press the hon. Member for a little bit more information? She mentions the open-mindedness of the Committee when it comes to ownership models of water companies, but I wonder how open-minded it is when it comes to the regulator. She talked in her remarks about improving resources and extending powers, but does she agree that scrapping Ofwat and starting again with a new regulator would be part of the solution?
Helena Dollimore
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. On the Committee, we heard about the failures of United Utilities in her constituency and other places that it is meant to serve properly.
We found that, at the moment, we have a very complex regulatory regime that does not serve anyone well. There is a lot of confusion about who is responsible for what, in the sector and among consumers. People do not know where to go when things go wrong—that is not clearly enough understood. We feel that there could be a much simpler, clearer regulatory regime, which needs more powers and also more resources to do the job properly.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for the work that we did together on this report in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. As she will know, I represent a Welsh seat in Mid and South Pembrokeshire. Welsh Water’s not-for-profit model avoids dividends and maintains a low gearing level of 60.4%, but that has not stopped it from having more spills and longer spill durations than those in England. On top of that, there is poor performance on enforcement and we have an asset renewal rate of 0.09% from 2020 to 2025. Does my hon. Friend agree that in terms of the radical need for renewal to regain public trust and confidence in the sector, this goes far beyond simply changing ownership models? Change must be right across the piece.
Helena Dollimore
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Committee, and for his questioning of the boss of Welsh Water about many of these issues. He is right that at the moment all the indicators are going in the wrong direction on debt gearing and on the structures these companies use, all while sewage dumping incidents are, too often, increasing. In the report, we have called for limits on debt gearing levels, better oversight of the complex business structures that even the water bosses in front of our Committee did not seem to understand and were not able to explain, and greater scrutiny of dividend policies.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) not only for leading this statement but for her forensic and passionate scrutiny of water companies as part of this inquiry. It has been a real pleasure to sit with her on the Committee.
Whether it is billpayers or citizen scientists, as a Committee we heard story after story of the people whom water companies are there to serve being disregarded or even subject to legal action. We know that the terms of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review rule out public ownership, but we also know that disgraceful behaviour in private, often foreign-owned, water companies has been rampant, and has ignored the fact that water is an essential public service. Does my hon. Friend agree that co-operative and mutual principles, which she and I both champion, should be fully explored as they could resolve so many of the issues that our inquiry has uncovered?
Helena Dollimore
Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He and I are both Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament. We believe in the strong potential of that model. The Committee report urges the commission to look very closely at the potential benefits of community interest companies, co-operative models or other approaches. My hon. Friend is right that that could be a good way of looking at the change we need in the water industry.
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Social Mobility: Careers Education
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of careers education in improving social mobility.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate. The term “social mobility” is used widely and in many contexts, but it is worth setting out what it means. The Social Mobility Commission defines it as
“the link between a person’s occupation or income and the occupation or income of their parents.”
Where there is a strong link, there is a lower level of social mobility; where there is a weak link, there is a higher level.
For a long time, the focus often centred on moving a select few from the bottom to the top, but there is now a move from a one-size-fits-all model to a broader view of distinct kinds of social mobility, sometimes over shorter distances for a greater number of people. That means not only focusing on, for example, those with the top grades getting into elite universities and then moving to London to work for a top accountancy or law firm, but celebrating the children of parents who were long-term unemployed growing up and getting jobs in their local area.
Such short-range mobility is equally important and should be encouraged, which is why the time is right for a renewed conversation about the role that careers education can play. Over time, we have developed a framework of careers education in our classrooms, but the framework is there to be challenged and improved on, and I look forward to debating it further today.
A report released towards the end of 2024 by the Office for National Statistics showed that around 872,000 young people aged between 16 and 24—about 12% of them—were not in education, employment or training. In many cases, that is not because young people are not willing or do not want to work, but because they perhaps lack the opportunities or support to pursue it. Evidence shows that the earlier the intervention we can make in a young person’s life, the greater chance their chance of succeeding.
Students who are on free school meals are less likely to move into work, education or an apprenticeship when compared with their peers. Part of the reason for that is unequal access to the information and guidance that enable young people to develop their ambitions and make informed choices in relation to their studies. Those from lower social and economic backgrounds are less likely to feel career ready, less confident talking about their skills in job applications and do not always have the support at home and elsewhere to make crucial and important decisions about their own futures.
Crucial skills for job applications—which are too often not talked about, but make a significant difference—include effective communication, problem solving, the ability to plan and adapt, leadership and effective teamwork. These skills, sometimes referred to as soft skills, are often taken for granted, but the reality on the ground tells us a much different story. A National Foundation for Educational Research study found that by 2035 up to 7 million workers may lack the essential skills they need to do their jobs.
Almost 90% of the 2.2 million new jobs that are expected to be created between 2020 and 2035 are set to be in the professional sector. We need to send school leavers out with the mindset that these skills are just as important as their technical or academic qualifications, and just as crucial when it comes to progression in their chosen profession. It is therefore vital that when it comes to careers education, we seek to ensure that soft skills education becomes common practice in educational institutions and other environments across the UK. As suggested by the Skills Builder Partnership, we could look to achieve that by adopting a common language for essential skills and introducing a national standardised framework for teaching and assessing them, starting at a younger age and with clear milestones. We want all our young people to have ambition in abundance, but ambition is too often frustrated not by talent or ability but by a postcode or someone’s background.
When we think of careers education, including our own experiences, we are probably more likely to remember it as being part of our secondary or further education, but it is increasingly clear that attitudes towards ambition and achievement are often set much earlier—at primary-school age or sometimes before. Evidence also tells us that children begin to form ideas about their futures when they are as young as five or six. By the age of 10, many young people have already made career-limiting decisions, which can be set in stone by the age of 14.
When asked as part of the covid, social mobility and opportunities survey, 16 and 17-year-olds from low-income or “never worked” households were more likely to agree that people like them do not have much of a chance in life, particularly when their household net income was £19,000 or less. The Social Mobility Foundation found that parents and their social networks are the key source of careers advice for 76% of young people. As it rightly said, such reliance on parental support risks replicating existing networks and employment structures. The parents and their individual networks are more likely to have sector knowledge, therefore making parent-child career replication far more likely.
The issue is further compounded by geography. Rural areas are less likely to have the same diversity of employers and sectors as cities, reducing opportunity and crucial interactions that can have an incredible impact in broadening horizons.
One part of the solution can be found in Wales, where careers and work-related experiences—known as CWRE—cut across the curriculum for students from the age of three up to 18. The aim is to ensure that, from the offset, children develop the attitudes and behaviours that support them in overcoming barriers related to employability. The Rofft primary school in Wrexham reported that it supported the development of children’s self-growth, confidence and employability skills, as well as authentic, purposeful, world-of-work experiences.
It is very welcome that in their “Get Britain Working” White Paper the Government have set out a vision for a youth guarantee that includes an entitlement to two weeks, or 15 hours, of work experience for all school and college students. However, we must ensure that with quantity comes quality, and that work experience is both worth while and impactful for every young person’s prospects. One way to ensure that could be through a national platform for work experience that enables virtual opportunities, and allows schools to select opportunities that fit the needs of their pupils, removing a large part of the administrative burden that can so often emerge.
Funding is, of course, also crucial. When asked, almost half of schoolteachers in the state sector said they wished to see more resource and funding allocated to careers guidance in schools. Notably, there was recognition of the need for remuneration for those who work as career leaders, to give them more time to focus on that work. Private schools are estimated to invest up to four times more in careers education than the state sector. If we do not act and take practical steps to close that gap, we risk further educational divides and entrenching low social mobility outcomes.
I have spoken about work experience in the school years, but it is also important to look at what it can offer to young people for whom, for whatever reason, education may not have worked, or who have fallen through gaps. WeMindTheGap, which is based in Wrexham, works with people aged between 16 and 25 in north-east Wales and north-west England. Known as “gappies”, those taking part engage in an 18-month fully-funded programme that offers work placements, including a paid six-month placement, and a mentor who is with them every step of the way. The results and effects on young people’s lives have been transformational.
I have some testimony from people who have been through the programme. The transformation is clear in what they have experienced. Vicky finished college and had been on jobseeker’s allowance for nearly a year when an adviser suggested the programme. Vicky spoke of being shy and withdrawn, and of her life not having focus. She said:
“Going for interviews then, I never heard anything back”,
but by the end of the programme
“I was far more outgoing and could not stop talking, thanks to all the support I received from the charity. I enjoyed all my placements, especially the Ramada Plaza Hotel. I got a job at the end of the programme, but the biggest change was that I started to draw again. I did a placement at Glyndwr University, who took me to their Art Department. Laura”—
one of the mentors—
“encouraged me to show them my drawings. After all these years of being told I cannot draw I found that people like what I do, and people call it a talent.”
Sophie was 16 and found herself living in a hostel in Wrexham. Her supporter at the hostel said that she should apply for the programme at WeMindTheGap. Sophie said:
“Looking back, I must have been horrible. If I did not like doing something I would say so, loudly; if things went wrong for me, I did not know how to try again. I liked all my placements, but my favourite part of the week was Essential Skills. We always started with a maths quiz, and I would win easily. I had GCSE maths and Pam helped me think about getting more qualifications. I asked the team to help me apply for an Apprenticeship in a Bank or Finance office because even I realised I was good at numbers.
“I got nervous at the end of the programme about leaving but Laura and Diana said they would still be there for me. I had no other work experience and I was just 18 and it was hard getting a job. All the other gappies on my course got something and I felt if I wasn’t careful, I could slip back into my old habits. So, I asked if I could come into Moneypenny and volunteer over Christmas. I had so much fun and loved being part of the team. Diane told the Finance Director how good at numbers I was and after a couple of months, I was offered a permanent contract! Diane got in touch with Coleg Cambria and got me on an Apprenticeship accountancy course to help me alongside.
“I am Moneypenny’s first Finance Apprentice. I completed my course in June 2019. I work 4.5 days in the busy finance team and am responsible for looking after client accounts, reconciliations, and debt recovery. I have a much better relationship with my family —they are proud of me. I’ve also been on my first holiday abroad. I participate in We Belong sessions, I love meeting new gappies.”
Those are but a few of many success stories from that one body doing that work, but there is a wider general message: if we meet young people where they are, recognising their circumstances and their hopes and aspirations, we give them a greater chance to succeed. Fewer than one in five 16 to 21-year-olds feel that they have had sufficient guidance, so there is a clear need to rethink how we support young people during those pivotal years. Rather than expecting them to navigate an often complex and unequal system alone, we need to invest in personalised, compassionate guidance that acknowledges their lived experiences. This means more than just providing opportunities: it means building trust, offering consistent mentorship, and creating environments where every young person feels seen, heard and believed in.
To summarise, there is a lot to be proud of when it comes to careers education, including the fantastic work being done by careers leaders in schools to guide young people, and the many organisations opening doors and broadening horizons. It really has come a long way but, none the less, we still need to be more ambitious. I have set out a few areas in which I believe we can be, and I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions. One of this Government’s overarching aims is to break down the barriers to opportunity; let us be ambitious and put careers education at the heart of achieving that and improving social mobility.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to be called, they should bob. I am imposing an informal four-minute time limit.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing this important debate, and I welcome the thoughtful contributions that we are about to hear from across the Chamber. I make my speech within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This discussion about careers education could not be more timely, with almost 1 million young people in the UK currently not in education, employment or training, and our universities facing unprecedented challenges. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is deeply concerning, as we have heard already, that children eligible for free school meals are 20% less likely to progress into higher education. Shockingly, in Scotland, a total of 1,351 pupils—enough to fill an entire school—left school last year without a single qualification. Even for those who reach university, funding has been reduced since 2013. University student funding in Scotland has seen a real terms cut of 22%, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham rightly highlighted in opening the debate, many of our young people are also being let down within that context.
We all recognise the transformative power of education in creating equality of opportunity, yet in recent years it feels like that has faltered. Too many young people are not receiving the skills training and support that they need to navigate a rapidly evolving job market. Addressing that requires targeted investment in left-behind communities, focusing support—as we have heard—on lower-income families and reforms to ensure that our service delivery achieves the best possible outcomes for children of all backgrounds. One key avenue for achieving that is through careers education. It plays a vital role in improving social mobility by equipping young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the knowledge, skills and social capital needed to better access opportunities.
Having spent 24 years as a professor at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, I have seen at first hand the life-changing impact of education—I have also seen students arrive at university who were born after I started working there, but that is a secondary issue. I have also witnessed growing barriers to social mobility and shrinking opportunities for young people in Scotland. Too often, the most disadvantaged bear the brunt of underfunding in the sector. That makes high-quality careers education all the more essential, so that every young person can make the most of the opportunities available for them. It is so much harder for disadvantaged kids to repeat a year or start again, so it is important that we get it right for them first time.
I worry, however, that the budgets for those services will be squeezed in the funding crisis that universities face across the UK, but particularly in Scotland. If we are serious about economic growth, we cannot let that happen. I have seen careers advisers doing exceptional work in that space. They recognise that, while every student has potential, not all have access to the networks and opportunities needed to realise it. A report from the Behavioural Insights Team in 2021 noted that many ambitious pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are held back by “career confusion”, whereby the students do not undertake the qualifications required for their chosen career path. It is clear that those students do not lack aspiration or even aptitude, but they have been let down by a lack of support.
Not only does that hold back pupils and their aspirations; it further exacerbates the social inequalities that we see right across the UK, as young people from more advantaged backgrounds often have better access to informal networks of career advice, which their less advantaged peers do not. Career advisers, and all of us, have a duty to ensure that every young person, regardless of their background, can progress to a positive destination and thrive in work and life. In partnership with employers, they deliver structured and impactful support. It is not just about writing a CV or finding a job; it is also about building confidence, enhancing social capital, and defining and enhancing essential workplace skills, and good careers advisers understand the difference between finding a job and starting a career.
Careers advice needs to inform educational choices, not just respond to them. We often speak in this House about the need to strengthen higher education and expand pathways for young people, including apprenticeships and vocational training, which we heard about in today’s statement. However, we speak far less about the support our young people need to make informed career choices in the first place. As the Government have rightly stated, breaking down barriers to opportunity is not a challenge for tomorrow; it is a priority for today. I therefore welcome the £3 billion investment in skills and training, but we have to make sure that our young people can take advantage of that through good careers advice.
It is particularly important that we are talking about this issue today, as the UK is facing a skills shortage that it is estimated will cost the country £120 billion by 2030. At the same time, ONS data shows that 872,000 young people are out of work, education and training. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for bringing this important debate to the House. His work highlights the urgent need to invest in proper training, education and support for young people. For their sake and for the future of our economy, I hope the Government continue to act on the issues raised.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
We will now have a formal three-minute time limit.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
In my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, we have almost no sixth-form provision, with the exception of a small number of places at Petroc college in Tiverton and West Somerset college in Minehead. At the crucial juncture of 16 to 18, when most people will begin to look ahead at future career paths, my younger constituents are in the unenviable situation of lacking access to conventional careers guidance. Instead, they have to travel long distances, often entirely at the mercy of the quirks of an unreliable and insufficient public transport network. There are very high levels of socioeconomic deprivation in my constituency, particularly along the coastal belt of west Somerset, which is 324th out of the 324 areas of England on the social mobility index. There are very few options to attend post-16 education, and the transport system is underdeveloped and unreliable. That is hardly a recipe for improving social mobility.
The recently launched Ada in Porlock community initiative looks to propel young people with potential, particularly those of lower socioeconomic status, into careers in science, technology, engineering and maths. The initiative seeks to reimagine careers support by providing resource-rich guidance and a pathway into dynamic networks of opportunity and mentorship. At its recent launch, I was inspired by the project, which is named after Ada Lovelace, who created the first computing system in 1844, more than 100 years before Alan Turing. It will act as a stimulus for my many talented young constituents, especially young women. As their MP, my message to all my constituents is: think big, dream big and always aspire to be the best person you can be. They can rely on me to do my best to help to make it happen.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for bringing this really important debate to the House.
Growing up in Salford, I saw how regional inequality limits opportunity. My journey to Parliament involved luck and being in the right place at the right time, but opportunity should never be a lottery. As the MP for Leigh and Atherton, I am proud to serve in a Government where 92% of the Cabinet is state educated, yet background still shapes outcomes. Too often, talent is overlooked because someone did not attend the right school or speak with the right accent. Professionals from working-class backgrounds still face a pay gap. That is not just unfair; it is a drag on our economy.
Careers education is vital, but we must look beyond the classroom. Leigh ranks in the top 1% for transport-related social exclusion. Poor connectivity limits access to jobs, education and services, trapping people in poverty.
Education alone is not enough. Systemic barriers such as financial constraints, discrimination and limited mobility continue to hold people back. Although 81% of employers value outreach, more must be done. Expanding free school meals for families on universal credit is a huge step forward, but a degree no longer guarantees success. Apprenticeships, internships and work experience are now essential. I served my time on an apprenticeship, which got me a fantastic career in marketing, so I cannot promote them enough—they are a vital part of social mobility. Initiatives such as the MBacc in Greater Manchester are helping to unlock local talent and boost productivity.
Improving social mobility could add £1.8 billion to the UK’s business profits annually. Failing to act costs us £19 billion a year. Last week, I hosted the launch of the Social Mobility Alliance in Parliament, and one voice stood out: Salma from Sheffield, an Oxford student who spoke about the hidden financial barriers to university applications.
Opportunity must be built into the fabric of our society, not left to chance. If we want to unlock the full potential of our communities, we must tackle child poverty and ensure that every young person, regardless of background, can thrive.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing the debate.
Social mobility is the backbone of this country, as the Leader of the Opposition knows from her short stint in a McDonald’s one summer. Although Members on opposite sides of the House might disagree about how to facilitate social mobility, we all agree that every child should have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
Some children grow up knowing precisely what they want from life and precisely how to get it. Most children, however, grow up with some idea of their direction but little clue about what their ultimate destination could be or, more importantly, how to get there. Careers education provides two opportunities: to broaden children’s horizons by providing career guidance and to allow children to experience their desired careers at first hand through work experience placements.
On the first point, a study by the Sutton Trust found that parents, friends and wider social networks are the main source of careers education for more than three quarters of young people, but a child from a working-class family may have never met a barrister, an engineer or a scientist. They may not even know those professions exist, let alone understand the pathways to reach them. On the island, the assumption is that tourism is the only career; it is not. It is for those children that careers education is most crucial, but the unfortunate reality is that they are the least likely to have access to it.
Equipping schools to showcase the full range of possible careers to secondary school students will be pivotal. We should all welcome the 1,000 careers advisers that the Labour Government will recruit, as well as the additional £1.2 billion per year that the Government will invest in skills by 2028-29.
Isle of Wight West is home to many fantastic businesses that provide high-quality jobs for islanders, particularly in engineering, manufacturing and defence. My team and I work closely with a number of local employers, including BAE Systems, GKN Aerospace, Isle of Wight Tomatoes and Vestas. I wholeheartedly welcome the contributions of large companies to the island. However, it is also true that 99.8% of businesses on the Isle of Wight are classed as small and medium-sized enterprises. Research by the Edge Foundation shows that SMEs are typically far more hesitant to offer work experiences, not due to a lack of willingness but due to limited time and resources, which prevents them from tackling the logistics of arranging work experience placements.
The Edge Foundation recognises the crucial role that SME brokerages play. I want to put on record some of the excellent work that Isle of Wight organisations are doing, particularly the Solent Careers Hub, the Isle of Wight Youth Trust and Island Careers Partnership, which are working in concert with careers advisers and businesses across the island. Those organisations are absolutely crucial to opening doors to SMEs. I am pleased to say that a youth partnership event will be taking place in Newport on 1 July. It will be an important chance to get Isle of Wight students and SMEs in the same room.
A working-class child from the Isle of Wight may never have met a scientist, but they could go on to become a great one. It is our responsibility to ensure that every child has that opportunity.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this important debate. I associate myself with many of the comments made by other hon. Members.
Given the time limit, I will focus my remarks on the creative industries. The creative industries will be highlighted in the Government’s industrial strategy, which will be coming forward soon, and they have huge potential—particularly for my constituents in north Wales. We have a brand-new creative industries hub, which has been launched by Grŵp Llandrillo Menai, and new film studios on Ynys Môn. The new series of “Game of Thrones” is being filmed nearby. There are huge opportunities, but many children and young people do not know that those opportunities exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) just said. If they do not know that these jobs exist, they will never be inspired to go for them.
Let me put this in context. I grew up in north Wales, but as an adult I went behind the scenes of Granada Studios in Manchester, and saw for the first time the variety of jobs there, such as storytellers or set designers—a huge number of jobs that I had never thought existed. I went behind the scenes of ITN News and saw the same thing. There was a group of children from Manchester there. I thought, “That’s fantastic,” but there are so many children growing up in rural areas, far away from cities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said; if they do not have parents, peers or people around them working in these kinds of jobs, they will not know they exist. My hon. Friend made some good points about that.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need far more ambition. I went to meet advisers at Llandudno jobcentre recently. They were talking about the youth guarantee, which we already have in Wales—that is fantastic—but they were saying that too many 16-year-olds arrive with no idea of what they want to do after they leave school, because they are leaving those decisions too late. We need to start talking to children and young people far earlier and inspiring them about the jobs of the future. Whether in the creative industries, advanced manufacturing or cyber-security, children and young people need to know that jobs and opportunities exist. That should be a shared ambition for us all in this place. We must do whatever we can to drive that agenda forward.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this vital debate.
I want to stress how important it is for disabled young people that we have careers education that supports social mobility. Nearly half of families with a disabled child are living in poverty, and just this week we learned that the attainment gap for pupils from poorer backgrounds in Scotland is still widening. It is frustrating that the Scottish Government have not done more to address that. In Scotland, we know what works in terms of support for young people to make the often challenging transition from school to work or continuing education.
Before I was elected to this place, I had the privilege of working for the charity Enable, which runs a programme called Stepping Up. The programme is delivered in 75 schools in Scotland, across 15 local authorities, to more than 1,000 young people every year. It builds confidence, life skills and employability through real-world experiences and personalised coaching. It ensures that young people are equipped not only to reach positive destinations but to sustain them. That leads to lasting change and improved educational and employment outcomes. Over the course of its work, Stepping Up has supported more than 5,000 young people, 98% of whom go to positive destination—either a job, a modern apprenticeship, training or college. Ensuring that all our young people can be supported to have confidence in themselves will be vital if we are to improve social mobility in this country.
In Lochgelly, in my constituency, one in three children lives in poverty. Careers education is vital to their life chances. The developing the young workforce programme at Lochgelly high school is making that difference. Led by the co-ordinator of the programme, Pauline Abbie, it provides 100 work experience placements to pupils every year. It gives pupils a fantastic insight into the world of work in a whole range of industries, from hospitality to engineering, as well as into opportunities in education.
The programme at Lochgelly high school has more than 50 DYW partners, including Shell, Purvis Group, Fife Fabrications and Fife college. Not only do pupils benefit, but employers do, by connecting with their next generation of workers and supporting our local community. The developing the young workforce programme at Lochgelly high school proves that a stronger community partnership between local businesses and our young people benefits the whole community.
Over the past two decades we have not made nearly enough progress on social mobility, certainly not in Scotland, but given the investment this Government are making in education and the proven success of programmes such as Stepping Up and Developing the Young Workforce, we can be confident of far greater success for all our young people in the future, and they can have confidence in themselves.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this important debate. I have seen at first hand the decimation of good careers, education, work experience and guidance in our schools. The link between strong careers, education and social mobility is undeniable. The latest Social Mobility Commission report shows that Wolverhampton North East has real potential, with strong prospects, growing industries and young people determined to succeed despite the odds.
But it is on the fourth factor, conditions of childhood, where Wolverhampton falls into the red zone. This measure looks at child poverty, parental education and occupation, all of which shape a child’s life chances. The picture in Wolverhampton and Willenhall is stark. Around 40% of children are growing up in poverty, which is one of the highest rates in the west midlands. Fewer than a quarter of pupils on free school meals achieve a strong pass in both English and maths at GCSE. Many parents are working in insecure or low-paid jobs, with little access to training or upskilling. Those realities too often dictate how children in Wolverhampton and Willenhall grow up and, crucially, what they believe is possible for themselves. That is why good careers education is so vital.
I have seen the work experience requests from students who grow up not knowing a lawyer, engineer or scientist. Their aspirations are often limited not by their talent, but by exposure. I have worked with students who have lacked connections and the confidence and opportunity to try something new. Good careers education shows young people what is actually out there, tailored to the local labour market and what they are capable of. We need a careers system that starts early, in primary schools through to post 16 and beyond, embedded in the curriculum, delivered by trained professionals and connected to local sectors, whether that is advanced manufacturing, green technology, digital, defence or aerospace.
In Wolverhampton and Willenhall we have fantastic schools, colleges and employers and an ambitious university, but too often the bridge between them is missing, so a dedicated careers adviser in every school should be that bridge. If we are serious about social mobility, careers education has got to be a priority in the curriculum and assessment review—not an afterthought, but a vital tool to raise aspirations, widen horizons and open doors.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
For too many people, the belief that intelligence, hard work and perseverance will be rewarded no longer holds true. The ladder of opportunity that once allowed previous generations to climb to a better future is now harder to reach and sometimes even harder to ascend. This is not just a personal frustration; it is a societal warning sign. When talented, hardworking individuals feel stuck, and when they see that no matter what they do they will not achieve what their parents did, we are not only wasting potential; we are eroding trust in our economic system.
Social mobility must not be viewed as a bonus only applicable to the good times. It is the foundation of a fair and functioning society. Without it, resentment grows, division deepens, and our social fabric begins to fray. First and foremost, we must recognise the pivotal role that our education system, our schools and our teachers play. Education remains the single most powerful engine of mobility. Great teachers do not just pass on knowledge; they ignite ambition, unlock potential and open doors that otherwise remain shut. But teachers cannot do this alone. They need investment, support and the resources to reach every child, not just the ones already on a path to success.
Part of that support must include a renewed focus on careers education. For too many people, particularly those from lower-income households, the guidance that they need to navigate future pathways is patchy at best and absent at worst. Careers education bridges the gap between parental knowledge and wider opportunity, and it is often the only structured support for those who lack the social capital to network their way into the world of work. Beyond the school gates, as I have discussed before, our youth services must be at the heart of the solution.
Youth workers, clubs and community programmes are often the safety net, and sometimes the springboard, for young people who need extra support. They provide mentoring, build confidence, offer practical life skills and connect young people to opportunities they might not otherwise see. When I look at youth services across my constituency, from local authority-funded provision to sports and community clubs, I see a patchwork of services funded from a variety of pots of money. I call on the SNP Scottish Government, if they are serious about equity and opportunity, to fund properly our local councils and commit to long-term support for youth services.
At a national level, I put on the record my appreciation for the work done by the Co-op and Demos for their “The Opportunity Effect” paper. There is clearly a need for better workplace practices to help address the lack of social mobility within our workplaces today, and the paper provides a number of solutions that I hope will receive Government attention. Careers education must be at the very heart of any strategy to restore social mobility in this country. It is the bridge between potential and opportunity; between what young people dream of becoming and the pathways that can make those dreams come true. Getting careers education right is key to success. Careers education is not a luxury; it is a necessity.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing the debate. The topic of the debate is very close to my heart. I went straight from school, aged 15, to working in a factory. There was never any suggestion that I could do something different; it was just, “Go out and get a job.” There was no encouragement to look further afield, and there were no resources to find and develop an interest in an alternative career path or vocation. As a 15-year-old girl, I would have benefited so much from careers education in my school.
At the age of 40, I went back to school, so to speak, taking a six-month course in IT at John Wheatley College in Glasgow. Not only did that transform my CV and career opportunities, but it transformed my confidence. I discovered that it was not too late to try something new. In that sense, it was the most important piece of career education I ever received. I ended up waiting 25 years until I could consider another career option, to start a different life with a brighter future. That underlines the importance of careers education at an early age to change lives for the better. It also shows that high-quality careers education can be instrumental in transforming opportunities at every stage of life.
Responsibility for careers education in schools and colleges in Glasgow North East falls to the Scottish Government, so I will keep my remarks brief, but one area where we can see clear failure in careers education in Scotland is the housing sector. Data from the Chartered Institute of Building shows that three quarters of Scottish children have a positive view of a career in construction, but we are not seeing that translate into more of our young people beginning careers in bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing or any of the associated trades in the building industry.
That points to a clear issue at the careers education stage, where the enthusiasm and interests of our young people in this and many other sectors are not being adequately harnessed. They are well-paying jobs offering children a route out of poverty, which should be signposted through good careers advice. The failure is part of a much wider and very concerning decline in the quality of schooling in Scotland. Our schools are the driver of social mobility, and yet last year, nearly 24,000 young people—42% of pupils—left school without a single higher or equivalent. That shameful failure in our schools is holding back Scotland and our young people, especially in my constituency.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Every young person deserves the opportunity to thrive, explore their talents, pursue their ambitions and succeed on their own terms. Too often, however, a child’s future is shaped more by their postcode than by their potential.
Young people in every community need to see the full range of what is possible. For many, that means opening up direct conversations with local employers; whether those careers are in tourism, renewable energy or the creative industries, we need to connect students with real-world routes into them. That is powerful, as it not only grows our future workforce, but broadens young people’s horizons and ideas about what success looks like close to home.
We should also recognise the transformative power of role models. When a young person sees someone from their own community succeed in law, engineering or the arts, it sends a powerful message: “Your ambitions are valid and achievable.” One brilliant example is the extraordinary Jack Bailey, a Rhyl lad through and through. He is a shining example of what can be achieved with talent, determination and the right support.
Jack is now an associate at a global law firm, having graduated from Cambridge University with a first-class degree in law. His journey began at Rhyl high school and Prestatyn sixth form, where dedicated teachers and the support of the Seren Network helped him to realise his potential. Seren is a Welsh Government programme that supports more able and talented learners in state schools and colleges to reach top universities and careers, helping to ensure that academic ability leads to real opportunity.
Jack’s story is not just about his success; he now champions social mobility and visits local schools, including Rhyl high. He is living proof that background should never limit ambition, and he is using his voice to tell others. We need more Jacks—more stories of local success and resilience that are shared openly to raise aspirations and broaden horizons. By connecting young people with opportunities, and sharing real stories like Jack’s, we can show that success is possible for everyone, no matter where they are from. Let us keep building pathways so that every young person has the chance to turn their talents into real opportunities and a bright future.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this important debate. I want to touch on a couple of points that hon. Members have already eloquently made.
First, on careers education for those with special educational needs and disabilities, the SEND system in Derbyshire is failing many of our young people. Many of my constituents are struggling to get their children adequately cared for in school or to secure them a place in school at all. I would like to highlight Landmarks specialist college in Eckington, which does a fantastic job in weaving careers education throughout the general education it provides, and sees the core of its mission as preparing its young people to enter the world of work and achieve their full potential.
In careers education, as well as highlighting the many fantastic careers that young people can go on to do, it is important to have an industry approach to careers and advise young people of the breadth of careers available within a specific industry, if that is what excites them. Many young people tell me that they are excited about becoming a YouTube influencer, or something related, and there are many fantastic careers in the industry, such as being a video or sound technician, that they might get just as much out of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) spoke eloquently about the social mobility opportunities available later in life. That reminded me of my mother, who could not go to university until she was my age, and what a difference it made to her life.
I have often seen that at first hand when people leave the military. Many people serve in the military for only a few short years before they go on to another career. It is important to say to young people aged between 12 and 18 that the decisions they make now will not lock them in for the rest of their lives. Many of the opportunities that are available—such as university and further education—will be there for them in their 20s, 30s, 40s and even beyond. One of the people I served with started her A-levels in her early 30s and is now a fully qualified doctor. It is never too late to change your future.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances when it comes to careers education. Although we should tell young people about the opportunities, jobs and so on that could be out there, we should also tell them to focus on the industries that they are interested in. Although the decisions they are making have a large impact, they should not forget that they will have plenty of time throughout their adult lives to take advantage of other opportunities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this important debate.
There is general consensus in the Chamber that every young person, no matter their background or needs, should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. They should be able to get the information and advice that they need to pursue a variety of career options for the many jobs and careers of the future. The options are growing by the day, and many of us do not even know about them yet. We know, however, that 12.5% of all 16 to 24-year-olds are not in employment, education or training, and that 37% of gen Z feel they will be financially worse off by the time they reach their parents’ age—a sobering statistic.
We know, as we have heard clearly today, that many people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds cannot rely on the parental networks, role models, advice and guidance that so many of us—including many of my constituents—are able to benefit from. It is important for the Government and us, as parliamentarians and policymakers, to find ways of trying to even out those inequalities. That is challenging, but there are steps we can take to address them.
As things stand, careers information, guidance and advice often comes too late in a young person’s academic career, and when it does, it can be quite generic and inconsistent. It is not even a compulsory element of all schools’ curricula. When it comes to thinking about higher education post school, students from more affluent backgrounds are 1.4 times more likely to think about higher education at primary school, say, than their disadvantaged peers. UCAS notes:
“Disadvantaged students are more likely to consider higher education later, which can limit their choices, especially for more selective subjects and higher tariff providers.”
The problem is not limited to just those who want to go to university. The Social Market Foundation reported in 2022 that support for students pursuing vocational options was weaker than for those pursuing academic options, with university often presented as the “default option”. One child told SMF that it was not until they got to year 12 that they realised there were other options besides university, with another saying that, “Help isn’t given to you,” if people do not want to go to university. It is high time that we level the playing field and put forward the full range of options—whether that is apprenticeships or other vocational training—on a par with going to university. How can we excite our children and young people about the wide variety of futures that could lie before them if they do not feel they have the options?
When high-quality and effective careers guidance is offered, the benefits to young people are immediately tangible. Students in schools that meet all eight Gatsby benchmarks for careers guidance are 8% less likely to not be in education, employment or training, and that figure increases to 20% for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We know that schools and organisations that engage with local employers and businesses also score well on the Gatsby benchmarks.
That is where I would like to pay tribute to the south London careers hub, which works across five boroughs of south London, including my own. It works with 80 business volunteers and has provided meaningful experience in the world of work for students in 95 schools across those five boroughs. It has held themed events focused on certain sectors of the economy, such as the green economy. I opened an event for the hub in my constituency a couple of years ago that focused on entrepreneurship and showed young people how they could create their own work and business opportunities in the future. Critically—to speak to some of the points already made—it also focuses on SEND provision, because we often overlook those with particular needs.
At the other end of the country, I visited South Durham university technical college a couple of years ago. UTCs are different from mainstream schools and colleges because they focus on vocational skills. I was blown away by the partnership that that UTC—I know this is also true for other UTCs across the country—has developed with local major employers to provide meaningful experiences for the young people it is working with. For example, its careers guidance people accompany young people to meetings and events with employers. Clearly, schools do not have the capacity and resources to do that kind of intensive careers guidance, but there is a lot for mainstream schools to learn from UTCs.
I have several asks of the Minister. As the Government are looking at the curriculum and assessment review, will they ensure that high-quality, age-appropriate careers education, starting from primary school, is part of the curriculum? Will they look at including financial literacy, as recommended by the Education Committee?
The hon. Member for Wrexham talked about soft skills; I would not call such skills—communication, teamwork and so on—soft; they are life skills that are critical to success in the world of work. They are key to securing a job, being able to navigate interviews and networking, and then holding down a job in the workplace.
Have the Government considered expanding the National Careers Service to ensure more face-to-face time for careers guidance for adults, particularly now that we know that so many people will be changing careers and going into new and emerging sectors of the economy? What plans do the Government have to strengthen the professional careers guidance workforce, as well as to ensure that our main teacher workforce is recruited from a diverse range of backgrounds, to share those experiences with children and young people?
I will end with the elephant in the room: none of this will be possible until we fix school funding. I know from talking to headteachers across the country, including those in my constituency just yesterday, that school budgets are absolutely at breaking point. With neither the rise in employers’ national insurance nor the teachers’ pay rise being fully reimbursed, they are having to make all sorts of cuts, and some of them are planning teacher redundancies. Careers education will be one of the first areas that they look to cut, because they do not want to compromise on teaching the core subjects that they have to get children through.
I therefore ask the Minister, when she responds, to address some of those questions. How will she fund schools so that they can provide the careers education and guidance that our children absolutely need and deserve?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this debate, and all Members for their contributions. I am, of course, very pleased to respond to today’s important debate on behalf of the Opposition.
It is an undeniable truth that while talent is spread evenly across the UK, opportunity is not. We in the Conservative party take real pride in our record on expanding opportunity and social mobility to ensure that every young person, regardless of their background, no matter where they are from, has the chance to achieve their full potential and build the best possible career for themselves. More than 5.8 million apprenticeships across 700 occupations, from level 2 to degree level and backed by £2.4 billion by 2024-25, were started under successive Conservative Governments, giving young people the chance to gain real-world experience, to earn while they learn and to develop the skills needed to succeed in the workplace.
We are equally proud of our achievement in the schools system. The Conservatives drove up school performance across the board, with 90% of schools rated good or outstanding at the end of our time in office, up from 68% under Labour. Under the Conservatives, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. It was named “best in the west” for reading, and recently for maths, and it is in the top five globally for science. This transformation did not happen by accident; it happened because the Conservative party relentlessly focused on standards, rigour and ensuring excellence to help drive opportunity for all.
We can contrast that with other places in the UK—for example, Scotland. Nowhere is the effect of a Government allowing ideology rather than evidence to drive education policy more obvious than in Scotland. After almost two decades of the SNP being in power, its failure to close—indeed, its unrivalled ability to increase—the attainment gap in our schools is a record that should shame the SNP.
Every day, the impact of this failure is being borne out in the life chances of children and young people across Scotland. The attainment gap between the poorest and wealthiest school leavers is at a five-year high. Young people from the most deprived areas in Scotland are over three times less likely to enter work or further education compared with those in the least deprived areas. Across science, reading and maths, there is an average performance gap of over 90% between the top and bottom socioeconomic classes, and pupils from the poorest areas are 23% less likely to leave school with at least one national 5, increasing to 38% for highers.
Scotland’s schools were once rated among the best in the world. We are now ranked 14th in Europe for reading, 30th for maths and 32nd for science. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
“something, somewhere is going wrong in Scottish education.”
That “something” and “somewhere” can be found in the ideology of consecutive SNP Governments at Holyrood.
I return to the Conservatives’ record at Westminster. We encouraged every secondary school to have a trained careers leader, to make the most of available connections and to co-ordinate and integrate the careers programme throughout schools. We launched the new careers programme, offering young people strengthened careers advice that would see all year 8 to 13 pupils have at least six opportunities to meet a range of providers of technical education, giving pupils an understanding of the full range of opportunities available to them, including apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications —not just the traditional academic routes.
If social mobility is to continue to improve, there must be no drift on the education and skills agenda under the current Labour Government. However, we have already seen the Government cut the minimum duration of apprenticeships from 12 to eight months. They have also ended the requirement for adult apprentices to complete English and maths functional skills. There is a proposal to divert half of the apprenticeship levy into other non-apprenticeship schemes—a change that will halve the number of quality apprenticeships available to young people—and level 7 apprenticeships are to be scrapped, which has been described as a direct attack on social mobility.
We should also be clear that careers education and facilitation of social mobility are not delivered in a vacuum; they depend on stable staffing, adequate funding and overall stability in the education sector. Changes to the national pay and curriculum rules in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risk undermining the very autonomy that has driven improvement in some of the most disadvantaged communities. The tax on independent schools is projected to push up to 90,000 pupils into the state system, swelling class sizes and putting even more pressure on local schools already struggling to balance the books. The rise in employer national insurance contributions has hit schools and colleges hard.
When she winds up today, I hope that the Minister will outline how schools can continue to provide meaningful careers guidance and prioritise maximising social mobility for their students when they are struggling to pay their staff overheads and manage rising class sizes. If we are serious about social mobility, as I believe all hon. Members present are, then careers education cannot be an afterthought. It must be embedded in the curriculum design, teacher training, local employer partnership and the national policy. The Conservative party will continue to champion opportunity and to support high standards, academic excellence and rigorous technical education. We will always stand up for the right of every young person to choose their path, find their passion and make the most of their potential.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a real pleasure to speak this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this important debate. I acknowledge all the remarkable contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber. My hon. Friend is clearly very driven and knowledgeable about this area. I thank him for sharing the success of Rofft school in Wrexham and the transformational testimonies of Vicki’s progress with her art and Sophie’s with her maths. It was so lovely to hear about Sophie going on her first holiday as well.
With regard to the broader professional skills framework, the Government agree on the importance of soft skills, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referred to as life skills. Officials recently met with Skills Builder to discuss that framework. I make it known to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham that we recommend its use in our recently updated statutory careers guidance for schools.
I also acknowledge other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) spoke about the need for young people to be able to make informed career choices. They need to be given the right advice to prevent confusion. I acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour). I absolutely agree that children and young people need to think big, dream big and aspire to be the best they can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) was clear that the career progress of children and young people should not be a lottery, and that we need to make sure that we continue to combat child poverty. That is extremely significant. I acknowledge the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) about the Government’s work on 1,000 career advisers. I appreciate his contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) spoke passionately about the creative industries, and the need for young people to know what jobs are available and for that information to be made known to them. That is extremely important. They need to know what exists, from a young age.
Hon. Members spoke about many topics, including having the chance to go on to a career as an older person, not just as a younger person. For some, life begins at 40 or beyond. We must not reduce the opportunities for children and young people, or for adults. Many stories have been shared today, including the story of Jack Bailey. I thank hon. Members for all those contributions. I absolutely agree that we need to support young people in the choices that they make. The hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about a range of learning, training and skills that should be on a par with universities. There is no disagreement from us on that. She also spoke about the value of career hubs—again, I absolutely agree.
There was much criticism of the Scottish National party and its many failures. That came across very clearly. So much needs to be done there, and we will hold them to account every step of the way, as do Members across this Chamber. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), also spoke about SNP failings, but seemed to ignore her own party’s failings when in government.
Young people need the right opportunities and the right information and guidance to set them on the path of success. That is crucial if we are to meet the skills needs of the future and deliver on the Government’s five missions. We will do better than the last Government. Almost one in eight young people across the United Kingdom is not in education, training or work. That limits our productivity and growth. More than half a million vacancies are due to skills shortages. We can all agree that those are very real challenges and there is an urgent need to take action.
We are investing £15.8 billion in the financial year 2025-26 in apprenticeships, further education and higher education. We are serious about the changes that are needed. We are developing a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education and skills to break down barriers to opportunity and to support the development of a skilled workforce in all areas of England. A skills system fit for the future will give young people the training and skills to gain a sense of success and purpose and to build confidence and the opportunity to pursue a rewarding career.
Too often, young people from deprived backgrounds and communities lack the information, connections and encouragement to look beyond their current landscapes; we have heard that from many Members this afternoon. Careers education is a great enabler, empowering young people to explore their potential and to navigate their future with confidence. Teachers should and must make the classroom an important place of career exploration, and I absolutely agree with hon. Members that that must start early. We should encourage aspiration among primary-age children by opening their eyes to a wide range of jobs and careers and speaking to them about opportunities, jobs, careers and what they could go on to do. We should tell them that they can go on to be sustained in a career they enjoy.
For secondary pupils, through career learning in curriculum subjects, teachers can help to connect and apply knowledge and skills to real-world contexts. Careers education can illuminate career pathways through conversations with employers, training providers and careers advisers. The foundations of the careers system and improving outcomes for young people are in place. By using the Gatsby benchmarks of good career guidance, dedicated careers leaders are developing careers programmes for young people against a set of world-class standards, overseen by the Careers and Enterprise Company—a national network of 44 career hubs, delivering career support to 95% of secondary schools and colleges.
The hubs are partnerships with strategic and local authorities that connect careers provision to the needs of local economies and leverage support from thousands of employers. They are targeting the right young people to promote social mobility in every region. For example, the Cumbria careers hub worked with the local hospitality industry and 10 schools, targeting students with low social mobility. The students visited a local college, where top Cumbrian chefs cooked a three-course lunch while explaining food presentation, food service and food provenance. The careers hub funded all the transport costs.
Careers hub membership leads to stronger career provision, as those schools and colleges meet an average of 5.8 out of the eight Gatsby benchmarks. It leads to more understanding of technical routes: 80% of young people are likely to report awareness of an apprenticeship by year 11, almost on par with A-levels. It leads to increased employer engagement: learners in 64% of schools have 10 or more encounters with businesses. Only yesterday, I met a young person in the Department undertaking an apprenticeship in business management. She spoke excitedly, and so well and confidently, about her experience. We need to ensure more of our young people have such experiences all around our country.
There is also well developed evidence linking good career guidance to reduced levels of young people not in education, employment or training. Young people in schools and colleges with the highest-quality careers provision are 8% less likely to become NEET. That effect is magnified in the most disadvantaged schools, where the highest-quality careers provision is associated with a 20% reduction in NEET rates. But there is more to do to ensure that young people from all backgrounds can realise those benefits. The data shows a gap in career readiness ranging from 2% to 5% between the most and least economically disadvantaged young people. Disadvantaged people are less confident in talking about their skills when applying for courses or jobs. Only 25% of schools and colleges fully achieve all eight Gatsby benchmarks, which represent the highest-quality careers provision.
We want to accelerate progress, close gaps and better support young people to raise aspiration and meet the country’s skills needs. That is why we are committed to improving careers advice in schools and colleges across England. We have raised the bar of our expectations for careers guidance for young people by publishing updated statutory guidance for schools and colleges, which adopts the updated Gatsby benchmarks framework with evidence-based improvements that will lead to even better outcomes for young people. That includes opening up opportunities to young people with SEND. There are many examples of that. York and North Yorkshire careers hub is working with Forest Moor school, a SEND school in a rural area, to support year 11 pupils to access experiences of trade, such as bricklaying, plastering and decorating.
I recognise that time is moving on. Much more could be said about what the Government are doing in this area. Too many young people are missing out on the work experience that they need. We will continue to develop skills and improve work readiness to ensure that young people are supported. That includes virtual workplace experiences for more than 1,000 schools in rural and coastal areas, providing access to wider national networks of employers outside their local community, including with key employers such as Airbus and Siemens.
The need for high-quality careers education is not confined to the young. The “Get Britain Working” White Paper set us on the path to creating an inclusive labour market in which everybody can participate and progress in work. Careers and employability support are at the heart of that. To help bridge the gap for those who might otherwise struggle to find employment, a new youth guarantee will ensure that 18 to 21-year-olds in England can get support to find training, an apprenticeship or work. We are also providing support for adults who want to work, increase their earnings, change their career or even retrain.
In England, the National Careers Service and Jobcentre Plus will be brought together as a new jobs and careers service. That will create greater awareness of opportunities, and a focus on skills and careers, as well as better join-up between employability, support and career provision.
I am enormously grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for this agenda, and for all hon. Members’ contributions, which have shone a light on the vital role of careers education in tackling disadvantage. I have set out some of what we are doing to ensure that people from all backgrounds are supported in finding rewarding and fulfilling careers.
Andrew Ranger
I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for their remarks—they are much appreciated. I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate. It was great to hear their insightful and valuable contributions. They spoke about the experiences and initiatives in their constituencies, which are vital to this debate.
I will keep my remarks short. I look forward to continuing to work with the Government and other hon. Members to take this important subject forward across the House and beyond. It is about the future of this country, and it is vital.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of careers education in improving social mobility.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This is obviously a dangerous and perilous time, and we need to do everything we can to bring about a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that no British weapons or components are being used to bomb Iran, which could be used as a pretext for saying that Britain is directly involved? What assurances has he had from the Government of Israel that they will not use or even consider using in any way the nuclear weapons that they possess?
Mr Lammy
We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world, and I am proud of that. That was a matter that this House voted on just a few years ago under the last Government, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we made a decision to restrict arms sales to Israel that could be used in Gaza. I also refer him to the statements that I have made about Iran’s nuclear intent, the work of the IAEA, the huge global concern and the UN resolution that the UK did so much to secure last Thursday.
[Official Report, 16 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 72.]
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, his reassurance that Gaza will not be forgotten, and for having been really quick to come out and ask for de-escalation and a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to see a nuclear Iran, not least the people of Iran, who are paying for this investment by the Iranian regime, but Netanyahu justified the bombing raids by saying that Iran was close to having a bomb and that it could be years or just months away. Was Netanyahu correct?
Mr Lammy
I call to mind the work of the IAEA, and refer my hon. Friend to the resolution of the UN Security Council just last week, all of which confirmed Iran’s intent and its deception.
[Official Report, 16 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 73.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy):
Mr Lammy
We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world, and I am proud of that. That was a matter that this House voted on just a few years ago under the last Government, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we made a decision to restrict arms sales to Israel that could be used in Gaza. I also refer him to the statements that I have made about Iran’s nuclear intent, the work of the IAEA, the huge global concern and the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors that the UK did so much to secure last Thursday.
Other Correction
James Naish
Political Prisoners
The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Political Prisoners on 18 June 2025.
James Naish
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She has just mentioned Canada; I understand that the Canadians are considering granting honorary citizenship to Jimmy Lai, as a small but significant contribution to demonstrating their commitment to him. Does she agree that that is something that the British Government could consider?
[Official Report, 18 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 155WH.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish):
James Naish
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She has just mentioned Canada; I understand that the Canadians are considering granting honorary citizenship to Jimmy Lai, as a small but significant contribution to demonstrating their commitment to him. Does she agree that a public recommitment to Jimmy Lai is something that the British Government could consider?
Capture Redress
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I am today delivering on the Government’s commitment to provide an update on the form, scope and eligibility criteria of the redress scheme for postmasters negatively affected by the Capture software.
This follows the Government accepting the findings of the independent investigation by Kroll Associates, which concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that Capture could have created financial shortfalls for postmasters.
Our approach to redress
Over the past months, we have been working with stakeholders, including postmasters, the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, and others to develop a fair and sound approach to redress. In doing so, we have drawn on lessons from other Government schemes to ensure that this one delivers timely, accessible support, recognising both financial losses and wider personal impact.
Unlike the Horizon schemes, Capture presents a different set of challenges due to time elapsed and a lack of documentation that still exists. To accommodate this, the scheme is being designed to provide a practical and fair way to recognise harm, even where records are limited.
The scheme has two clear stages to make the process as simple as possible: first, an eligibility review to confirm who can access redress; and secondly, a panel review to ensure that each claim is independently assessed.
Eligibility Review
To be eligible for redress, claimants must demonstrate that they:
were a postmaster between 1992 and 2000;
used the Capture system in their branch; and
suffered a financial shortfall related to a Capture software error.
Eligibility will be determined based on the claimant’s statement and available supporting documents. We will also work with the Post Office to source any additional information where it exists. The scheme will also accept applications from relatives of deceased postmasters or those who need additional support.
All claims will undergo an initial eligibility review by trained caseworkers. In recognition of the time many postmasters have already spent waiting for resolution, those deemed eligible will promptly receive a preliminary payment. This ensures early acknowledgement of loss, ahead of a further assessment by an independent panel.
Independent panel and appeals
The panel will take a holistic view of each claim, including assessing the credibility and strength of evidence provided.
Claims will be assessed on the balance of probabilities, using a guided scoring and banding model that reflects both financial and non-financial loss. This allows consistency in awards, while remaining flexible and fair—an approach informed by other Government schemes, such as the infected blood compensation scheme.
The panel will recommend an appropriate payment for each eligible claimant. Claimants will also have the right to appeal the panel’s recommendation in certain circumstances, in line with similar redress schemes.
To ensure impartiality, the panel will operate entirely independently of Government and will be composed of experts across relevant fields.
Separate consideration for convicted individuals
This scheme is specifically for those without a criminal conviction related to Capture. For those who may have criminal convictions related to Capture, the appropriate route is through the Criminal Cases Review Commission or its Scottish equivalent. The Government remain committed to supporting the CCRC in its ongoing investigations. If any convictions related to Capture are identified and overturned, we are committed to ensuring that appropriate redress is provided for those affected.
Next Steps
As this approach departs from the structure of existing Horizon redress schemes, we want to ensure it is fair, proportionate and accessible. To support this, we will launch with a phased roll-out for an initial 150 claimants. Lessons from this first phase will inform any refinements needed ahead of wider roll-out.
We expect the scheme to open for applications in autumn 2025. Over the coming months, we will finalise guidance and publish further details on applying. We urge those who believe they are eligible to begin searching for evidence that they may hold and to prepare their case for once applications open.
We remain committed to delivering swift and fair redress —recognising the enduring hardship, and the need for a trusted, transparent process ensuring that those affected by the Capture system receive what they deserve
[HCWS713]
UK Infrastructure: a 10-year Strategy
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Government have today laid the “UK Infrastructure: A 10 Year Strategy” [CP 1344] which restores confidence and drives economic growth by funding at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade and transforming how infrastructure projects are planned and delivered.
Better infrastructure has a vital role to play in delivery of all of the Government’s missions, creating and connecting people to good jobs, supporting new housing and neighbourhoods, ensuring people can depend on vital public services and providing resilience in response to a changing world.
Delivering this requires a new approach. Infrastructure investment has been too erratic and too low in the UK, hampering productivity and wages and making delivery slow and costly. Across policy and delivery, there has been insufficient co-ordination, across sectors and between Government and industry.
In the 10-year strategy, the Government are doing things differently to fix the failures of the past, prioritising long-term outcomes over short-term announcements, providing the certainty and stability needed to attract investment, boosting British supply chains and jobs, and taking a joined-up view to improve planning and delivery across all types of infrastructure
[HCWS717]
Publication of Environmental Guidance
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Today the Government are publishing new guidance relating to offshore environmental impact assessments. The guidance sets a world-leading example by ensuring the full effects of fossil fuel extraction on the environment are recognised in consenting decisions. The ruling means that North sea developers must, for the first time, consider the impact of burning the extracted oil and gas in their environmental impact assessments.
The Government have acted decisively to respond to the independent Supreme Court, which ruled before this Government took office that the global environmental effects of burning oil and gas are an inevitable consequence of extraction projects. Offshore developers will, from now, be able to submit their applications for consent to develop already licensed fields, a process which has been on pause since the Supreme Court ruled in the Finch case.
The reopening of the consenting regime brings greater clarity for Britian’s oil and gas sector, as the Government continue their work with the industry to build a clean energy future for the North sea. It comes as last week’s spending review confirmed £9.1 billion for carbon capture and storage projects, marking a major step forward in the Government’s mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower that will drive economic growth, create jobs and deliver the Government’s plan for change.
We have moved as quickly as possible to finalise this guidance, while taking the time necessary to carefully account for the substantial amount of feedback we received in consultation with a range of stakeholders, including industry, NGOs, academia and members of the public.
The new guidance is aimed at applications for projects in North sea oil and gas fields that are already licensed. As with the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, Ministers will, on the advice of officials, consider the significance of a project’s environmental impact while taking into account and balancing relevant factors on a case-by-case basis, such as the potential economic impact and other implications of the project. Developers should therefore consider their projects in the context of the Government’s overarching objectives, including the objectives for the North sea’s energy future, which were set out in the consultation on building the North sea’s energy future.
The North Sea Transition Authority’s independent consenting role is unchanged by the publication of this guidance. It will continue to evaluate consent applications on their individual merits in accordance with relevant regulatory requirements. Licensing is similarly unaffected by the publication of this guidance. The Government have consulted separately on their commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields as part of their consultation on the North sea’s energy future. A Government response to that consultation will be issued later this year.
This Government are determined to secure a prosperous future for the North sea and we are working in lockstep with industry to unleash private investment, helping to create thousands of jobs in clean energy to boost our energy independence as part of a phased and responsible transition.
[HCWS719]
Statutory Learning Disability and Autism Training
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Today I am pleased to lay in Parliament the Oliver McGowan draft code of practice on statutory learning disability and autism training. The launch of this code represents a significant moment in the journey towards improving the care and treatment of people with a learning disability and autistic people. With its clear focus on ensuring that people receive tailored and compassionate support, it is especially fitting to be launching this code after recently celebrating World Autism Awareness Day in April and during Learning Disability Week, which this year is focusing on ensuring that people are seen, heard and valued. An easy-read version of the code is also available.
The purpose of the code is to ensure that service providers registered with the Care Quality Commission have the necessary guidance to meet the legal requirement introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022. The effect of the requirement is that, from 1 July 2022, CQC-registered providers are required to ensure that their staff receive training on learning disability and autism, appropriate to their role. To aid those who need to comply with the training requirement, the Secretary of State is obliged by the 2022 Act to issue a code of practice. Therefore, this code sets out the standards that training needs to meet to comply with the legislation and guidance on what providers need to do to meet those standards.
As set out in the code, the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism is the Government’s preferred and recommended training package to support CQC-registered providers to meet the new requirement. The training is named after Oliver McGowan, a young autistic teenager with a mild learning disability, who very sadly died after having a severe reaction to medication given to him against his and his family’s strong wishes. Oliver’s parents, Paula and Tom McGowan, have tirelessly campaigned for better training for health and care staff to improve understanding of the needs of people with a learning disability or autistic people. The training has been trialled with over 8,000 participants and independently evaluated to ensure that the final package is robust and high quality. A long-term, independent evaluation on its delivery and impact is also now under way.
People with a learning disability and autistic people experience disparities in the quality of care they receive. Research indicates that a lack of understanding and knowledge of learning disability and autism likely contributes to this. This government have set out three big shifts needed to make our health service fit for the future, including shifting from treatment to prevention and from hospitals to communities. Ensuring that health and care staff have the right knowledge and skills to provide informed care for people with a learning disability and autistic people will help to meet these goals and improve health outcomes.
The legislative requirement and the code must be the catalyst for positive cultural change. With them we can help to deliver care and support that is tailored to the person, making sure that staff have the right attitudes, skills and behaviours to support people with a learning disability and autistic people safely, confidently and respectfully.
[HCWS715]
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Government have today introduced the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill to the House of Commons.
Removing someone’s British citizenship—also known as deprivation of citizenship—is a vital tool that is used to preserve the UK’s national security. It is used against those who obtained citizenship by fraud and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists, and serious organised criminals.
The power to deprive a person of their British citizenship on “conducive to the public good” grounds is used sparingly, complies with the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, and always comes with a right to appeal. The Home Secretary decides each case personally.
Bill proposals
This Bill is extremely narrow in its scope and intent, focusing solely on closing a loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship process. The Bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship.
In the recent case of N3 and ZA v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Supreme Court decided that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful or if a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, the initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen. This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
This Bill will amend section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 in order to protect the UK from people who pose a threat to national security by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship and are overseas from returning until all appeals are determined. It will also prevent a person who has been deprived of citizenship on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good from seeking to undermine deprivation action while an appeal in their case remains ongoing, such as by renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position whereby a deprivation order would render them stateless.
[HCWS720]
Local Government Best Value: Thurrock Council
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
As I have previously stated when updating the House, this Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, and to establishing partnerships built on mutual respect, collaboration and meaningful engagement. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent, and this Government are taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. I am today updating the House on the steps that we are taking to support Thurrock council to recover and reform.
I am today publishing the commissioners’ most recent report, which I received in May. It is clear that the council is in a very different place from where it was when the previous Government first appointed commissioners to it in September 2022. I want to commend the council’s members and officers and the commissioners for the improvements that they, together, have made; and I am pleased that the commissioners consider that the council
“continues to own the recovery agenda”.
However, the issues that the council faced at the start were both broad and deep, and the commissioners’ fifth report makes it clear that the recovery remains fragile, as the improvements still need to be embedded across the organisation.
While progress has been made to address its historical financial accounts and governance, the council still relies on Government support to set a balanced budget and there remains an annual structural deficit. The council’s general fund debt position is estimated at £800 million by the end of 2025-26. The Government have indicated that we will provide an initial tranche of financial support for debt repayment for Thurrock council in 2026-27, ahead of local government reorganisation. We will continue to work with the council to ensure that any support represents value for money for local and national taxpayers.
The council still needs to evidence deliverable plans to make corporate transformational savings to secure sustainable services, and there remains a need for it to strengthen its internal controls, especially across internal audit and risk management. A robust transformation plan is needed to deliver the council’s proposed operating model and meet savings targets. Organisational capacity challenges remain and the commissioners consider that the council has not yet
“demonstrated that it has the capacity and capability to sustain its own journey of continuous improvement”.
Having considered the report carefully, I am satisfied that the council is not yet meeting its best value duty.
While proposals for local government reorganisation and devolution present the council and its residents with real opportunities, it is vital to ensure that the council has the capacity and capability to continue to drive its own recovery and reform alongside the implementation of either or both of these substantial change programmes.
Proposed package
I am minded to exercise powers of direction, under sections 15(5) and 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1999, to issue new directions to Thurrock council extending the intervention at the council until 30 April 2028. These would require the council to take actions to address the outstanding issues and priorities, as well as continuing to engage with commissioners who would be able to exercise specific council functions. The commissioner team, if appointed, would continue to consist of a lead commissioner, a finance commissioner and a managing director commissioner.
This extension to April 2028 would give the council time to deliver further improvements and embed the necessary changes across the organisation, but it would also ensure that the intervention timetable reflects the broader context for the area and aligns it to the proposed timelines for local government reorganisation. This seeks to ensure that there is external oversight and assurance of the council’s improvement journey as it prepares for any future arrangements and provides flexibility to review the model of intervention throughout this period. It will be important that there are clear measurable milestones over the next phase of the intervention, and I would intend to review the proposed arrangements, if implemented, by summer 2026, when I would expect there to be further clarity on broader plans for devolution and local government reorganisation across greater Essex.
Representations
I am now inviting representatives from Thurrock council and any other interested parties on the proposed intervention package by 2 July. All representations will be carefully considered and any other evidence received, before I take a final decision about how to proceed.
Conclusion
I am committed to working in partnership to provide the necessary support to ensure Thurrock council’s compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents and service users expect.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS714]
Social Housing Local Connection Test Exemptions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
In his conference speech on 24 September 2024, the Prime Minister set out this Government’s commitment to supporting the most vulnerable to access social housing.
To support the delivery of that commitment, I have today laid regulations to exempt certain victims of domestic abuse and young care leavers from any local connection tests for social housing applied by local councils in England in order to facilitate their access to social housing.
Victims of domestic abuse and young care leavers often have to leave their local area for their own safety or to receive suitable support and therefore struggle to meet local connection tests in places where they would best be able build a safe and stable life. We know that most councils use the flexibilities available to them to exempt care leavers and victims of domestic abuse from local connection tests, but we must ensure that these exemptions are consistently applied.
The regulations laid today will ensure that this potential barrier will be removed and that they will no longer need to meet a local connection test for social housing. The regulations will come into force on 10 July.
Statutory guidance will be updated to reflect these changes. This includes specific guidance on improving access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse to ensure that victims can rebuild their lives away from abuse and harm. Statutory guidance will also be updated to ensure that councils are giving appropriate priority for care leavers who wish to stay in the area where they were placed.
These regulations follow those made in December, which exempted all former members of the regular armed forces from any local connection test for social housing, regardless of when they last served.
The Government are committed to supporting vulnerable groups and veterans to access social housing more generally by increasing the supply of social and affordable homes to better meet demand. Over the past 11 months, we have taken decisive steps to prioritise investment in social and affordable housing. At the spending review, the Government confirmed £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years of starts from 2026-27 to 2035-36—the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation.
[HCWS721]
Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to safeguarding supplies of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland and to the protection of animal health and welfare. I therefore wish to update the House that today the Government have published a policy paper called “Protecting Animal Health: the Government’s Approach to Veterinary Medicines in Northern Ireland” and have deposited copies of the paper in the Libraries of both Houses.
Certain exemptions from EU law currently facilitate the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland. These exemptions will end after 31 December 2025. Ensuring the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland from 1 January 2026 is therefore of critical importance. We have seen significant progress to that end, as large sections of the pharmaceutical industry have taken and are taking the steps needed to continue to supply veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland. This means that, in the vast majority of cases, vets, farmers and pet owners will continue to have access to the medicines they need. But I recognise that even a small disruption could cause real difficulties, and that there are understandable concerns in those limited areas where supply may be disrupted and there are no alternative products authorised or available in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government are taking further measures to ensure access to veterinary medicines in such cases, as set out in the paper.
The Government have undertaken extensive engagement with the pharmaceutical industry, suppliers and retailers to understand the scale of any likely disruption to supply of veterinary medicines. Disruption is expected to be highly limited as a result of the pharmaceutical industry making the necessary changes to continue to supply Northern Ireland. We will continue to support industry in that endeavour in the coming months. Of the products that will be discontinued—which, on the basis of current analysis, we expect to be 10% to 15% of authorised products—most will have alternatives authorised in Northern Ireland or are not sold or only sold in limited quantities. Only a very small proportion, if discontinued, would be unlikely to have a suitable alternative and lack of access would have a significant adverse impact on animal health.
In line with the commitment in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, the Government will “deploy all available flexibilities to safeguard and sustain the supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland”. To that end, the Government are setting out steps in relation to the supply routes of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland, making use of provisions within or consistent with EU law to improve access for veterinary surgeons, farmers and pet owners.
The Government are therefore launching two new schemes to ensure the needs of animal health and welfare can continue to be met. First, the veterinary medicines internal market scheme will allow veterinary surgeons to use their own judgment to determine whether to move veterinary products into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, where doing so is the only reasonable way of preventing unacceptable suffering of animals in their care, building on and simplifying existing processes. The requirement for a special import certificate will also be removed for Great Britain to Northern Ireland movements of therapeutic veterinary medicines, reflecting the importance of the UK internal market and recognising that this requirement exists for products entering the UK from outside the UK rather than movements within the UK internal market. Secondly, the veterinary medicines health situation scheme will allow the supply of alternatives to critical products in Northern Ireland, if these are not authorised and the situation of animal or public health so requires. These arrangements will last for as long as the animal or public health justification for it persists.
The combination of progress to date on the adaptation by industry and the measures set out in the paper means that the Government are confident that Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy access to the veterinary medicines necessary to protect the health and welfare of animals, and the livelihoods of farmers and veterinary surgeons.
Further guidance will be issued in due course, and we will continue to monitor emerging risks to animal health and veterinary medicine availability. Intensive engagement will continue through 2025 and beyond to address any gaps. Where they have yet to do so, we are encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to make any necessary changes as soon as possible. The Government will invite the veterinary medicines working group to continue to meet to provide a forum for discussion of both the implementation of the measures set out, and for the identification and escalation of issues to be addressed.
[HCWS716]
House of Lords Appointments
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am today setting out the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in making nominations to the House of Lords.
Role of party leaders
As democratically elected representatives, it is for political parties to decide who will best represent them when making nominations to the House of Lords. The Government announced in December 2024 that political parties must now provide citations that clearly set out to the public why an individual has been nominated to the House of Lords. I expect party leaders to take full responsibility for properly considering the suitability and quality of their nominations, including whether nominees have the skills, ability and willingness to contribute to the work of the House and have a commitment to high standards in public life.
The House of Lords works best when there is a diversity of perspectives represented, including from all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Party leaders should consider this when making nominations to ensure the second chamber better reflects the country it serves.
Role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission
The House of Lords Appointments Commission is an independent advisory body, responsible for vetting all peers to the House for propriety and for nominating non-party political individuals to the Prime Minister of the day for appointment to sit as Cross-Bench peers in the House of Lords. Advice on propriety is separate from judgments about the suitability of candidates, which are for political parties.
The vetting process is the same for all nominations for life peerages, although the vetting for ministerial appointments to the House of Lords may be completed on an expedited timeline.
The commission can decline to support a nomination on propriety grounds and will inform the relevant political party if this is the case. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to the sovereign. In the unlikely event that I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC’s advice on propriety I would write to the commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk. HOLAC would write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to notify Parliament that their propriety advice had not been followed.
The commission may also provide advice on whether there are any presentational risks associated with a nominee. The commission does not withhold support for a nominee due to presentational risks.
Appointments to the Cross Benches
I will continue to ask HOLAC to make nominations for individuals to sit as Cross-Bench peers. HOLAC invites applications from the public and assesses candidates against the criteria set out on its website. On my invitation, HOLAC will then put forward successful nominees to me, and I will recommend them to His Majesty the King for appointment.
In addition, as Prime Minister I will continue to recommend directly for appointment a limited number of candidates to sit as Cross-Bench peers based on their public service, including both distinguished public servants on retirement and individuals with a proven track record of service to the public. These nominations will continue to be vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
This Government set out a commitment in our manifesto to reform the process of appointments to the House of Lords to ensure the quality of new appointments and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. This statement is further evidence of our commitment to taking pragmatic and straight- forward steps to strengthen and clarify our existing arrangements in support of this commitment.
[HCWS718]
Rivers and Estuaries: Derelict Boats
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the environmental and navigational risks posed by derelict boats abandoned on rivers and estuaries, and what steps they are taking to ensure their removal.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, no assessment has been made by the Government, as responsibility for operational matters on inland waterways rests with the relevant navigation authority. This includes dealing with derelict or sunken boats and their removal, and any risk to the environment or to navigation. Navigation authorities have statutory powers to remove such boats when they deem it necessary and appropriate, but have statutory duties to do so only in certain circumstances.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the abandonment of vessels is a growing problem on our estuaries and rivers; it is effectively a form of marine fly-tipping. Can the Minister note that there is no real way of tracing the owners of most recreational vessels? This means that the cost of removal often ends up as a cost for landowners, local authorities and harbourmasters. Should there not be at least some form of registration system for all recreational vessels so that the owners are rightly held liable for getting rid of this environmental problem on our rivers and in navigation?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, the Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency, the two principal navigation authorities, publish guidance on licensing and registration, and ownership is traced via these licensing and registration systems. Navigation authorities work hard to ensure that licence evasion rates are as low as possible and, although the Government do not get involved in operational matters, we encourage navigation authorities to work together to resolve these issues, including in conversations with Defra where relevant.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, are the Government aware of the recent operation by Bath & North East Somerset Council to remove five sunken boats from the River Avon, after unsuccessful efforts to get any owners to do so? There may be many good or bad reasons for the abandonment of boats, but does the Minister endorse that council’s advice for boat owners to use recognised sites, monitor their moorings regularly, and ensure boats are fit for the water and properly insured, inclusive of salvage?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting case of some very positive enforcement action that was taken by the local authority that he named. We very encourage all navigation authorities to work with local stakeholders, communities and local authorities to do as much as they can to remove that blight. For noble Lords’ information, in 2024-25, the Canal & River Trust removed 12 abandoned derelict and sunken boats from its rivers, and 96 such boats from its canals. The average cost of removal was £7,000.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the best and most environmentally friendly way to dispose of boats, most of which are made from glass fibre these days? I suspect that many people, in extremis, set fire to them, which is not a good idea. Do the Government give any advice to help this process along?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we leave such matters to the experts. My noble friend raises an interesting point, which I am sure navigation authorities consider. This is why it is important that the Government, while they are in close consultation with navigation authorities, do not step in on operational matters but ensure that navigation authorities are working with communities, stakeholders and—equally importantly—the owners to ensure safe disposal.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Broads Authority has had to spend £70,000 this year to raise two sunken boats in the Norfolk Broads. Will the Minister progress the recommendation in Defra’s Landscapes Review to remove the unnecessary complexities placed on the Broads Authority to account separately for income and expenditure from national park grant and from navigation, which would certainly enable the Broads Authority to undertake such work in a less complex way?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. All the navigation authorities have different set-ups, corporate structures and funding patterns. He raises the framework agreement; I will certainly take that issue back to colleagues in Defra to better understand the progress of that agreement.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, this is a very serious matter. I think of the history of the River Hull, for instance, where the dredging authorities, in order to keep the flows going and avoid flooding in irrigation, had great problems in being able to move sunken or half-sunken boats. Surely something more can be done to alleviate that problem, and in particular to put some speed into its alleviation?
Lord Katz (Lab)
At the risk of repetition, it has long been the convention to leave this to navigation authorities to manage best. They understand best their own waterways, rivers and canals, both urban and rural. I can tell the noble Lord that we have agreed a new 10-year grant of £400 million for the Canal & River Trust to extend the end of the current grant regime, which ends in 2027. This new settlement will go to 2037. We are ensuring stable funding for that body so that it can carry out all its functions and activities, including clearing up abandoned boats.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
When Maidenhead had to deal with the problem of abandoned and sunken boats on the Thames, the local authority and the Environment Agency pleaded poverty, conflicting powers and confusion over responsibility. It took a local landowner to do the job of clearing the boats at his expense—so, free of charge. There is a lacuna in the law that needs sorting out. Will the Minister and his officials look at this whole issue of responsibility and perhaps come back to the House with, to be blunt, a better answer?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will try my best again for my noble friend. He raises a specific case in Maidenhead; I will be honest with the House, I do not have the details of that case. He is absolutely right that we rely on our navigation authorities, local authorities, local landowners and the community to work together. It should not be up to just one landowner to do the right thing; we need everyone to work together. I will certainly undertake to examine the lacuna in law that he has identified; perhaps I can write to him with some more detail.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, abandoned and derelict vessels—that well-known acronym ADV, which I learned about yesterday—not only are unsightly and a blot on a landscape but cause terrible pollution from engine oils, diesel fuel leaking out, battery acid, and corroded metals and plastics. Ideally, the owners should be made to pay for their removal, but they are usually impossible to find, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out. I did not know about the Avon. Natural Resources Wales is paying for the removal of some boats in the River Dee, but I do not think we can ask the taxpayer to foot the bill in England.
Therefore, I think for the first time in 40 years, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I suggest that Defra should convene a conference of local authorities, river estuary owners, the Canal & River Trust and any other relevant authorities and marine experts to see whether a way can be found to deal with this problem, making the owners pay and not the taxpayer. If there is a lacuna in the law, let us deal with it.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I too have learnt some new acronyms this week and ADV is one of them, so I join the noble Lord in gaining that knowledge, and in understanding the importance of the fact that, as I continue to repeat to this House, navigational authorities are independent of government but are also responsible for enforcement action. The funding agreement that I mentioned with the Canal & Rivers Trust will have particular KPIs attached, such as enforcement and ensuring good, timely and responsible stewardship of the land in its control, whether in terms of clearing litter off the towpath or dealing with abandoned boats. Both are absolutely part of that.
We believe in devolution and in making sure that bodies such as navigation authorities, which understand their patches best, can have control of them. We cannot have our cake and eat it and say there should be some national enforcement when we must support those navigation authorities on the ground to do the job right.
Social Housing
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of new social homes built, and the number of new homes for social rent which have received planning permission, in the past six months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I was delighted that in the spending review last week the Government were able to provide the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. We have confirmed £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years.
On the planning application statistics that my noble friend has requested, although the publication includes the number of homes granted planning permission, it does not yet include separate figures for new social homes built or the number of homes for social rent. The next quarterly publication is due on 19 June. However, there is an annual release published by the Government that includes affordable and social homes. The data for the last six months, up to March 2025, is not yet released but it will be available later this month.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that very positive reply. The entrenched and acute housing crisis inherited by the Government is in no small part due to the long-term failure to build anywhere near enough homes for social rent. My noble friend has made it clear that we are finally on the path to turn this around.
The National Housing Federation and other sector bodies described last week’s announcement as
“transformational … and will deliver the right conditions for a decade of renewal and growth … It is the most ambitious Affordable Homes Programme we’ve seen in decades”
and, most importantly,
“offers real hope to thousands of people who need safe, secure and affordable homes”.
Can my noble friend the Minister provide an update on the design and delivery of the new 10-year affordable homes programme, including what emphasis it will place on social rented homes, alongside other affordable tenures such as shared ownership?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her warm reception for the announcement made at the spending review, and to the many social housing bodies that have echoed her words. We will work with the sector at pace to design the programme. We have provided certainty that it will be for a full 10 years; our providers wanted that certainty, and we were pleased to give it. We have combined that with a 10-year rent settlement that will give social housing providers the support and certainty they need to build the social and affordable homes that are so desperately needed. It is important to note the decline in social home building: in the 1950s, when my town was built, we were building around 200,000 social homes a year, but in recent years, we have built fewer than 10,000. We have a lot of work to do, and we will get on with the job.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, where are the plumbers, electricians and builders going to come from to build these houses? Do the Government have plans to increase the number of people in apprenticeships who are being trained for that purpose?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that we have a £600 million package for construction skills. We set up the Construction Skills Mission Board under the very able chairmanship of Mark Reynolds from Mace; I worked with Mark and Mace on the regeneration of Stevenage, so I am sure that he will do a fantastic job on that. That will create an extra 60,000 construction worker posts by 2029. There will be 10 new technical excellence colleges. Skills bootcamps have been extended with £100 million of funding, including short-term training for new entrants and upskilling for returners. The Construction Industry Training Board has really stepped up here with funding from industry to fund over 40,000 industry placements and to double the size of the new entrant support scheme to support SMEs to recruit, engage and retain apprentices.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, homelessness and housing costs are driving factors in both child poverty and ever-escalating costs of homelessness. My council alone is spending £60 million a year—a figure that is rising—to tackle homelessness. Newham and other councils have done their absolute best to provide affordable homes and thereby cut costs to themselves and their residents, but they need government help. Can my noble friend say what assessment she has made of the role of local government in the delivery of affordable and social homes?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. Of course I would say this, but local government is absolutely critical to delivering the new, generational change in the number of social homes being delivered. Our changes to reverse the set of supply-negative changes made by the previous Government introduce a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will help with this. The Secretary of State and I want this to be a plan-led system. When the new National Planning Policy Framework was published in December last year, I was delighted to see that we have, for the first time, encouraged local authorities to assess their social housing need separately from affordable housing, which I am sure will help. Later this year, we will introduce reforms to accelerate local plan preparation. As my noble friend said, this is not just a great cost to the people who are homeless and in temporary emergency accommodation but an enormous cost to the public purse and for our councils, so we need to solve the problem quickly.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I hugely welcome the £39 billion announced in the spending review for affordable housing; it is really good news. Will the Minister comment on a new blockage to getting those homes built: the long delays with the building safety regulator? Are these the major reason why in London the number of new-build starts is way down this year compared with last year? Can we do anything about the delays in approvals by the building safety regulator?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord asked me that question, because regulators fall into my part of the departmental responsibilities. I am very aware of the concerns about the impact of gateway delays on investment decisions in high-rise and other projects. We are taking significant measures to address the challenges currently faced by the building safety regulator. We are exploring all options with the regulator to ensure that it is equipped for the high demand of applications. We have already provided additional funding to improve capacity at the BSR for building control caseworkers and in-house technical specialists, and we are working with it on a daily basis to make the system a bit slicker than it is now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
In light of the findings of the report on transforming lives and balancing budgets, can the Minister say what urgent steps the Government are taking to address the chronic shortage of appropriate community housing for adults, particularly those with autism and learning disabilities? Will the department explore partnerships with private capital providers to scale up specialist supported housing without relying on new public capital?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is an important question, and we will see answers on the various specialist housing provisions in the housing strategy, which will be published later this year. The noble Baroness is right to point to the particular need for supported housing, which will be included in the strategy. We made some announcements this week on the national housing bank, which includes a partnership with the private sector to deliver housing; I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on that subject rather than going into the detail now. The noble Baroness is right that we will work with both public and private sector funding to deliver as much of the housing as we can, and the details of specialist housing will be included in the housing strategy.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to recognise the amount of money being put into social housing, but the Opposition will always say it is never enough so: it is never enough. The Minister will be aware that the barriers to building and delivering social housing are neither just financial nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, just around building safety; both the Section 106 route and the affordable homes programme have their problems for developers and providers. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to overcome these barriers? In particular, are the Government considering reforming Section 106? Can she tell us when we will know what percentage of the affordable homes programme will be used for social housing, rather than so-called affordable housing, which is very unaffordable for many?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, we are working on how we will deliver the split between affordable and social housing. Of course, both are important to the sector, and we will come forward with further information on that. On the Section 106 issues and the other barriers in the housing system, I was very pleased that the changes to the NPPF were made this year, because they will help. We have a new homes accelerator in the department, where developers or local authorities can come forward to help remove the barriers that are getting in the way. I will come back to the noble Baroness on her question about Section 106.
English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to prohibit bottom trawling and dredging in all English marine protected areas.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, 60% of English marine protected areas are protected by by-laws that limit the use of damaging fishing gear. On Monday 9 June, the Secretary of State announced that the Marine Management Organisation was starting a consultation on proposed by-laws to protect a further 42 MPAs. This substantial package would ban bottom trawling and shellfish dredging over 30,000 square kilometres—that is 13% of English waters. It is a significant step in preserving marine ecosystems through targeted action.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I very much welcome last week’s announcement that progress will be made in marine protected areas, as currently 90% of the UK’s MPAs remain open to bottom trawling. Does the Minister agree that, given the state of fish stocks, this is an important move to ensure that fishing has a sustainable future? Following the consultation, I hope to see a swift implementation; can he give more detail on the timeframe for that?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s welcome of the announcement; it is an important step forward in a long-term plan properly to protect our marine ecosystems and environment while enabling fishing. We have had to very carefully considered the next steps to manage bottom trawling in MPAs, along with other fishing methods, in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations. It is important that we get this right and the proposed by-laws are very substantial: they will close 13% of English waters to bottom trawling, which will be critical to protect our MPAs. We want to move at pace, but I will not set out a precise timeline because it is important that we see the consultation through first.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could help me clarify something. I have a cutting from Fishing News, “the voice of the fishing industry”. When Minister Zeichner addressed the Shellfish Association last week, he said that this news about the ending of bottom trawling will be “very, very grim” for the industry. He knows how frustrating it is, he said, and:
“This is about ending trawling in areas where damage is done – why make changes in areas of MPAs that aren’t at risk?”—
which would apply to the 42 new ones that have not yet been bottom trawled. It seems to me very concerning, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could lay out the Government’s precise position on this.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, the Government support the fishing industry and recognise its key role in food supply, which is why we are also launching the fishing and coastal growth fund, which is investing £360 million over the next 12 years to support the next generation of fishermen and breathe new life into our coastal communities. This investment will make the fishing industry fit for the 21st century, but we make no apology for taking the steps—which, indeed, were initiated by the previous Government—to protect our natural marine environment over the long term. It is worth pointing out that the majority of fishing fleets that will be impacted by this ban on bottom trawling and shellfish dredging are not UK fleets but fleets from other nations, principally France, Ireland and Denmark.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could clarify something. I know I am a bit dense, but the headline seemed to be that the Government are banning bottom trawling in MPAs. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who mentioned the remarks made by the Minister’s honourable friend in the other place, is it a fact that the Government are banning bottom trawling in some MPAs but not all?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we want to stop fishing only where it is damaging protected species and habitats in MPAs. For example, some MPAs are designated to protect sea-birds or harbour porpoises; bottom-trawling restrictions will not help these species. Our regulators undertake detailed assessments to make sure we protect our MPAs, while allowing fishing and other activities to continue where they are not damaging to them. I ask noble Lords to forgive the mammalian comparison, but it is horses for courses.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while extending the ban on destructive bottom trawling is very welcome indeed, can I ask whether the Government considered a full ban, given the urgency expressed in the Labour Party manifesto on this issue? While the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has asked for a timetable—I think it is reasonable to get some sense of a timetable—can I ask how a timetable will take place for comprehensive protection? Can the Minister outline to us how enforcement will prevent exemptions or delays and ensure that our MPAs are genuinely safeguarded as marine biodiversity?
Lord Katz (Lab)
At the risk of repeating myself, we are not undertaking a blanket ban, because it is important that we can support fishing and other marine activity where it is not damaging marine ecosystems. One of the reasons that we are having the consultation is to understand the detail of it, but there are some MPAs that are not about fishing activity but other protection. We are looking in a proactive way to understand how best to protect water column activity, for instance, as well as to ensure that our seabeds are protected. I will not be drawn any further on the timetable, but we are clear about the importance of proceeding at pace while taking the fishing industry, marine conservation organisations and the wider community along with us. The Wildlife Trusts called the Secretary of State’s announcement the other day a “great step forward”. Oceana UK said it was a
“golden opportunity to safeguard these vital marine sanctuaries”,
and, frankly, I agree with them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think there has been a Labour questioner so far on this. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his responses on this, but can I ask—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—to what extent the security position is also being factored into these discussions? Quite clearly, damage to undersea cables and pipelines is a serious problem and bottom trawling will not help.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and this is why we are serious about taking action in this area. When it comes to national security or promoting biodiversity and protecting our marine environment, we want to work with all stakeholders to get this right. I would be very interested to hear the views of the National Preparedness Commission and other such authorities in understanding the impact of bottom trawling on this important kind of national infrastructure.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, bottom trawling is an appalling way to fish but a superb way to destroy everything on the seabed. Last year, according to statistics from Oceana UK, just 10 fishing vessels of at least 20 metres in length were responsible for 27% of the suspected bottom trawling in our marine protected areas, wrecking fragile seabed ecosystems, releasing carbon and dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of discarded fish of the wrong sort. I say to the Minister that that applies to every single MPA, not just those with special species that he wants to protect. None of these 10 vessels was from the UK, and just 6% of the total 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in MPAs was carried out by UK vessels. While we welcome the consultation, would the Government partly redeem themselves from selling out our fishermen to the EU by banning those 10 big foreign boats, which would lead to a 20% saving overnight, and then phase out the rest of bottom trawling over the next couple of years?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I think the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we have a comprehensive, fair and equitable approach to the way that we protect our marine environment. The noble Lord mentioned discard rates; at present, it is the case that the Cefas observer programme wants to provide estimates of the discard rates for a variety of quota species, including using methodologies aligned with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea standards. Looking ahead, we want to implement a remote electronic monitoring programme, which involves installing cameras on vessels, which is expected to enhance our understanding and really understand the landscape of good behaviour and bad behaviour. In the meantime, I say to the noble Lord that we believe that the approach that we are taking is ground-breaking, but it is in line with what has happened before under the previous Administration. We are taking a whole-piece approach to this important issue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows that the UK has 377 marine protected areas, of which only 38 are fully protected. Can I just clarify that the 42 that the Government are consulting on are different from the 38? Surely the Minister can tell us when the consultation will end?
Lord Katz (Lab)
As the noble Baroness sets out, the consultation has 42 MPAs, and 41 of those have bottom-towed gear restrictions proposed. As I understand it—I will write if this is not the case—those are separate from those previous 38. The consultation will close later in the year, I understand, sometime in the autumn, but I will write with further details if that is not the case.
Self-driving Vehicles: Disabled Passengers
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what provision there will be for disabled passengers in the pilots for self-driving vehicles announced on 10 June.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State must, by law, consider whether and to what extent granting a permit for an automated passenger service is likely to help improve understanding of how these services should best be designed for and provided to disabled and older passengers. Accessibility considerations will be set out in non-statutory guidance, and related permit conditions can be enforced through the permitting process. It would be counterproductive to specify detailed requirements in regulation for innovative new services.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but the key problem with the Government’s announcement is that the consultation is happening at exactly the same time as the specification and the manufacture of the driverless vehicles that are due to be launched early next year. This is literally a once-in-an-era moment: new driverless vehicles hitting our roads. The Government need to ensure that taxis and bus-like taxis will have accessibility designed into them. Otherwise, it will be like everything else for disabled people: reasonable adjustments after the event that are expensive for the manufacturer and never perfect for the user. Can the Minister say whether the contract with Wayve and Oxa will ensure that ramps, audio and visual announcements are designed in right from the start?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness knows that we consider the implications of transport for people with disabilities extraordinarily seriously. Whatever individual providers have said—and some of them have said something following the recent announcement by the Secretary of State—it will still be up to the Secretary of State to grant permission, under the conditions I described. For taxis and private hire vehicles, they will need local authority consent and, of course, that will all be subject to the public sector equality duty.
I think the noble Baroness is assuming that all these services will be provided by newly designed vehicles, when in fact the likelihood is that, in the very short term, they will be the same sort of vehicles used for taxi and PHV services. In the medium term, clearly there will be new designs, and there are already some that are suitable for wheelchairs and people with disabilities. We have to acknowledge that automated vehicles are part of an exciting future, but they have to be implemented safely, and she is right that they have to be implemented to benefit all parts of the community.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, what provision will there be for disabled passengers in all HMG’s transport plans?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The Government are consulting on an integrated transport policy, which will of course include provision for disabled people. In the various modes of transport, there is extensive work going on in all cases to accommodate disabled people as fully as we can in the provision of public services going forward. Some of them are more difficult than others. The railway is 200 years old this year—some of its facilities are equally old—but the Government are striving to achieve what my noble friend looks for.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, it was a great pleasure to get the Automated Vehicles Act on the statute book before the last election. It puts Britain in a globally leading position to get investment and technology and be global leaders in this important technology. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: we should be ambitious about making this technology accessible for everyone. Automated vehicles have the potential to improve the life chances and the independence of all those who have a disability that means that they cannot drive themselves. I urge the Minister to be as ambitious as he can and to go as fast as he can to get this technology on to our roads. It is safe, we are leaders in it and it is a real opportunity for Great Britain.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There must have been a shadow of a question in there somewhere, but I agree with the noble Lord that it is an exciting prospect. He is right that the potential here is to increase mobility for the community and for people with disabilities, if we get it right. I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness in striving to make sure that disability is treated in the mainstream, but if we are going to do this quickly, we have to recognise that the early adoption under this Act is likely to be using the same sorts of vehicles as are used now. What we are looking for in the medium-term future is new designs, which should have the facilities such as audio-visual equipment and facilities for people in wheelchairs that she would expect.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on what licences will be given to rural areas? We are very short of buses, both for people with disability and for the ordinary population. Surely these kinds of vehicles would be ideal in small, remote villages so that people could access essential services.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. One of the really good prospects here is the provision of public services to people in rural areas where buses, with the best will in the world and despite the Government’s ground-breaking bus legislation, will not serve every need of the community because of the sparse population. That community is also getting older and many people there cannot drive, so there is a real opportunity here for autonomous vehicles fulfilling the need for public services in a way that conventional buses and taxis really cannot.
I go back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which is that we have to design in—as far as we can—facilities for disabled people among this. But we also, as the noble Lord opposite said, have to get going with this, because it is such an exciting future.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as well as the area of accessibility, what work have the Government carried out to determine liability in collisions involving self-drive vehicles as part of this pilot, given that human error will be removed from the equation?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: safety has to be the first priority here. There has been a great deal of work worldwide on this. Clearly, the primary consideration for the adoption of autonomous vehicles is safety, so that people are not endangered by new technology but assisted by it. I will write to her about the precise steps that the Government have taken in the UK on this, but it is of course being addressed on a worldwide basis.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister spoke in the other place of the importance of getting disabled people into work. I ask the Minister in what way the retro, ad hoc inclusion of disabled people facilitates the realisation of that worthy goal. Can he also confirm that the Minister for Social Security and Disability in the other place was specifically consulted on the points that he has made?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are really committed to including people with disabilities in mainstream life and work, and I think the availability of autonomous vehicles ought, over time, to enable that more fully, as we have described—in rural areas, for example—than happens now. The Government have consulted extensively over where to go and what to do in this respect, and I will make sure that my department has consulted with all other necessary departments on this, but I would believe that to be the case, without doubt.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and other noble Lords have made some very important points, but I draw the Minister’s attention to an account in the Daily Telegraph this week of a report from the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism suggesting the real likelihood that these automated vehicles could be programmed by terrorists so as to launch mass attacks on pedestrians in our streets—so-called slaughterbots. This is a grave matter. Has the Minister read that report, and can he give an assurance that these vehicles will not be allowed on our streets unless that risk has been eliminated?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have no doubt that the noble Lord spends far longer reading the Daily Telegraph than I have time for. As it happens, I did not read that particular article, but I do know of the subject. Of course, we have to be concerned in all aspects of national security that things controlled by clever computers and technology are not misused by those who are enemies of the state anywhere. It is also a common issue with these vehicles around the world. I am not going to say any more about that now, other than that the Government know perfectly well that this is a possibility. When and as they take action on this, they will make sure that the risk to the public is absolutely minimised.
Israel and Iran
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current hostilities between Israel and Iran.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, since I spoke to the House on Monday, the situation in the Middle East has escalated further. We continue to work closely with our allies to press for restraint and diplomacy. The Foreign Secretary is in Washington today for discussions with the United States. We urge all British nationals to monitor travel advice and to register their presence if they are in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that update. To use “escalation” to describe the situation in the last 24 to 48 hours would be an understatement. We are now facing a very great challenge in the region which will have an impact not just on the two countries involved, Israel and Iran, but the wider region. We are also talking about the economic impact of conflict in that region on the global economy. Can the Minister assure me that this House and the other place will be fully informed of whatever action the His Majesty’s Government seek to take? Many noble Lords on the Minister’s Benches, on the Cross Benches and on our Benches have insight on and experience of previous crises. Such consultation is extremely valuable, so that when the Government speak, they speak not just as a Labour Government but as the Government of our country and our nation. Can he further assure us that the citizens of our country who are in the region will be fully protected and that extra measures will be taken to ensure their safe passage from that region?
I turn to the final element, which the Minister knows I will focus on. He talked of the measures being taken on diplomacy. In the last day or so, what we have heard from across the pond is that it is not the diplomatic track but a very different track that is being pursued. Can the Minister assure me that whatever action is pursued, we will be fully informed? As he referred to in his Answer, can he also assure me that the diplomatic track, particularly with key partners—I mention Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Oman—will be kept fully active?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I can only agree with most of the noble Lord’s remarks. It is incumbent on all Governments to keep Parliament fully informed—in this case, of what is becoming an extremely volatile and dangerous situation. We will obviously do that, and I certainly agree with him about the expertise across the House and how we should embrace and inform it. I am very keen to do so.
No one will exhaust that diplomatic effort. We are focused on it, no matter what speculation we read in the press. That is why the Foreign Secretary is in Washington today. The Prime Minister spoke to the Emir of Qatar last night. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar, the Iranian Foreign Minister and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal. He has also had regular calls, particularly yesterday, with US Secretary of State Rubio, EU High Representative Kallas and counterparts from France and Germany. As well as close working with the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan, we are ensuring that all our ambassadors in the region are fully engaged and in regular contact with their host countries. We remain in close contact with those embassies. I reassure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on that diplomatic track. We will not exhaust it. We are focused on de-escalation and ensuring the security of all our citizens and the citizens of the world.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the danger that the Minister referred to is exacerbated by the unpredictability of our most significant ally, the United States. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is in Washington. However, can the Minister assure these Benches that while the UK is so integrated with the United States— diplomatically and through the operations potentially through US Central Command—we have the capability and intent not to be dragged into a potentially protracted and very dangerous wider conflict, should the United States seek to be part of that? Can we have a distinct position from the United States, still focusing on de-escalation for the entire region, even if our key ally is part of escalation?
I am sure the Minister will be aware that many of our diplomatic friends within the region, especially within Jordan and elsewhere, are determined that we do not lose sight of what is happening within West Bank and Gaza, where queues for food have turned into arbitrary killing fields. In an incredibly complex situation between Israel and Iran, we must act to save the lives within Gaza of those people who are simply seeking food and medicine.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, I agree with him. Despite the urgency of the situation in relation to Iran, we are not taking our eyes off the situation in Gaza. We are focused on ensuring that we can get the humanitarian aid in, as we have promised. We are working very hard with all our allies and making the case very strongly that the restrictions that the Israeli Government have put on should be lifted.
I will not speculate on what the next steps of the US President may be, but the simple fact is that he has made it clear, as I said on Monday, that a military solution cannot resolve Iran’s nuclear escalation for the long term. We need a process in place and are focused on that. As the Foreign Secretary is in Washington, we remain in close contact with the United States. His Majesty’s Government will not give a running commentary on those conversations or speculate on the US’s sovereign decision, which is a matter for the US Government. However, I assure the House that we are absolutely focused on using all diplomatic means available to urge restraint, even at this stage, and de-escalate the situation. The UK teams throughout the world, as I mentioned in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, are focused on that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, where possible, whether in this dangerous situation or any other, without compromising secrecy or urgency, the House of Commons should be consulted before any deployment of UK forces? If he agrees with that proposition, and what was an embryonic convention under the Cameron Government, do His Majesty’s Government have any plans to enshrine that convention in statute?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let us not speculate. I repeat the reassurance that I gave to the noble Lord. We are committed to keeping Parliament informed of this very difficult and delicate situation. It is important that we all focus on ensuring that we speak with one voice: that we want de-escalation and peace, and we will be focused on that. I will not speculate on what those next steps may be, but when the Prime Minister spoke at the G7, and with the Foreign Secretary in Washington today, we have been absolutely clear that the situation requires de-escalation. We will not move from that position.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one of the many difficulties associated with this situation is the confusion that seems to have arisen over strategic objectives. Israel has stated that it does not want Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, but there has been a lot of loose talk recently about regime change. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government’s view is that no matter how much one might wish for regime change in Iran, this is absolutely not the way to do it, and that the decapitation of the regime by assassinating its religious head will achieve little, since the structural underpinning and much of the control of the regime is in the hands of the IRGC? Can he assure the House that in all our international negotiations with partners and others, we will be stressing these points very strongly?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I fully understand the comments by the noble and gallant Lord. I was listening to the “Today” programme this morning, and I thought there was pretty unhelpful speculation about motives and intent. The simple fact is the reality in the world when we look. People mentioned Syria: there was an internal pressure in Syria and the regime fell because of that internal pressure, but history tells us that, when there is an external pressure on a regime, the consequences are the complete opposite. Some of those opposition people on the radio this morning were reflecting some of that—they saw things in a different light than perhaps we see from the newspapers.
I reassure the noble and gallant Lord: the reality is that we remain absolutely concerned about the nuclear potential of Iran. We want to see that limited and stopped completely, and we want to see mechanisms to achieve that. I know I repeated this many times on Monday: President Trump knows that, too. He wants a deal, and that is what we have to focus on and use all diplomatic means to do.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, Britain has an absolute right to protect British assets and British personnel in the region from hostile action. Will the Minister confirm that the Government regard that right as inviolable?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have sent flights to the region to ensure that our assets are fully protected and that we are fully prepared for any of the consequences. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question. I may have missed it—I was concentrating on reading—but if she cares to repeat it, we have plenty of time. Did I answer?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
There was comment in the media earlier today about possible legal interpretation of when conflict is permissible and when joining that conflict is acceptable legally. I was merely concerned to understand that the fundamental right of a sovereign country to defend personnel and assets in a region from hostile action is an inviolable right and that the Government understand that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the Government fully understand that, which is why the Prime Minister has ensured that we are moving towards protecting those assets. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Before the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—who is not in his place—asks me a question, of course we are urging all parties to comply with international humanitarian law. That is quite clear, too.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, what is the Government’s thinking on the day after? We have observed this question a lot of times in the last 18 months in terms of the conflict in Gaza. Has any thought been given to the lessons learned, particularly from Iraq, about the day after? If the regime falls, what are the Government’s thoughts and plans for bringing stability to that region, given that the oil that travels through the Strait of Hormuz will have a huge impact not just in that region but all across the world, and particularly for ourselves here in the United Kingdom?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I said in my answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I will not speculate on the consequences of, or reasons for, these. Our objective is to stop Iran having a nuclear capability. We are absolutely working with all our allies to achieve that. The means to do that, as President Trump has made clear, is through a deal. There cannot be a long-term military answer to that question.
To come back to the point made earlier, we should not take our eyes off the situation in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. It is very sad that the consequences of these actions resulted in the postponement of the two-state solution conference, which was going to bring Saudi Arabia and others together to look at the situation of the day after: “What next?” We need to ensure that the international community is absolutely focused on that, and we will be supporting and putting all efforts into a reconvened conference to ensure that that is the focus for the next steps.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, those on these Benches join others in calling for Iran and Israel to draw back from war, especially the killing of civilians, and, as His Majesty’s Government have rightly said, prioritise restraint, diplomacy and dialogue. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly raised the fact that the conflict with Iran threatens to overshadow and move the focus away from the conflict in Gaza, and I am reassured by the Minister’s response to that. In both conflicts, though, civilians have been and are being targeted. What actions are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that internationally accepted norms of armed conflict are being respected, as well as the norms of humanitarian law?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure the right reverend Prelate that compliance with international humanitarian law is exactly what we are urging on all parties, and we will continue to do so. It is very sad that, when missiles are fired off indiscriminately, it is inevitable that civilians will suffer. That should not be the case, and we are urging all parties to ensure that they comply with that international humanitarian law.
HS2 Reset
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the history of the HS2 project is not a happy one. It was initially proposed in its current form by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and endorsed by Gordon Brown in the wake of the global financial crisis, then taken up enthusiastically by the coalition Government, in which all major decisions were made by a quad that included Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, and, indeed, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, sadly not in her place, was a Minister, as was Norman Baker. It was then taken forward further by the Conservative Government following 2015. Failure often has many parents, and there is no doubt that HS2 has been a mess. The letter from Mark Wild and the report from James Stewart leave us in no doubt of that at all.
I thank the Minister for the Statement. I welcome the appointment of Mike Brown as chairman of HS2 and the appointment last year by the Conservatives of Mark Wild as chief executive. Both are people with whom I have worked in the past, as has the Minister.
My first question to the Minister is whether there has been equally significant change in senior personnel at the Department for Transport. I ask that because the James Stewart report leaves one in no doubt that the Department for Transport failed sufficiently to distinguish its various roles in this project, including as sponsor, as funder, as policymaker and as shareholder.
This brings me to questions of governance model. The settled orthodoxy in recent years has been that, for government-supported projects to succeed, there must be a clear structural division between a sponsor body and a delivery body. On paper this is logical. The sponsor sets the strategic direction and prevents outside parties changing the objectives by gold-plating and adding further requirements as time goes by. It holds the delivery body to account, and the delivery body focuses on the execution.
In the case of HS2, this model has not functioned as intended: it has broken down. Rather than providing a framework for responsibility and efficient delivery, it has resulted in a culture of what might be called “deferral”. The dominance of the Department for Transport—well known anecdotally by those familiar with the project—over the board of HS2 has resulted, as James Stewart identifies in his report, in the board not carrying out its functions but deferring important questions it should have taken to the department. As a result, decisions were delayed, accountability was blurred, and independence of delivery was undermined.
At the same time, the department itself did not fully separate its own strategic oversight role as sponsor from its various operational entanglements. There was no clear split within the department between those who were supposed to hold the project to account and those who were working with it in other regards. We are therefore left with very serious questions that go way beyond HS2. They affect, for example, the restoration and renewal project of the Palace of Westminster. Something we relied on as a dependable structure—which appeared to prove itself largely in the case of Crossrail, for example—has broken down. My second question to the Minister, then, is, what thinking are the Government giving to a new model that is going to work well for future projects, or are we now steering blind?
My final point relates to Euston station. Euston is, strictly speaking, no longer part of HS2 Ltd’s responsibilities, as I understand it. It was a decision of the last Government to put it into a separate company, but I am not aware of the existence of that separate company; perhaps it exists on paper. I am not aware of the board of that company, or the chairman of that company. I am not aware of what that company is actually doing, because, while the Government have committed to taking the tunnels forward from Old Oak Common to Euston station, there is as yet no plan for the delivery of platforms at Euston station, which would allow passengers to make use of those tunnels.
I am not speaking for my party now, so much as for myself, when I say that I have always felt that a terminal-station solution for Euston was somewhat old-fashioned. We should perhaps take as an example Thameslink at St Pancras, which simply has two platforms underneath the station, and the trains come in and they go through. Perhaps we should be thinking now—it would cost money, but then, the plan for Euston station is going to cost a great deal of money—about alternative solutions that might take the lines through to a depot to the east of London. Can the Minister say something about the plans for Euston and how open the department now is to alternative solutions?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, in the late 2000s there was an absolute cross-party ambition in the UK to build a high-speed railway connecting London and the north of England, and ultimately Scotland, and increasing the capacity of our railway was at the core of that ambition. The Liberal Democrats—and I am speaking on behalf of my Benches today—have always supported this. It is not about a nice-to-have, fast, shiny new railway line which we all love, but helping to alleviate the pressure and capacity restrictions on the existing rail network, and supporting growth.
This Statement, the James Stewart review, which is to be commended, and the associated papers set out a damning story of Conservative mismanagement. What should have been a fantastic example of investment, connecting our great cities of Leeds and Manchester with London while boosting economic growth, has in reality been a Treasury spending spree wasting billions of pounds of public money and causing years of delay, based on a political whim of the day. It is a textbook example of how not to build modern infrastructure, and the Conservative Party should be ashamed of their mismanagement.
The Conservative Government focused on a schedule before sufficient design work had taken place—a recipe for disaster that we have seen play out—and constantly changed the scope and requirements of the project. Reading the Statement about HS2 brought back many memories about what happened with Crossrail. There was no real oversight, and there were confused lines of accountability. Key people were not listening to those who were reporting that the build was not on time, and they chose to water down those warnings up the line. There was constant pressure to change the scope, an obsession with an opening date above all else, and a lack of capacity in the Department for Transport to oversee major infrastructure projects.
This reset for High Speed 2 is therefore absolutely welcome. To date, the project has failed to follow international best practice in building major projects. We on these Benches stress how much we welcome the new leadership of Mark Wild, as chief executive of High Speed 2, and his forensic work in unpicking what happened and getting the programme back on track, to a realistic timescale and budget. He took over Crossrail when it was on its knees and turned it around, motivating the team to deliver the Elizabeth Line, which is such a pleasure to use and is one of the busiest train lines in the country. I know he can do the same with High Speed 2.
The project has again shone a light on poor procurement and poor contract management within the Department for Transport. What actions will the Government take to address insufficient capability within the Department for Transport, particularly in commercial and delivery expertise, and client work on major infrastructure projects on this scale? What will the Government do to build trust with local communities and wider stakeholders in this new HS2 project? What changes will the Government make to the governance structure and financing of High Speed 2 to ensure that costs and schedule estimates are reliable? As always, we want to gain wider learnings from this. As I called for after Crossrail—in fact, I briefed a previous chief executive of High Speed 2 and Ministers about the issues we had found during the Crossrail delays—we want to build more transport infrastructure to help our regional economies grow. To do this, however, we need a structure to deliver it on time and on budget.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by emphasising the benefits of a new railway to the Midlands and the north of England. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to the capacity of the West Coast Main Line, and it is not in contention that new capacity needs to be built. Connectivity drives growth, jobs and housing, and the skyline of Birmingham is testimony to Birmingham’s expectations of a faster link to London. Indeed, the Government have put significant money into connectivity for the sports quarter, which, clearly, would not be being proposed were it not for HS2 serving Birmingham in the future. The development opportunities at Old Oak Common are already being realised, as will those at Euston. The benefits of greater connectivity are there to see and are really important for our country and its economic future.
We can also do some big projects. The trans-Pennine route upgrade is a £14 billion project to an existing railway and is on time and budget. But it is true, as both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, that HS2 has gone badly wrong, and it falls to this Government to sort it out, because we cannot carry on like this. Currently, we can predict neither when it will open nor how much it will cost. That is a pretty terrible position to be in and it has to be said the consequences are as a result of actions taken by previous Governments.
I welcome the fact that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness welcomed the appointment of Mark Wild as chief executive and Mike Brown as chair of HS2. I have every confidence that both those people will begin to put this right and fundamentally restructure the company and the approach to the project through a very detailed review of where it is now—because, unless you know where it is now, you will not be able to find out where it is going in the future.
It must be the case that the criticisms of the governance model are justified. Indeed, James Stewart’s report sets out a whole a whole raft of recommendations that the Government have fully accepted. My own department clearly shoulders some culpability. The noble Lord asked what has happened in the department and, although I do not think it is not right to delve into senior personnel, he will, of course, note that a new Permanent Secretary is about to be appointed, the previous incumbent having retired.
We need a new model, but one in which the chair and board of HS2 take a far greater responsibility for the things they should be responsible for. The noble Baroness referred to Crossrail, where it was quite clear that the chair and board were not acting in the interests of the company. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I regard him as the best board member of Crossrail during his time as a non-executive director, because he diligently looked at the progress of the project. Indeed, the then chair of the project complained furiously, to me and others, about the noble Lord’s diligence in inspecting the real state of the project. That was as it should be and it is a shame that HS2’s boards do not seem to have done the same. It is right to have a new chair, and I have no doubt that in due course we will have a new or different board as well.
I will not go through the Stewart report. It contains a raft of recommendations, as I said, all of which the Government have accepted. It is also quite clear that, if you are going to put out big construction contracts, you should have a sponsor capability that is capable of understanding what the contractors are doing as they do it and of measuring how much is done and how much it has cost as it is happening. Mark Wild has found that HS2 itself is fundamentally unable to achieve that in its present state and will therefore change it.
What is in front of us in Mark Wild’s letter to the Secretary of State and the Stewart report is extraordinarily unhappy. Clearly, a number of really bad decisions have been taken. I helped Doug Oakervee with his review in 2020, and his strong recommendation was that the then construction contracts should not have been left in their current form because they had insufficient detail and there was insufficient design and encouragement to the contractors to perform properly and to budget. We can see the result of that here.
I will not go through the Secretary of State’s Statement in detail—because it is already in the public domain—nor the letter or the report. To answer the noble Lord’s question about Euston station, it is clear that Euston station is no longer to be delivered as part of HS2. That cannot be a great surprise because, as the Secretary of State remarked in the other place, faced with a first design that cost a huge amount more than the budget, when HS2 looked at it again, it came back with a design that cost even more—and that is without the air-conditioned platforms that were originally part of the design and were an eye-wateringly unnecessarily feature, since they do not exist even in railways in Saudi Arabia, where you would probably think they might like that sort of thing.
So, it is right for Euston to be dealt with separately. The reason the noble Lord is not aware of a separate company is that the Government have not yet got to that stage. It has taken a long and painful process to get to a stage at which all the parties involved in Euston now agree with the spatial plan, including the developer Lendlease and its new partner, the Crown Estate. The Government are now considering how best to procure that station, which includes an HS2 station and the concourse of the Network Rail station as a combined station, which it always should have been but, certainly when I started chairing the partnership board at Euston, was not. In fact, the original intention was to have two platforms numbered “1” because the HS2 people thought they were building a new railway in a separate station. How stupid was that?
So, we are progressing with Euston as a separate project to be delivered by a separate organisation. There will be more to say in short order, both here and in the other place, but the noble Lord has not missed anything. The state in which even that part of the project was left, after the peremptory cancellation of phase 2a and the statement by the previous Prime Minister that Euston should be built with no public funding, was one where it needed serious work to come to a conclusion. But I do not agree with the noble Lord that we should somehow further alter the design of Euston. We should get on with a plan that works in order to open this railway at the earliest possible time that Mark Wild can predict, at a cost he can predict, and with a delivery plan that will work.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement on HS2 yesterday. It has good detail and a lot of the plans that the Government intend to do. I was also pleased that the latest cost estimate of about £100 billion to get it to Birmingham, is much closer to the one that Michael Byng and I have been peddling for some years. I also welcome the new chief executive and chair of HS2 and, of course, the Ministers, who are both relatively new.
The worry I put to my noble friend is that the four new people at the top, excellent though they will be, have an incredibly difficult job ahead of them. One of the biggest problems is to unpick or change the mouthwatering contracts that most of the contractors have been given by the previous Administration, which means it will be very difficult to know what the future output costs will be and how they will be monitored. So, can one or two people—very good people, with two Ministers in charge—plan this without a much greater root-and-branch change in the Department of Transport and HS2? I hope I am wrong, but I think there is a lot of work to be done there as well.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. There is no latest cost estimate. One of the things we are absolutely resolved to do is not to have such a cost estimate until Mark Wild and the people he is bringing in have been through this project in such detail that an estimate can be reliable. It is not at all satisfactory to have contractors working on such huge contracts without a full understanding by a decent sponsor of what they have delivered as they deliver it, how much it has cost, and what the remaining work is. That is also a feature, because the contracts were let too early and the design was not certain, so all that work needs to be done.
My noble friend is right that four new people by themselves cannot do all this—not by a long chalk. But noble Lords will, I hope, have read Mark Wild’s letter in detail, in which he sets out that, fundamentally, HS2 is unfit for purpose and he will have to restructure that company, alongside getting proper estimates of cost and timescale. He will need some help doing it and much of my and the Secretary of State’s discussion with him in the last weeks and months has been about how many people he needs to do that, who they are, whether we can trust them and how quickly we can get them in. Those elements are all important.
One of the really important things in this is that, I think for the first time for a long time, we will have a chair and a chief executive of HS2 who are communicative, collaborative, straight and honest, and we can have a discussion with them about where this is going and what it is doing. One of the characteristics of this company so far and of the Crossrail company for most of its life is that they were both arrogant enough to believe that they knew what they were doing without any supervision and without telling anybody what was really going on. In both cases, it went badly wrong. Mark knows that he has to change the culture of the company. There clearly are some good people there, but they need to be led and directed properly.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a former Secretary of State for Transport, I think one of rather many in this House, and as an adviser for many years to the Central Japan Railway Company, which is now busy building the fastest railway in the world, the Yamanashi Maglev. It may be of some comfort to all sides of the House that it is running considerably over budget and two or three years late, emphasising the point that these gigantic projects again and again, almost for the last century, have been becoming wildly over budget and raising all sorts of issues, such as social and environmental consequences, that were not seen to start with and were not brought into the consultation. That remains the situation.
I welcome the moves the Government are making to pull it together with the new appointments, which I am sure are of the highest quality. I think we should all try to live with the remarks of the Minister and others that it is all the previous Government’s fault. They always say that. We should swallow our pride and recognise that if we have joint support, all round, of the least partisan and most constructive kind, we will get this project through. My Japanese friends said from the start that building should have begun from the north and come downwards rather than starting from London. There might have been rather different politics if it had.
Is the Minister aware that there will be more overruns? There will be more costs that no one had foreseen. Their efforts should be welcomed, as I said, but they must also be prepared for being quite frank in coming before this House, and obviously the other place, with the details of where the overruns are and how they fit in. There is a much bigger lesson, as my noble friend rightly said in his excellent opening remarks, that in these giant projects, we have not quite got right the co-operation between the Government, the state and the private sector. I see another huge whitish elephant coming up at Sizewell C, not because there should not be nuclear power there—I am all for that—but because it is the wrong design. It is vast. It is going to take years, and it is going to cost nearly the same sort of money in the end as we are spending on this railway. Figures of £30 billion to £40 billion are freely mentioned. There needs to be a vastly greater concentration on combining finance by the state that does not end in borrowing and taxation that we cannot afford with the private sector, where there is lots of money ready to go into well-formed and properly investable projects.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I remind the House that this is an opportunity for Back-Benchers to ask questions. We have several who want to intervene, and we will run out of time if we are not careful.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and former Secretary of State, of which there seem to be very many on the Opposition Benches, for his remarks and observations.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the point of railways is moving people and freight around the country and that the railway system is not a kind of glorified train set for the great men of our age to play with. I have travelled up and down the west coast main line for more than 50 years, and during that period we have all experienced a great deal of trouble and difficulty. Can the Minister confirm that, as well as the other factors that are being taken into account in consideration of this woeful debacle, the interests of the travelling public and their convenience will be at the forefront of the consideration of what happens next?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can indeed absolutely assure the noble Lord of that. One of the difficulties I found in coming into this position is that clearly the previous management of HS2 thought it was a construction project—I think there are some lessons from Crossrail here too. There was a view that somehow it was a big construction project and at the end you incidentally got a railway. That cannot be right. The original justification for this was the capacity constraint on the west coast main line, which is still there, and the projected inability to do anything serious about its capacity without years of disruption. What has resulted is a project that has created years of disruption, but somewhere else other than on the railway. I have it in mind constantly that this project will produce a new railway for the United Kingdom that will be regarded as part of the railway network by its customers. I refer to the ludicrous proposition that Euston should have had two platform 1s. Nobody cares anything about that. What they want is a train to Birmingham or a train to Manchester, and they want it to run reliably. We have that very much in mind. Indeed, Mark Wild, as the chief executive, knows perfectly well that he needs to turn this present construction activity into a railway, which is what he did with the Elizabeth line, and I have every confidence that he will do it again.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, this is a necessary but pretty depressing Statement announcing, as it effectively is, that when it comes to major infrastructure projects, whether they are railways or power stations or airports, this country does them very badly indeed. I hope we learn some lessons from that. I ask my noble friend to reflect that, on timescale, the Victorians managed in a period of 30 years, from 1830 to 1860, to build the whole rail network, and we cannot deal with one line in less time than that. I remind him as well that in the international context, pretty well every other country in the world—Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and others—has been building, is building or has planned major high-speed rail systems. Will my noble friend give us answers to these questions? Why do these projects take so long when we know from our history that it is possible to do them much more speedily? What can we learn from all these other countries that do not seem to have any of the headaches, disasters, mismanagement and overspend that we have in building a very necessary railway because the old Victorian one, wonderful though it was, is crumbling?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is not quite right. We do not always do these things badly. Indeed, I deliberately referred to the trans-Pennine upgrade in my previous remarks because it is a very large project. It is very complex because it is being carried out on an operating railway. Its current value is £14 billion. It has been through innumerable scope changes, sadly, but it is now being delivered on time and badly.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry. That is a slip of the tongue caused by looking at my notes. I should have said on time and on budget. We do not always do them badly.
If noble Lords look at the history of HS2 they will see not limited scope changes but enormous scope changes with miles of the railway being put into tunnels and some technical specifications that, now they are being contemplated, do not look half as clever as they did when somebody suggested the highest-speed high-speed railway in the world, which therefore has to go in very straight lines and might disturb bats and need a bat tunnel when a more modest railway would have gone around that issue rather than straight through it.
I have to say to my noble friend that it is not always true that the Victorians got it right, and I am sure that this must have happened to previous Transport Ministers too. When I got to Network Rail, I remarked that Brunel’s Great Western Railway cost three times what he suggested it would, and about a week later I got a letter in green ink several pages long from a retired engineer, who said that I was entirely wrong and had no idea what I was talking about: it was actually four times more expensive.
Lord Harper (Con)
When I was appointed to lead the Department for Transport, HS2 was already not in great shape, as is well known. I immediately implemented some changes to get a grip of the project by focusing the company on cost control, starting work to renegotiate those big civil contracts that the Minister referred to and cancelling the second phase—which, although controversial at the time, I notice the present Government have not changed—which freed up money to spend on projects across the country. The final thing was to appoint Mark Wild as the new chief executive. I am confident that, with his record in delivering the Elizabeth line, he will achieve great things.
I will ask the Minister two questions. First, I listened carefully to what he said about Euston. Of course, I worked closely with him in his previous incarnation as the chairman of the Euston partnership. Refocusing that as a development-led project with more housing, more business space, and more contribution from private sector investment and less from the taxpayer is the right thing. I am pleased with the progress that has been made. He said he would come back to your Lordships’ House “in short order”; can he give us a bit more detail about what that means? Is that before the Summer Recess or after? I would like to hear more detail.
Secondly, the Minister also referred to the main works civil contracts. We started the work on renegotiating them. Can he say a little more about the progress that has been made? I recognise there is some commercial confidentiality involved there. It was referred to in James Stewart’s report, and it is important to get value for the taxpayer.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the decision to appoint Mark Wild, which was obviously a good thing. The noble Lord is absolutely right that he did take some action. In the light of what has been discovered since, we could question how much action should have been taken, because this Government have clearly now taken some really strong action. In particular, we have had a serious look at governance. As a consequence, there is a new chair and there will no doubt be a new board in due course. That is one of the issues that has needed attention for some time.
I would be less complimentary about the cancellation of phase 2, which was pre-emptory. As for freeing up money, there was no money associated with phase 2. It is true that it would have cost money had it been delivered, but it was a delusion for many parts of the country. The Network North document promised everything to everybody without evidently having money in the short and medium term to deliver it. But everybody has had a part in this, and the truth is that this Government are committing themselves to this fundamental reset. Through that, we will get phase 1 to Birmingham and Old Oak Common and Euston done.
The Government are moving fast on Euston. I doubt we will be able to put anything in front of the House before the Summer Recess, but as soon as we are able to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I will come back about it. The noble Lord is certainly right about the main works civil contracts, but in order to have a reset of those you actually need to know where the project is. If you do not know where the project is and nobody can accurately say how much has been delivered then trying to negotiate your way out of those circumstances is really quite hopeless. Mark Wild is undertaking a granular review of how much has been constructed and how much value has been created through its construction. The noble Lord is right that we have to engage in discussion with the main works civil contractors and their consortia. We will do that in due course, but we first have to know where the project is in order to baseline those discussions.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain exactly what the purpose of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority is? It was created in 2016 and has presided over a number of these types of projects which have not worked out. At the moment, the police are looking to purchase a new radio system, which has gone from £2 billion to £12.5 billion. In all the political knockabout—and I understand why there is political accountability in this—it seems to have been a silent body but, as far as I can see, it was set up to avoid this type of event.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are creating a new body out of the IPA and the NIC. We expect it to assist those projects to help them do these jobs better. There are a number of projects through government that have not gone well either—the project that the noble Lord refers to is one of them. It is really important for a body such as that to embrace the learnings, both from the James Stewart review and from the actual experience of these big projects, and help government not commit the same mistakes again.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, one of the problems encountered by all major projects such as HS2 is the difficulty of getting the public generally on side. I declare an interest here as a former owner of a property that was on the route of the original plans for HS2. I am sure the House will understand the issues that arise when you wake up one morning and discover that your house might have a tunnel underneath it, or worse, and the reaction you have to that.
My question is not so much about the detail of the current report, but to ask whether the department is thinking more widely about how it can get people on board prior to and during the process of planning new infrastructure of this type. Is the department aware of a scheme proposed a few years ago by members of the insurance industry to try to create a fund that would be available to remove blight from the political issues that departments face when making proposals? If he has not heard of that or had any discussions with it, would he receive a representation from me on it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is right to say that the public need to be onside with these huge projects. Although, clearly, this is a high-speed rail project, I started what I said today with a reminder about the benefits of it because it is too easy just to refer to the project as a project without referring to why it needs to be done. I think there are some lessons in that. The other thing is that massive scope changes, such as the deletion of whole legs of a scheme, lead people to the conclusion that the original proposition was somehow not justified, and that is to be deeply regretted.
In detail, I have had many representations—as, no doubt, my predecessors did—from individual landowners, and it is clear that, in some cases, HS2 has not behaved properly or with due speed in what must be, personally and commercially, worrying and trying circumstances for individual landowners. We have just appointed a new commissioner for construction and residents, and I look to HS2 and to that commissioner to act with alacrity on some of the long-running claims that have clearly blighted individuals’ lives. I would like to hear further from the noble Lord about what he refers to, and I hope he will write to me.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Longfield
“(c) a supported accommodation setting in England.”
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 142 is in my name. It sets out to make the case for the inclusion of supported accommodation in the scope of the proposed profit cap. Following clarification from my noble friend the Minister, including in answers to questions in earlier groups in Committee, I am content that that is the case, and that the intention is to include supported accommodation within these measures, so I will not be moving this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I am sorry but, having spoken to the amendment, the noble Baroness must move it so that others can comment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 142A to 142C, 504A and 505A are in my name. I will not speak to Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and I thank her for giving me advance notice of her intentions. I will also probe the merits of Clause 15 standing part of the Bill.
Amendment 142A mirrors my earlier Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A, which would have excluded natural persons with a role in the management of a business from receiving personal financial penalties. I have reread the Minister’s remarks in Hansard from our debate on Tuesday, and I confess I am still not entirely clear about the status of a natural person who is registered at Companies House. The Minister said earlier that the figure of 10 operators out of over 2,700 was based on Companies House data. Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what legal status an organisation registered with Companies House has if it is not a company. If it is a company, I am not sure what the status of a natural person is.
The reason for these amendments is simple, as I set out before. It is based on a concern that, without these amendments, the Bill will limit the number of people who are prepared to take senior management responsibility in such providers and will lead to providers exiting the sector. I may have misunderstood what is meant by “an operator”—namely, that it is the owner of a business rather than the senior management—but perhaps the Minister could clarify both those points when she sums up.
Amendments 142B and 142C would limit the maximum fine for a provider to 10% of its turnover and, if imposed on a natural person, to £100,000. We have heard that margins in the children’s home sector average 22%, although in the LGA-commissioned report this figure is taken from, the range of margins is very wide. If we took 10% of a company’s turnover and accepted an average margin of 22%, that would be almost 50% of its profits, which surely is a very strong incentive to avoid being fined. Can the Minister set out what level of fine the Government expect to impose and what the criteria will be for different levels of financial penalty?
Amendments 504A and 505A would delay the commencement of Clause 15 until the Secretary of State has published a report that sets out the current levels of capacity in independent children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and, perhaps, based on the Minister’s remarks on Tuesday, supported accommodation. Again, I wonder whether she could confirm that last point.
The report would also need to have an impact assessment on the number of available placements in relevant homes or agencies. I am definitely not an expert on regulatory impact assessments, I confess, but the Government’s own regulatory impact assessment has, to my amateur eyes, clear gaps; hence the need for my Amendments 504A and 505A.
In the section of the document titled “Expected impacts on businesses”, it states:
“It is not possible for the department to monetise the impact of any future profit cap at this stage. This is because the impact will depend on both the level at which any future cap is set and the market conditions—including profit levels, supply and demand and diversity of provision—at the time that a cap were introduced. Attempting to include straw man figures at this stage—far in advance of any decision about whether or not to introduce a profit cap—would be unhelpful and would have the potential to adversely impact the market by driving providers to make incorrect assumptions about the future level of any future cap based on such figures”.
My amendments would bridge this gap by requiring the publication of an impact assessment when the Government are clear on what their approach to a profit cap will be and by capturing the baseline data on capacity so that the impact of a future cap can be analysed and understood.
My reason for questioning the approach to capping profits as set out in Clause 15 is based partly on the concerns expressed by the Competition and Markets Authority. It was very clear in its report that
“taking measures that directly limit prices and profits, would further reduce the incentives of private providers to invest in creating new capacity (or even to maintain some current capacity)”.
I wonder what assessment the Government made of this risk which led them to ignore the CMA’s advice. Can the Minister set out what impact the department believes this measure will have on investment in sector? What do the latest figures show?
More broadly, there is an important point of principle here. As David Rowland, the director of the Centre for Health and the Public Interest, wrote in a blog published by the London School of Economics in December 2024, if the Government decide that one sector has excessive profiteering and will cap the level of profit in that sector,
“there is no good reason for it not to be extended to other areas as well”.
I wonder what other areas the Government might be considering. David Rowland’s work has highlighted other areas where companies are profiting from—I quote the right honourable Secretary of State for Education—the trauma and abuse of
“some of the most vulnerable children in our country””.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 27.]
This includes in the management of sexual assault referral centres which serve children, where he cites one business as generating 25% margins after tax—much higher than the 22% margin on earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation generated by the average children’s home. Might this be an area in which the Government are considering profit caps?
It would also be helpful if the Minister could confirm what operating margin, as opposed to EBITDA margin, the Government think is acceptable for operators of children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and supported accommodation. What is the figure for operating margins today? The figures in the LGA-commissioned report that the Government reference in their regulatory impact assessment are for earnings before interest, depreciation, amortisation and tax, and date from 2023. They are for around the 20 largest providers only. Why have the Government not done their own analysis of profitability across the sector, rather than relying on an external document that is two years old and looks at only part of the sector?
On Tuesday, after I gave my back-of-the-envelope figure of, from memory, £500 million or £600 million, the Minister quoted the sector as having a combined EBITDA of £310 million. But this figure from the Government’s own report, which is taken from the LGA’s analysis, covers just the 19 largest providers of children’s homes. The report goes on to say that the top 22 providers own 40% of children’s homes. That, of course, will not necessarily equate to 40% of profit, but it seems clear that £310 million is not the right number. The Minister should set the record straight at some point—if not now, then in a letter.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech makes me think that looking at what “excessive profit” means, or at least what the Government think about it, would not be a bad idea, because we are agreed that these services are often gone to because the state cannot or will not provide them. What we consider to be reasonable to pay for them is something the whole Committee should be concerned about. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Government have given this some deep thought, and finding out in a little more detail what that will be will help consideration on this and forthcoming business. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as I said in Committee on Tuesday, in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found the children’s social care placement market to be dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. Most significantly, notwithstanding the profit levels that are being made, we know that there are still insufficient high-quality placements for children who desperately need them. To that extent, the profit levels being made are not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested, driving the sort of supply that we want to see.
The amendments in this group cover Clauses 15, 16 and 17, which implement important legislative elements of our children’s social care placement market reforms: the new profit-capping powers and their associated financial penalties. Introducing profit-capping powers will ensure that we have further powers to curb profiteering if the wider package of measures that I outlined on Tuesday, which we expect to rein in excessive profit-making, do not have their intended effect. This is a power to have in place if other elements of the programme do not work.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill. Having outlined the broad intention of the profit cap, I want to be clear that, although some private providers are clearly doing brilliant work, we want to ensure that all providers deliver high-quality placements at sustainable cost. As I say, we know that this is not always happening.
The Competition and Markets Authority found the market to be dysfunctional and estimated that the largest private children’s social care placement providers were making profit margins of between 19% and 36%—well above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. As I have said previously, excess profits have not led to sufficient supply in this market. Furthermore, making these levels of profit from providing placements for some of our most vulnerable children is unacceptable and must end.
This clause provides important backstop powers to ensure that the Government can take action, if needed, to end profiteering. It also sends a clear signal to providers that the Government will not hesitate to take regulatory action to restrict this unacceptable behaviour if profit-making is not reined in. It is not the Government’s intention to extend these powers to any other sectors at this point, although I can confirm that the provisions would cover supported accommodation, along with the other elements noble Lords have already outlined.
To be frank, I hope that it does not become necessary to use these powers. I hope that people see the writing on the wall that there is an impact from the other elements of the Government’s plans, and that we see profits delivered at a more reasonable level and, more importantly, placement sufficiency improving. However, if it became necessary to use these powers, the clause already includes important safeguards through restrictions on the powers to ensure that they are used appropriately. Of course, if they were to be used, the point at which that was determined would be dependent on market conditions and profit levels at that particular point.
Regulations may be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary on value-for-money grounds. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the welfare of looked-after children and the interests of local authorities and providers, including the opportunity to make a profit. Crucially, this clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations. This will be particularly important to ensure that all interests are considered in determining issues, such as how a cap would be calculated and the level at which it would be set. That would be the point at which the particular nature of profit levels—which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about—would be considered in detail. In addition, Clause 15 also provides for regulations to be made that set out important details about the administration of any future profit cap by providing for annual returns from registered providers and the ability to request supplementary information. I hope that noble Lords can see from the discussions we have had on this Bill—notwithstanding other areas—just how important these powers are to ensuring that the Government can take proportionate action, if needed, to restrict profit-making in the market.
Amendments 504A and 505A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to require the Secretary of State to publish a report that would clarify the supply and capacity of independent children’s homes and independent fostering agencies, and the expected impact of the profit cap on the number of available placements, before Clause 15 is commenced. To reiterate, if the profit cap was to be commenced, this would be at a later stage, at which there may well be a different set of market conditions. We intend to use the powers in Clause 15 only if profiteering is not brought under control through the wider package of measures that we have set out.
The consultation requirement in this clause is particularly important because it will outline the details of the proposed cap itself and require the Government to respond and publish that response. This will set out our rationale, including on the matters in the noble Baroness’s amendment, if we judge that a cap is needed. In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations will set out the policy rationale. In effect, that already fulfils the aim of these amendments to require a report to be published. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, the regulations will, of course, be made by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be the opportunity to cover these matters in debate and address their potential impact. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that a report on the impact and design of the profit cap would be necessary before it could be implemented.
I turn to Amendment 142A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to impose financial penalties. I understand her specific questions. We expect the vast majority of any penalties issued to fall on corporate structures of one form or another. First, however, as we said on Tuesday, an individual might run a provider within scope—for example, a children’s home—as a sole trader. It would seem strange and surprising if that sole trader were making profits that would be likely to breach a cap, but it would be a bit bizarre if that were way to avoid a profit cap, were it to be necessary to introduce one.
Secondly, even within a corporate structure, there might be an individual who is personally culpable for a breach under the requirements of Clauses 14 and 15. The ability to issue a financial penalty in those circumstances might act as a strong deterrent—the finance director, for example. Of course, the Government do not intend to issue financial penalties that would be disproportionate or unfair on an individual. Indeed, Clause 17 sets out a number of factors that must be considered in determining the amount of a penalty. These include the impact of that penalty on the person in question, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and any past breaches and mitigating or aggravating factors.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 142B and 142C, which seek to restrict the financial penalty that may be imposed for breaches. While the Bill does not limit the financial penalty that can be issued for a breach of the requirements, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that, importantly, we will set the maximum amount in regulations, after we have engaged in full consultation with interested parties to determine the most appropriate maximum for any financial penalties. That will allow us to adjust the maximum amount over time, as necessary, and regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will afford Parliament the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the Government’s proposals, and the Government to provide timely answers at that point to issues such as profit levels and operating arrangements, which the noble Baroness identified. Of course, even if a maximum amount is set, that does not necessarily mean that a provider would automatically be fined the maximum amount. As set out in Clause 17, there will be discretion when determining an appropriate amount for any financial penalty.
I hope that that provides more clarification of some of the meanings in this clause, that it responds appropriately to the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled, and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has the right to reply.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I have already indicated my intention to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply.
On the point of principle—why you would put a profit cap on one area of the economy where you think there is profiteering on the back of vulnerable children, but not on another—the Minister said that there was no intention to extend this; indeed, she said that she hoped it would not be used. I certainly agree with that, but I do not really understand why, where children have been sexually assaulted or raped and companies are making far higher profit margins than the ones we are talking about here, the Government would choose to apply a profit cap on one and not the other. That does not feel very coherent to me.
I also felt that the Minister was slightly selective in the quotes she chose to identify from the Competition and Markets Authority report. The CMA was clear that it thought that a profit cap was not a good idea. I would also like to clarify something for the record. I think the Minister suggested that I said that current margins were driving supply. I said that current margins, according to the recent data, are uneven and actually falling, so I did not suggest that they were driving supply.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness cited analysis that expressed a concern that by capping profits, you would somehow or other reduce supply in the market. I was simply making the point that the converse—that is, excessive profits—has not driven supply in the market.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand that, and I stand by what I said. There is a risk that this will result in an exiting of capacity, and that the reverse of what the Government rightly want to happen will happen: that in some areas that will put even more pressure on capacity and price. I do not accept that you can say on the one hand that these margins are unacceptable, but, on the other, you cannot say what is acceptable.
What we are seeing is a failure of commissioning. One of my amendments in an earlier group—I think it was Amendment 119ZA, but I may be wrong—sought to align the interests of children and those of operators. The commissioning model we have today is not working, and that needs to be fundamentally addressed. Maybe the Government could reconsider their response. We have examples in defence and pharmaceuticals of commissioners setting what is an acceptable margin, and providers bidding or not bidding based on that margin. I do not understand why the Government cannot say what an acceptable margin would be.
I accept that the Minister’s response to my Amendments 504A and 505A goes at least some way towards what I was aiming for. I was more troubled by her response on natural persons. I thought we were talking about 10 sole traders, but we are now talking about finance directors in businesses, so I think that my concerns are entirely valid.
On financial penalties, my recollection, which may be wrong, is that we have a limit on fines in the Online Safety Act. The Minister will correct me if it is in regulations but, if it is in that Act, I do not see why it cannot be in this Bill too. That matters because we need local authorities, charities, social enterprises or the private sector to add capacity in those areas and, without certainty, they could be forgiven for hesitating.
A striking omission in the Minister’s remarks—perhaps she could respond in writing on this—concerns what was said at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday about the level of profitability in the sector. I think I am right in saying that the figure was for 19 businesses and not the whole sector. I repeat: the financial regime that the department wants to introduce is very sophisticated, and I do not think it fair to send a Minister to the Dispatch Box with out-of-date and incorrect data.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this stand part notice is to probe, and therefore understand, what changes the Government intend to make to the regulation of agency social workers and how those changes will work in practice.
I am very well aware of the concerns about social worker recruitment, but I was in fact slightly surprised when preparing for this debate to find that, as of 30 September 2024, there were 34,300 children and family social workers in total, which I gather is the peak since data started to be collected in 2017; and 6,500 agency social workers, which is the lowest since data collection started. Vacancies fell by 6.9% year on year, there was a drop in staff turnover of 13.8% and the average caseload fell to 15.4%. The vacancy rate is still high at 17%, but down from 22% in 2022, and 76% of vacancies were filled by agency social workers. Retention has improved, with the number leaving to work in an agency falling by 38%, while the number of social workers leaving the profession entirely fell by 5.3%. So I know the situation on the ground is extremely difficult, but I think it is helpful to have a bit of context.
As I understand it, in terms of the current regulatory environment, agency children and family social workers are covered by the Agency Rules: Statutory guidance for Local Authorities on the Use of Agency Child and Family Social Workers of September 2024. As I understand it, this has the same aims as the proposed regulations: to control costs, improve quality, reduce turnover and ensure that governance is retained by local authorities. Two main requirements are planned to be implemented this year: first, there must be data collection by local authorities on the number of agency workers, with the first submission having happened in April and May 2025; and, secondly, that local authorities must submit plans on locally agreed price caps by this October. The main thrust of Clause 19, therefore, is to make regulations for what is already covered in statutory guidance.
The department’s policy summary says that the Government intend to regulate
“a broader cohort of agency workers than child and family social workers including, but not limited to, social workers”—
forgive me for being slow, but it is not the clearest explanation. The summary goes on to state:
“The regulations are likely to include similar provision to the current statutory guidance which currently applies to social workers only, but to a wider cohort of workers”.
Sir Humphrey would be proud.
In the other place, the Minister for School Standards said on 28 January that this could include
“agency workers delivering targeted early intervention or family help”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 28/1/25; col. 234.]
I therefore ask: are the Government’s plans restricted to these two groups only, and if not, who else will be covered? How many of those workers are there nationally? And what is the current cost of agency workers in the different categories to local authorities? The proposal to expand the replacement regulations to a wider cohort is not defined anywhere in the Bill or the accompanying policy summary, so it would help to understand the Government’s intentions better.
Can the Minister also explain how the regulations will differ in terms of local discretion from the current statutory guidance? I am unclear on this, but perhaps suspicious that it might result in a more directive approach from the department and less discretion for local authorities themselves. Can she confirm that there will be exceptions to the specific requirements detailed in the regulations, for example for payments above the national rate if there is a local staffing crisis?
The Minister knows that the use of agency workers varies greatly across the country, but the powers in this clause are wide-ranging and—yet again—are going to be set out in regulations. The powers in new Section 32A(4)(b) and (c) appear to be very broad indeed, including about how social workers will be managed and the terms on which they may be supplied, including the amounts that may be paid under such arrangements. This would allow the Secretary of State to set payment rates from Whitehall. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can explain to the Committee why this is a good idea.
The fundamental problem underlying this clause is, as we debated in the area of children’s homes and foster placements, a shortage of capacity. No local authority is using agency workers other than because it has no choice but to do so. The previous Government had taken steps to address this with the Step Up to Social Work scheme and the creation of social work apprenticeships. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of these? I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave the background in terms of the statistics and figures, which make for quite a salutary understanding. Agency workers are, as we know, three times more likely to leave a case mid-assessment compared with permanent staff, which obviously would increase risks to children. Let us remember that local authorities spend £500 million annually on agency social workers—on average 60% to 70% more per worker than on permanent staff. Inconsistencies of local policies allow agency staff to move frequently between councils, undermining safeguarding and continuity and, of course, causing resource churn—what a phrase, “resource churn”.
Some rural and high-need areas rely on agency workers due to staff shortages, with poorly defined regulation risks shrinking this vital stopgap workforce. Do we ensure that the training, supervision and caseload standards for agency workers are the same as those of permanent staff? I worry considerably that we see permanent local authority staff taking early redundancy payments and then reappearing as agency workers. In some cases—I do not know whether this is the case with social workers; my research has not shown me that yet—they are then reappointed by other local authorities. That surely cannot be right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to raise that, but—I hope she will not take this the wrong way—the figures that she cited are as much the responsibility of the previous Government as they are figures that the present Government have had to inherit. Towards the end, she mentioned some of the initiatives that her Government had started; I do not know whether the Minister has a briefing on them, but it would be interesting to know whether they have at all been helpful.
One thing I cannot understand—well, I can understand it—is that many public services face a shortage of public service workers. It is not just social workers; it is right across the board—teachers spring to mind. Yet at the same time our universities face shortages of students wanting to come to university. Surely, that is a way of sorting that out. Why do people not want to go into social work? I know why; you know why. Why do people not want to go into teaching? I know why; you know why. That is the answer to the problem: we want to make people want to be teachers and social workers, and we want our higher education and further education sectors to be geared up to that. The Government’s mantra, which we all agree with, is, “Training, training, training”, but training is no use if people are not prepared to take it up. This is a classic example of the problem we face.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I agree with all the questions that have been asked by the previous speakers. The use of agency workers is apparent when we see the variety of people who come to court to give evidence. Obviously, there is a problem of lack of capacity, but there are two real problems. The first is the higher cost of agency workers and the second is the lack of continuity which their use involves. Continuity is particularly important when one is considering work involving families and children, who need familiarity and continuity. The noble Lord is quite right. Surprisingly, sometimes the same worker reappears, no longer as an employed social worker but as an agency worker, and one is frankly pleased to see a familiar face. But also, too often, it is somebody completely different who has not grasped the basics of what has been happening hitherto.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, Clause 19 allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified some of the progress being made in the staffing of children’s social care. I can confirm that the current level of agency use in the sector stands at 16.2%, a small fall on the previous year, but she is also right, of course, that this varies considerably from authority to authority.
What I would say about that 16.2% is that, in essence, more than one in eight of the people who are working in children’s social care do not have the long-term association with their employers that we would expect to see in any service where we were able to provide the training, the stability and the certainty about future costs that we would want. It is considerably higher than in similar sectors, whether in the health service or in education.
Agency work continues to be a considerable issue within children’s social care. That is not to say that there is not excellent work being carried out by individual agency social workers—I know from my previous experience in Sandwell Children’s Trust that there are many excellent agency workers. Nevertheless, the cost and stability issues that I have outlined remain serious for local authorities and those providing children’s social care. This clause ensures that while agency workers will remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they will not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce. It will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services.
I accept that progress has been made since the introduction by the last Government of the statutory guidance relating to local authority children’s social care services, but that was limited specifically to social workers. We want to extend the framework beyond social workers to the wider local authority children’s social care workforce, including workers such as those delivering early intervention or family help.
A new phenomenon has come into the workforce, and particularly agency provision within children’s social care: that of project teams, where agencies provide not just individual workers but teams to respond to particular challenges. In doing that, partly through the associated management costs and partly through the range of different workers, there are even larger uplifts in the amount of money charged to local authorities. I have seen from personal experience that it is not unusual for social workers and other staff in those teams to be earning £50 an hour or upwards. We may well think that people who are doing this important work are worth £50 an hour, but that is a considerable and, some might argue, unaffordable premium over social workers and other workers who are employed on a permanent basis with teams.
There is a broader range of workers that we should cover here, and a requirement to strengthen some of the principles in the statutory guidance, both by widening it and by this legislative provision. We will of course work in partnership with stakeholders across the system, including agencies, to ensure that the proposals implemented are proportionate and effective. They will make clear to local authorities, the recruitment sector and agency workers what they should expect from one another, and the consistency that this brings to the market will benefit all parties. If we are able by doing this to reduce local authority spend on agency workers, that will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees.
I take the broader point that one important way of solving this problem of agency workers is to ensure that those permanently employed, either as social workers or doing other work in children’s social care, get the rewards that they deserve, receive the training that they need in order to get the career satisfaction and progression that they would want, and are employed by local authorities and children’s trusts in ways that value them and provide them with the resources they need. All those things are important, and the Government are addressing them all, but that does not remove the requirement that we believe exists for a stronger ability to make regulations covering children’s social workers and to broaden the scope of those regulations, which is what this clause enables us to do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and her explanation. I think I understand now the scope that the Government intend in terms of the wider social care workforce, although I did not hear her give the Government’s estimate of the number of agency workers involved in that area and the cost to local authorities. Maybe if the department has that data, it could write to us and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of social workers retiring and then reappearing, magically, as agency social workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, highlighted the impact of that in a court setting, with the obvious cost to the local authority and the disruption and lack of continuity. Given that this builds very much on the statutory guidance that we prepared when in government, we hope that this works really well for the Government in achieving greater affordability and continuity of staff.
I guess we are in a world where the working environment has changed, and social workers can now do a couple of days a week of agency work and work from home the rest of the time. Those are challenges that I am sure the Government are wrestling with, and we wish them every success in so doing.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
(e) to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and relevant young persons.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to expand and strengthen Clause 21 by replacing the light-touch duty to be “alert to” their needs with a stronger requirement for public bodies to have “due regard” to eliminating disadvantage and to take reasonable steps to mitigate any harmful effects of their policies. The amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, lifelong safeguard for anyone who has ever been in care.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I move the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In relation to Amendment 146B, 120 councils around the country have already committed themselves voluntarily to embrace the “due regard” implementation, but this amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, legislative and lifelong safeguard across government for anyone who has ever been in care.
The tragic case of Nonita Grabovskyte starkly demonstrates the urgent necessity for this amendment. Nonita’s death highlighted severe systemic failures by the corporate parent and associated agencies, as identified by the recent inquest. These failures directly contributed to her preventable death, underscoring how critical it is that public bodies proactively mitigate the disadvantages faced by care leavers. Had all parties exercised due regard to eliminate these disadvantages, Nonita’s death might have been prevented.
Ground-breaking research from University College London reveals that care leavers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than their peers, living on average 20 years fewer. Adults who spent time in care between 1971 to 2001 were significantly more vulnerable to premature mortality, including unnatural deaths such as suicides or accidents.
Terry Galloway, who campaigns passionately for these changes, personally embodies these stark statistics. Terry and his siblings, Hazel and James, were all care experienced. Tragically, Hazel and James died prematurely, embodying the cruel reality highlighted by UCL’s research. Shortly before Hazel was murdered by domestic violence, she and Terry made a solemn promise to change the care system to prevent others from enduring their experiences. Terry’s journey through care was marked by abuse, repeated separations from his siblings and frequent moves involving over 100 different placements.
Children who have experienced abuse and neglect prior to, or during, their time in care may remain at heightened risk of similar abuse as they enter adulthood and beyond. The clause in the Bill that requires public bodies merely to be “alert” to these issues is insufficient. Having due regard requires active, preventative measures through impact assessments, to genuinely protect vulnerable young adults from repeated victimisation.
The urgency is not only in terms of the policy enaction of the corporate parent system and the Government but around the cultural context. This amendment is necessary not only for legal clarity, but to counter negative perceptions of care-experienced young people, exemplified by a recent Reform councillor’s statement characterising children in care as
“not just naughty children, they can be downright evil”.
Such harmful rhetoric underscores why robust legal protections and proactive obligations are essential for systemic cultural change and safeguarding the well-being and futures of care-experienced individuals.
Amendment 147A strengthens the existing duty, moving beyond simply being aware of the needs of children in care and requiring much more active engagement. If a school policy affects children in care, the school must consider how that policy might disadvantage them and take steps to mitigate any negative impacts, such as providing additional support or adjusting the policy. This would strengthen the corporate parenting responsibilities in a way that will actually make a difference to people’s lives.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions thus far. Amendment 146B in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester seeks to strengthen the duty on the local authority to ensure that it has due regard to that very duty to either remove or minimise the disadvantages faced by looked-after children. In applying this language, the local authority has a stronger legal duty to support the looked-after children in its area. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for putting the case so well.
Amendment 147A, also in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, builds on the previous amendment in the right reverend Prelate’s name, and would require local authorities not only to be aware of the disadvantages that looked-after children in their area face but also to take steps to avoid and reduce these disadvantages. It is vitally important that local authorities fully support the looked-after children in their area and that they take all the steps and precautions possible to prevent looked-after children from being harmed in any way by the policies they introduce. These amendments seem entirely sensible, and we thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing these issues to the Committee.
Amendment 151 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities in Schedule 1. This amendment seeks to ensure that the future career opportunities of looked-after children are considered as a priority, which is most appropriate. There are an alarming number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and this amendment seeks to quite rightly place importance on finding young people who were previously looked-after children appropriate career development opportunities.
I hope all noble Lords would agree that giving disadvantaged young people the best career advice possible and helping them on that route-to-employment journey is absolutely essential. Whether it be assisting with writing CVs and cover letters, preparing for interviews, gaining work experience and job trialling, providing guidance and support for individuals looking to start their own businesses or providing detailed knowledge of the local labour markets to help employers find the right candidates, these are essential foundation stones to help our young workforce.
Our Amendment 152A addresses the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which included the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Finlay and Lady Ramsey, regarding Clause 24:
“we recommend that the guidance is made subject to parliamentary scrutiny, with the draft negative procedure offering an appropriate level of scrutiny”.
His Majesty’s Government’s Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, are technical amendments and seek only to clarify the reference to integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts, and His Majesty’s Official Opposition will not seek to oppose them.
We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these important amendments and trust that His Majesty’s Government will see fit to acknowledge and incorporate into the Bill these positive amendments.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, these amendments go to one of the most important points about just how important the parent is in a child’s upbringing. Many years ago I came across a piece of black humour that never seems to stop giving: the first thing that a disabled child, or a child with special educational needs, must do to be a success is to choose their parents correctly. Without that back-up, you are asking a lot of any system. Making sure that all the systems take that seriously is key.
The situation has got better and there has been progress, but we are not there yet. The statistics—which we all have in front of us and have all talked about—prove that. Still, people who lack that strong body of support tend to fail, and often quite dramatically. Success—even moderate success—within that group is celebrated, so it is important that we go forward with this work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—who is my friend—and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, were right to table an amendment saying that jobcentres should be brought into this. That would expand the web of support and make sure it goes wide and goes through. If people do not have the central drive, we will need a wider net to pick them up when they slip. I hope that the Government will give us some positive response to this approach, because it is needed. They have gone far; go a little further.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 151. My friend—the noble Lord, Lord Addington—has done my job for me, but I will not be done out of my few moments to speak.
I am absolutely thrilled that the Bill seeks to strengthen the support provided to looked-after children and care leavers. I seek to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of organisations classified as a relevant authority. Currently, the authorities listed—I will not name every single one—include central government, education, health and youth justice. On a previous amendment I gave something of a statistic sandwich, but let me remind noble Lords of those figures. As at May 2025, there were 923,000 NEETs, and 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. Some 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution, and 25% of the adult prison population, have been in care. That is frightening.
Ultimately, the Bill seeks to improve outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers, but the one organisation that is missing is Jobcentre Plus. I have known that organisation for—I do not want to give away my age—35 to 40 years. I know people who have worked there for 25 years; they ring me and tell me about all the things they are doing or are struggling with. Jobcentre Plus has an excellent network of staff and of third-sector and other organisations that, collectively, can wrap these people up in their arms and make sure that we improve outcomes for young people. The rationale for its existence is sustainable employment—which is critical to care leavers and looked-after children—and jobcentres are already delivering services aligned with the Bill’s aspiration.
Recently I went to visit the Margate task force. It is in a room not much smaller than this wonderful Chamber, but it has Jobcentre Plus, the police, immigration and social services in there—you name it, it is there. The youngsters and the people at most risk of getting themselves into trouble are known to them all, and when there is a problem they can sort it. I cannot speak highly enough of the potential for them to be added to this list.
Formal inclusion of jobcentres would ensure accountability and consistency in the quest. Their role has the potential to improve outcomes for all young people, particularly those who are in care and looked after, and help them make a good transition to the world of work, giving them the best start in life. I spent yesterday talking to another organisation about how, if we started this thing in schools, if we got hold of them and started early, we could prevent a lot of this happening—but you have heard all that from me before, so I will not go on again.
I urge the Minister to include jobcentres and their network of excellent delivery partners in the list of relevant authorities. I look forward to her reply and live in hope that she will do this or, if not, help us understand why.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, all these amendments help in some way and are important. It seems to me that Thursday afternoon in the Chamber has become friends day. I will add just a few thoughts. On the whole issue of children in care, we have constantly said that we should do everything that we possibly can to support those children and young people.
To add to the figures that the noble Earl gave, 13% of care leavers go on to higher education by the age of 19, but that compares with 43% of all young people. They also have higher rates of homelessness, unemployment and mental illness. The noble Earl mentioned those young people not in education, employment or training, and those figures are starting to deteriorate rather than improve. We need to watch that situation very carefully.
On balance, I support Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, but I just make this additional point: expanding duties to more bodies may stretch already underresourced systems, especially if there is no additional funding allocated to support any legal changes.
I will make one point that has not been mentioned by any noble Lord. It is about children in care who do not have British citizenship and lack the support to secure it, risking detention, loss of rights or removal. As we know, the average cost of registration is £1,012, and that is often a significant barrier. Immigration and asylum decision-making has historically failed to consider the welfare of children, particularly those under Section 22 of the Children Act. Maybe the Minister can respond to that issue when she replies.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Lord’s point about resources and stretching people too far is well made. I would never want to do that, but these people are doing it now. I sat with a lady who has worked for the jobcentre for 25 years. People she has helped still come to her before they get into trouble, and I just think it is well worth considering.
Lord Storey (LD)
For a number of years, when the noble Baroness’s Government were running things, I was always concerned about the issue of Jobcentre Plus mentors, who are hugely important in this area, and was trying to probe to find out what training they had. I never got a straight answer, and never found out whether they were equipped with the tools to do the work, particularly in this area.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s amendment on jobcentres. I hear the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about resource stretch, but from my own experience of this in my academy trust, we have about 50 looked-after children, and I require a report on them to come to every one of the trustees’ board meetings. It does not cost anything, but it just gives a little bit of focus to these very vulnerable children.
The same could apply in jobcentres; it just needs an asterisk by the person’s name so that when the advisor is talking to him or her, they can use a little bit more empathy and maybe ask a couple more questions about the status of that child. I strongly support my noble friend and hope that the Government will support her amendment as well.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions.
By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them.
There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas.
We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so determined, persistent and absolutely dedicated on behalf of other young people across the whole of the country, so I pay tribute to him from us all.
Government Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith are minor and technical amendments simply to improve the drafting of the list of corporate parents in Schedule 1. Amendments 148 and 149 add clarity to the definition of integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts. Amendment 150 clarifies that the reference to NHS trusts in the list of corporate parents applies only to NHS trusts in England.
Clause 21 sets out the responsibilities to be introduced for corporate parents, and the duty aims to drive a widespread culture change across the public sector, which will involve adapting services; increasing awareness of matters that adversely affect looked-after children and care leavers; importantly, tackling stigma and discrimination; and improving all aspects of their lives.
Clause 23 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively when performing their respective corporate parenting duties. This would prevent silo working—we are all well aware of how damaging people working in their narrow fields can be, particularly in this very important area—and highlight where duplication of effort sometimes gets in the way and how we can make sure that the conversations happen between all relevant people, to help deliver targeted and timely support. Running through all this is a constant reminder of the importance of listening to young people themselves and making sure that their influence is heard and acted upon. We have experience at local authority level of making departments work with responsibility, picking up the corporate parenting responsibilities. That experience will help inform the work of the national institutions to show that it is not only the right thing to do but is empowering in its own right and changes behaviours in a very constructive and positive way.
I turn to Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I want to continue to bring noble Lords together in their mutual admiration, and I would hate to get in the way of this. The amendment seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities to which the corporate parenting duty applies. Of course, I recognise the passion for this area of work and, importantly, for the personnel who deliver the services. We know that the statistics are far from where they need to be, which is why this Government are absolutely determined to work in this space to make sure that the opportunities we create are available for all. That has to be a basic understanding. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that Jobcentre Plus plays the crucial role in supporting care leavers in making that difficult transition to parenthood, whether through training or a whole range of different skills, I am pleased to be able to reassure her that her amendment is not necessary, as Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions and therefore is already in scope of the measures by virtue of the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have several other examples of good practice in this space—
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will consider whether that is necessary when I get to the end of my speaking notes.
To continue, the corporate parenting responsibilities will also apply to bodies that exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as the Prison and Probation Service. Of course, there should be real overlap between the different services in this regard. This will be explained in statutory guidance. So that it can be rolled out properly, it is absolutely crucial that, as it is written, the statutory guidance is co-produced and everyone has an opportunity to put money in.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have no desire to put pressure on the Minister, because I know what it is like to be there, responding to a debate. She is doing very well and giving us confidence. Can she tell the House when the statutory guidance might be available? Can she go back and talk to colleagues and see whether there is any clarification she could put in writing to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just made and to the points in my contribution? Or could we have a cup of tea and talk about it? That might sound better to her; I see that she is smiling.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am from Yorkshire. A cup of tea and perhaps a piece of cake or a biscuit would be absolutely great.
This is a very important point. We want to reassure the House of the level of detail that is going to go into this. I cannot give a guarantee of exact timing, but I am happy to keep the conversations going. While we are on the same page, I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a valid point about the risk of increasing burdens, but I want to reassure him that the responsibilities do not require corporate parents to provide new services or to make specific policy changes that are not compatible with their wider priorities or affordable within their existing budgets. The broad duties can be implemented in a way that reflects the nature and circumstances of the individual corporate parent. I made the point earlier that it is the culture change—the different way of approaching this— that is critical to make sure that this is picked up across the board and drives its way through.
I turn to Amendments 146B and 147A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and brought to the House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—I thank him for doing that and for the way that he got over the points that I know from previous experience that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was concerned about. I have been involved in debates with him on these issues over the last few months and recognise his concern and passion for this area.
These amendments probe the extent to which the corporate parenting responsibilities will lead to action by corporate parents in removing or minimising the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and care leavers, or in taking steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on them. I agree with the amendments’ intention, but I am satisfied that this is achieved through the duties set out in Clause 21 requiring corporate parents to be alert to matters which might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, to assess the availability and accessibility of their services, and to seek to provide opportunities to participate in activities which enhance their well-being or employment prospects. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to highlight the rhetoric that can be so damaging, which means that these areas of work are still necessary.
There are plenty of examples of action taken to minimise the disadvantages that care leavers face in the labour market, including the NHS Universal Family Programme, which has supported almost 200 care leavers to find jobs, and the Civil Service Care Leavers Internship Scheme, which has enabled more than 1,000 care leavers to take up opportunities in the Civil Service. The corporate parenting duty will mean that such best practice is shared, creating incremental improvements to care leaver outcomes. It is beholden on everyone who works in this space—and of course it is not just the public sector; the private sector has in many areas stepped up to the plate—to be alert to the range or cocktail of circumstances that contribute to poor lifetime outcomes. Educational disadvantage, financial vulnerability, loneliness, isolation, poor mental health, and the higher risk of exploitation and harm are all factors that we need to take into account.
We cannot repeat enough that the most effective way for corporate parents to understand these challenges is to engage directly with the young people looked after, care leavers and their representatives. We will appoint an expert external organisation to support this engagement so that it is taken forward with the utmost seriousness. We will set out in statutory guidance the examples of best practice to show how the duty can apply to particular corporate parents. We will also set out ways for corporate parents to mitigate the negative impacts of their policies on looked-after children and care leavers.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was saying about needs. It is really alarming that nearly a million young people aged between 16 and 25 are not in education, employment or training. I am a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on social mobility. While not wishing to pre-empt what our chair will say in her report, I am sure that this will be a strong recommendation from the committee. We are very keen to know, especially if I do not press the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, what the Government’s intention is within the operation of this Bill to address this urgent and damaging situation for such a significant number of young people, some of whom are not able even to leave their bedroom and have insufficient support. What is the Government’s intention in this regard? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(1A) When discharging its duty under subsection (1), the relevant authority must consider the right to British citizenship of looked-after and relevant young people and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effect on their wellbeing.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 152. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who regrets that he cannot be here—perhaps an absent friend, taking what was said earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for supporting that amendment.
Amendment 152 would remove the exclusion of immigration, asylum and nationality functions from the new corporate parenting duty. There is strong support throughout the children’s sector for the new corporate parenting duty, but there is also widespread dismay that it explicitly excludes immigration, asylum and nationality matters. This exclusion was raised with the Children’s Minister by the Education Select Committee in the Commons. In a subsequent letter, she explained that
“immigration functions are exempt because the Home Office is already subject to existing statutory duties to safeguard children through Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act”.
Not being a lawyer, I sought advice from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and I am very grateful for its response. ILPA was clear that Section 55 does not justify the exclusion, as argued by Minister Daby. The Section 55 duty is to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children; this is different from the set of duties in Clause 21(1), which is specific to looked-after children. ILPA advises that the new duties are neither in conflict with nor identical to the existing Section 55 duties.
The Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, to which I am also grateful for its help, likewise argues that the new duties are fully complementary to and compatible with Section 55. They are, moreover, very modest, as they apply only so far as compliance with the duties is
“consistent with the proper exercise of a Department's functions”
and is “reasonably practicable”. Nevertheless, they are important. Given that this explanation does not really hold water, can my noble friend the Minister explain exactly which elements of Clause 21 are incompatible with immigration, asylum and nationality functions?
There is an important point of principle at stake here: the principle of universality. As the RMCC points out, children’s social care principles and children’s legislation have hitherto been universal. A carve-out such as this in a landmark piece of children’s legislation sets a dangerous precedent by setting up a two-tier care system that potentially undermines the safeguarding of some babies and children. Barnardo’s has expressed disappointment that a Labour Government should be the first to single out a group of children in this way. The principle of universality is fundamental to respecting children’s rights.
The RMCC has warned that, unamended, this clause would be the first piece of primary legislation relating to children since at least our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to distinguish children subject to immigration control or nationality considerations as somehow different from other children. It also points out that this undermines the cross-government mission-led approach by creating a carve-out for certain functions. It is at odds with the commitment in the opportunity mission to ensure every child has the best start in life. This has serious implications for the well-being of children affected by the carve-out.
Catch22’s National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum, which is made up of 131 local authority leaving care teams, points out that one in three young people turning 18 and leaving care last year was an unaccompanied asylum-seeker. Catch22 points to the impact that delays in the processing of immigration claims for unaccompanied children has on their mental and physical health and relationships. These children are particularly vulnerable when leaving care.
Become argues that the inclusion of immigration et cetera matters in the corporate parenting duty should
“act as a catalyst to ensure greater collaboration between the Home Office and local authorities”
and help achieve “more trauma-informed practice” in relation to a group who are highly likely to have experienced trauma before their arrival in the UK. Local authorities rely on partner organisations and government departments—the Home Office in particular—for certain functions and support. The removal of Clause 22 would
“help ensure that all children in care facing uncertainty over their immigration or asylum status receive appropriate safeguarding and protection”,
and the same applies to those entitled to register their British nationality.
The need for this was underlined by a newly published study of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people by the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire commissioned by London Councils. It highlighted a separation between practices of care and the practicalities of asylum support, even when the children had a positive relationship with their social worker. Those who did not receive social work support through the asylum process said it amplified their sense of being alone, while others who benefited from corporate parenting felt held and understood. Among the report’s recommendations is much greater involvement of social workers as corporate parents in the asylum-seeking process.
Not only does Clause 22 exclude migrant children, but in its reference to nationality functions it would appear to exclude children who are entitled to British citizenship but have to claim it, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Can my noble friend explain why children and young people who have lived in the UK in care for most, if not all, of their lives and who are entitled to British citizenship should be covered by this exclusion, if that is indeed the case?
This group is the subject of Amendment 147, a probing amendment, which would require an authority discharging its corporate parenting responsibilities under Clause 21 to consider the right to British citizenship of looked-after children and young people and how to ensure that right is secured.
I am grateful to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, PRCBC, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International for their support on this matter. PRCBC provides legal assistance and representation to many children and young people to overcome formidable barriers to claiming their nationality rights. We are talking about children who may have been born in this country, who certainly have lived most of their lives here, but who have to register their right to citizenship with the Home Office under the British Nationality Act 1981. Awareness of this law remains low, including among social workers. The point of this amendment is in part simply to draw attention to the profound importance of the right to British citizenship for the identity, sense of belonging and confidence—in other words, well-being—of this group of children and young people.
PRCBC has witnessed young people devastated when they discover they are not automatically British citizens but have to register their entitlement, and some have even experienced mental breakdown as a result. In order to avoid this happening, the amendment also points to the practical need for action to improve the understanding and capacities of local authorities to ensure that this group of children and young people in their care claim their entitlement. Too many children enter care without the necessary action being taken so that nobody can now identify or obtain the evidence needed to prove that the child is a British citizen entitled to be registered as such.
The vulnerable persons team within the nationalities section of the Home Office, established under the last Government, supports local authorities to take formal steps to secure the citizenship rights of children in their care, and this is very welcome. However, as PRCBC continues to experience, too little is done too late by too many local authorities. They need to understand from the start the importance of British citizenship to the children in their care and act to ensure that vital evidence is identified and secured while it can be.
These two amendments underline the importance of the actions of local authorities and other bodies for the well-being of all children for whom they have corporate parental responsibility, regardless of immigration or nationality status.
In conclusion, returning to Amendment 152, while Clause 22 carves out a function rather than a group of children as such, the effect is to exclude a particularly vulnerable group of children and young people whose well-being is heavily dependent on immigration, asylum, and nationality functions. What this amendment comes down to is that we must put all children and their best interests first. I am sure the Government believe in this principle; therefore, I hope and trust that they will acknowledge that the effect of exclusion of any group of children from the corporate parenting duty because they are affected by immigration, asylum or nationality functions, offends this principle and will thus accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have put my name. I declare an interest as vice-president of the children’s charity, Barnardo’s.
Currently, nearly one in 10 children in care is an unaccompanied asylum seeker. While their immigration status remains uncertain they face significant disadvantages in accessing services. It is good that the Government recognise that extending corporate parenting duties to a range of public bodies has the potential to improve the agency support of children in and leaving care, yet they also decided specifically to exempt decisions relating to immigration, nationality and asylum. Barnardo’s believes that children who have fled persecution and arrive in this country seeking sanctuary must be seen as children first. They are victims who are not in control of their destiny. Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would end that exemption. I very much support it; I hope that the Government will too, and will show consideration and compassion to these sometimes traumatised children.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, corporate parenting means providing the best possible care, safeguarding and support, ensuring that children thrive and have opportunities to reach their full potential. It involves actively promoting their well-being, health and education, and preparing them for adulthood, mirroring what a responsible parent would do. As such, Amendment 147 seeks to ensure that local authorities must consider the rights of looked-after children to British citizenship, which is exactly what a responsible parent would indeed do. It is important that a local authority is able to focus on the well-being of the child and to consider whether this should apply to citizenship. It is certainly a most relevant issue for the Minister to opine on.
Amendment 152, which seeks to remove Clause 22(1)(a), would extend the local authority duty to take care of looked-after children to the Secretary of State
“exercising immigration, asylum and nationality functions”.
We can see plausible reasons why the Government would choose to include that exemption but it merits further discussion and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to a potentially sensitive and complicated subject.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group, which relates to corporate parenting and, in particular, to immigration functions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing her amendments.
Amendment 152 seeks to apply corporate parenting duties to immigration, asylum and nationality functions. As we discussed in the previous group, our new corporate parenting measures will place an important responsibility on each Secretary of State and relevant bodies to support and seek to provide opportunities for looked-after children and care leavers, which in turn will improve their long-term outcomes. This means that Secretaries of State, including the Home Secretary, and relevant public bodies are required to be alert to matters that might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of their immigration status, when exercising any functions other than those relating to asylum, immigration, nationality or customs. To be clear, children and young people in the immigration system will absolutely benefit from the additional care and support that new corporate parents will provide. The exemption is to a set of functions, not to a set of children.
This Government recognise the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the UK. As my noble friend identified, this is already reflected in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Section 55 requires the Home Secretary to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum and nationality functions are discharged
“having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”.
Statutory guidance linked to this sets out the key principles. This includes that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration when making decisions affecting children. Children should be consulted, and their wishes and feelings taken into account wherever practicable, when decisions affecting them are made. Children should have their applications dealt with in a way that minimises the uncertainty that they may experience. The guidance also emphasises the importance of interagency working.
My noble friend made the point about the requirement to speed up asylum decision-making processes and questioned whether this exclusion would mean that asylum decision-making for these children was not as quick as possible. Applying the duty to the asylum functions of the Home Office would not require it to decide asylum claims for young people in care as soon as possible on its own; that would not be the impact of applying that particular responsibility to this function. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that vulnerable claimants, such as children and care leavers, have their claims decided at the earliest opportunity. However, there are many factors, some beyond the control of the Home Office, that can delay and contribute to the length of time taken to process children’s asylum claims, such as age disputes and the availability of legal representation.
The Home Office works continuously to improve the speed of decision-making—I have to say that, under this Government, it has had some success in doing that—and reduce the number of outstanding claims for children. However, there will always be complex cases, and it is right that the Home Office takes the time to consider those carefully.
Also, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children looked after by local authorities are already subject to the general corporate parenting duties. They will be covered by the specific duties on the local authorities that care for them and by the broader duties this Bill will bring in.
The Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining certainty about their legal status, in particular in gaining citizenship, and taking further steps to consider looked-after children’s and care leavers’ interests as we reform and manage the immigration system, as set out in the White Paper Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, published on 12 May. That White Paper contained proposals to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time and who discover, when they turn 18, that they do not have status are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those looked-after children and care leavers. I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the previous group. The Home Secretary will set out further details about how progress will be made on that objective.
Amendment 147 also deals with this issue and seeks to ensure that new corporate parents consider the right to British citizenship of looked after children and care leavers, and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effects on their well-being. Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles, as I have suggested, and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship.
I know from experience, and from having seen some of the practice, that considerable care is already being taken to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and other children subject to the immigration system in care are receiving from local authorities the care and attention that they specifically need because of their needs. In fact, I can remember, when I was chairing Sandwell Children’s Trust, being asked to help a social worker assistant who was trying to ensure that two of the children for whom we were responsible were able to get the passports they needed in time to be taken on holiday by the foster parents who were caring for them.
A lot of day-to-day work is going on in this area. As I have already suggested, all that work and support for those children is not exempted by this provision in the Bill; it is only with respect to the functions that I have already talked about. The White Paper that I touched on earlier also sets out the Government’s intent to consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to accessing British nationality for young adults who have lived here through their childhood. The previous Government already removed some fees in those circumstances, back in 2022.
That the Home Secretary is bringing forward proposals in this area I hope makes clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that children, as we seek to regularise their status in this country, are getting the necessary support, and that it will be improved by this Government. Given the assurances I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment on this point.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for making the case and reminding us that we are talking about children first. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for what was actually a very sympathetic response to what I said.
I absolutely take the point—I finished with this point—that we are taking about functions and not a group of children. I have not quite finished reading the new study that has just come out, but the trouble is that, in many cases, parts of corporate parenting functions involve asylum and immigration matters, so it is difficult to disentangle the function from the group. I will have to look more closely at what the Minister said, but I have to admit that I am not totally persuaded.
I still do not really understand why it is necessary to have this exclusion. I tabled this amendment on behalf of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, in which there are a lot of children’s organisations. A lot of the people who are briefing on this Bill—Barnardo’s and many others—welcome the corporate parenting duty and then say, “We must not have this exclusion”. There seems to be a disconnect between their reading, interpretation and understanding of what this will mean and the Government’s. We may have to come back to that—I do not know—but I still do not really understand why it is felt necessary to have this exclusion, which is creating such alarm among children’s organisations.
On children who are entitled to claim British citizenship, I have been working on this issue for many years, pressing the previous Government and finally getting somewhere. That is not just because of me—it is primarily because of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has been indefatigable in pushing on this, together with Amnesty. I welcome what is in the White Paper and look forward to getting more detail about what is meant. Certainly, after the way things were left under the previous Government, it is still difficult—it costs so much to put in that claim. I remember that when we discussed in this House the rules on who can be exempted from having to pay, we were very unhappy about them. It would be excellent if the Government were taking another look at that. The fact is that there are too many children—and my noble friend talked about them after the age of 18. Ideally, local authorities would be more aware of this and would make sure that the claim was made before young people reached the age of 18.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to integrated care boards.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to NHS foundation trusts.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the reference in Schedule 1 to an NHS trust is a reference to an NHS trust in England.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 154 effectively asks the question, “Why? What is the justification for such an examination?”. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response to Amendment 155. I beg to move.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 168, 228, 376 and 377 concern child performances and sporting activities. I declare my interest as per the register.
On Amendment 168, there is no system in place to safeguard and protect children’s earnings from financial abuse when they are engaged in performances, paid sport or modelling activities. Other countries, such as the US and numerous EU territories, have legislation in place to ensure that employers pay a percentage of the child’s earnings into a trust account where earnings are protected by the state until the child reaches the age of 18. We lag behind the times with this provision, and safeguarding and protection are long overdue.
Local authorities can add stipulations to licences—for example, that 80% must be paid into a child’s savings account or 50% used for the child’s benefit. However, these conditions differ throughout Great Britain and are sadly ineffective, as a parent can access and use the child’s money and not necessarily for the child’s benefit or in their interest. Local authorities themselves are concerned about how best to protect these earnings but, sadly, there is no system or law in place to support this.
My amendment would ensure that a small percentage of the child’s earnings is held in trust until the child reaches adulthood and is not accessible by a parent, guardian or the child themselves. If this amendment becomes law, trust accounts will protect the child’s earnings until they reach the age of 18. Income will be protected and any tax liabilities more easily calculated. As we enter a world of streaming platforms, social influencers and headline child stars, these earnings can be in the millions of pounds and we have a responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of which local authority they reside in, have effective means to safeguard their future and their earnings.
Amendment 228 deals with a child not appearing on the school register. The Bill as it stands fails to recognise the unique needs of children working within the entertainment industry, where many are educated in flexi-alternative provisions. The safeguarding elements of this pre-approval to be absent from school have already been scrutinised by the licensing authority and the education provisions are accounted for in the conditions of the licence period.
What is proposed in the Bill is the opposite of what should be a positive. This life-changing experience for a child is regarded as a negative absence, not only for the child but for the school. It will not record the beneficial reason for their absence—merely another day missed from school, which negatively affects both the child and the school’s record and could affect its Ofsted standing. This unique opportunity should be celebrated, not penalised.
When the child is granted a licence to perform within Great Britain, the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, combined with the Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014, make provision for the approval of education to be shared with local authorities. Requiring this information not only to be carefully considered and shared but then duplicated and, as often happens, amended at the last minute due to the requirements of the production, would divert valuable resources away from the safeguarding of young people and the most vulnerable children.
The Bill’s current requirement to include children within the register with pre-approved flexi-education from licensing authorities would divert attention from the very children the register is intending to capture. It will slow down the process of licensing children to perform. Local authorities will require information not available at the time of a licence application to add children to the register. The licensing process, in reality, is evolving and live; it is where industry collaborates with licensing authorities. It is imperative that the process works for all parties involved.
Amendment 376 concerns a body of persons approval, or BOPA, which is in the wrong place. It currently sits within Part 6 of the regulations, which targets only performance abroad rather than performance in the UK. My amendment highlights the need for a licensing authority that approves a performance abroad or exempts a performance within the UK to notify the local authority in which the child lives. This will ensure that the local authorities are fully aware of the children who are performing, to finally join up the dots and offer a working solution using the technological advances of 2025. This in turn will help safeguard a child from overperforming and not receiving the regulated overnight rest breaks, and give consideration for meaningful education.
At present, local authorities are aware of performances by children in their area only if they have granted the licence. Exemptions granted under a body of persons approval, or licences granted by a magistrate’s court for children to perform abroad, are not shared with the local authority where the child resides. However, under the Bill, they are expected to note on the register information that is not being shared. There is currently no legal requirement or process for a magistrate’s court to inform the child’s local authority that they are missing school under the child employment abroad order, so it will not be aware of the child’s involvement in a performance.
Amendment 376 requires licensing authorities that approve a licence, or authorise a performance under a body of persons approval, to notify the local authority in which the child resides. We have a duty to protect our children, regardless of where they perform, and the current system requires urgent consideration of we license children for paid and unpaid performances, to ensure that we have an effective, joined-up approach.
Finally, Amendment 377 calls for a review of the child performance regulations 2014. Since the regulations were revised in 2014, we have seen a substantial change to the entertainment industry, with streaming platforms, new film studios and diverse opportunities for children to be involved and perform. The industry is fast-paced and must adapt to new technologies. The very interpretation of the performance regulations across each local authority makes it hard to take a balanced approach when multiple children from different areas are involved in the same production. Children performing in the UK from other countries, which have their own regulations and union rules that must be followed alongside our laws, result in a mixture of regulations that do not always have the best interests of children at heart.
In 2014, the then Government agreed to revisit these regulations after 10 years, some of which I was instrumental in securing. It is important to acknowledge that, to move forward in the best way to support all children to partake in performance, there needs to be a period of reflection to stay current with an ever-evolving industry. Would the Government commit to review the child performance regulations to include the necessary improvements needed?
Our world has changed, and we have to adapt or face being left behind, otherwise children will miss out on potentially life-changing experiences and opportunities. We have an opportunity, by agreeing to my amendments, to make a positive change for children and young people in performing arts and sporting activities. I look forward to working with the Government to make these changes.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 155. It is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and I agree with everything that she said; I therefore also support her.
What prompted me to look at this space were the government Amendments 157 and 158 on the employment of children in England and Wales and in Scotland. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that they do not sufficiently cover the difficulties and discrepancies between what is in the Bill and the on-the-ground opportunities for children in the performing arts. I was especially concerned by the timing restrictions in proposed new Clause 2(1)(d)—as well as in the proposed new paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h)—which requires children not to work before 7 am or after 8 pm. The Minister is shaking her head, so clarification from her that this does not apply to children in the performing arts would be great.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about the opportunities for children to take part in the performing arts. My first pay packet came as a performer with Scottish Ballet at the age of nine, which introduced me to all sorts of career opportunities that I would not have had in school, including becoming a choreologist. I would therefore welcome anything to clarify that children are encouraged to take up these opportunities. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify the licensing agreement for performing arts and children being paid as performers. I look forward to hearing her answer.
Lord Meston (CB)
Since the noble Baroness has mentioned them, I shall also offer some observations on the government amendments in advance of hearing the Minister speaking to them. Amendment 157 and the Scottish equivalent, Amendment 158, are indeed better and simpler than Clause 26 as originally formulated, but I have some reservations about either formulation.
The intention is to replace Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A treasured possession of mine is an ancient copy of the 1933 Act. The original Section 18 provided that
“no child shall be employed … to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him”.
That had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The Bill will now say:
“A child may not be employed … to do any work other than light work”.
One turns to the end of the new section to find, in subsection (8), a rather wordy definition of “light work” in negative terms, which tells us what light work is not. In particular, it means
“work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed … is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and … is not such as to be harmful”
to their education, through attendance at school or otherwise. That may somewhat widen the scope of the original Section 18 but, frankly, the drafting is less focused. Indeed, whether, as drafted, it is an improvement on the original Section 18 remains to be seen. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider looking again at trying to retain some of the best of the old version in a more modern context. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I hope that at some point the Government can look at it, perhaps before Report. Meanwhile, I will say a slightly sad farewell to the original Section 18.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group relating to child employment. Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the ability of a local authority to require medical examinations of children for their employment. This seems like an eminently sensible amendment, and we will be most interested to hear from the Minister in what circumstances His Majesty’s Government expect this power to be necessary.
Amendments 155, 168, 228, 376 and 377 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson and Lord Storey, relate to child performers and seek to protect their ability to perform. We see them often on our screens and on our stages and there can be no doubt that child talent plays a truly integral role in creating excellent productions, whether in film, television, theatre or music, so it is really important that this well-intentioned clause does not inadvertently negatively impact the creative industry but allows child performers to continue to play an active role in the industry where they choose to do so.
Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who sends her apologies, seeks to probe His Majesty’s Government on the definition of “development” in relation to the definition of “light work”, which cannot include anything that is
“likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children”,
as just referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Our amendment seeks to question how technology will be considered within this definition. There is considerable evidence that suggests that technology and the use of screens hinders children’s development and, as such, we ask the Minister whether children will be able to interact with technology in their employment. By way of an example, many restaurants and public houses use technology devices to take orders. With this definition, would it be possible that any workers under the age of 18 would not be able to use such devices?
Government Amendments 157, 158, 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514 clarify the scope of this clause in relation to the devolved Administrations in both Scotland and Wales. His Majesty’s Official Opposition will not seek to oppose them.
Amendment 176, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to require an impact assessment on weekend jobs. There are many children, including my own, who work at the weekends in order to save money for clothes, their first car or a multitude of other reasons. Without wanting to state the obvious, working is brilliant. It is the first step towards understanding the value of money and saving for something. It facilitates interpersonal skills, which are so critically important in an age that is now dominated by smartphones and online conversations. It promotes punctuality, time-keeping and, to a certain extent, stability. So when Clause 26 potentially reduces the number of hours that can be worked over a weekend, we believe it is important that the impact of this should be fully assessed—hence our amendment. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions thus far on such an important topic and look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I just remind the Committee that, 12 or 13 years ago, when we were looking at the Children and Families Bill, my noble friend Lady Benjamin took up this issue with great vigour, and quite rightly so. Since then, of course, times have changed, as traditional child employment laws have often failed to address online influencer work, digital content creation and remote gig roles taken up by children.
My own experience as a head teacher at a primary school was that I had a number of such children. I remember Josh Bolt, who appeared regularly as a main character in “Last Tango in Halifax”, and the problems that we faced trying to ensure that he could fulfil his acting potential. He was able to do so, and appeared in the film “Nowhere Boy”, about the life of John Lennon. But it was us bending the rules, quite frankly, and not following the exact letter of the law, which allowed him to fulfil his dreams and ambitions. There were other children as well; I think of sports and those children, both boys and girls, who went to football academies, for example. A number of them went on to have successful careers in sport.
So we must make laws that not only protect the young person but work for the young person as well, enabling them to enhance their skills and take up the opportunities that are available. According to the Education Policy Institute, part-time jobs can support resilience, time management and confidence. But, of course, unregulated work can harm education as well; it is about getting the balance right.
I am looking forward to discussing the amendments on school registration. Some schools can be overzealous on registration and do not take personal factors into account. It is really important that we listen to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, in particular; she has huge experience in this area. If we want to be a successful nation in the cultural industries, which we are, little hiccups such as this need sorting out.
One noble Lord mentioned that there are discrepancies between England, Wales and Scotland in child labour and performance law, and that creates confusion and enforcement challenges. While performance licences require education provision, oversight is inconsistent and, as I have been saying, schools sometimes incorrectly mark children absent when, in fact, that should not be the case. I am sure that the Government will want to listen to what is being said and to make this work for families and children.
I was particularly taken, as it had not occurred to me until I read the amendment, by the point that my noble friend raised at the very beginning about how these earnings should be, if you like, looked after for the future. That is a really important point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have been able to have a wide debate on the measures in the Bill that relate to child employment. I am sure many noble Lords agree that employment can have a hugely beneficial impact on a child: it can contribute to their development, introduce them to the world of work and help them develop key life skills. However, current legislation needs to be updated to better reflect the world of employment today and to make things simpler and clearer for children, families and employers.
I should perhaps be clear at this point that, in this group of amendments, we are talking about two different sets of regulations. We have heard, and I will come to, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—by the way, both of them demonstrate the benefits of being a performer, child or otherwise. To be clear, these are two completely different sets of regulations. To respond to the specific point, the changes made in the employment regulations do not impact on the ability of children to be performers.
I speak first to the government amendments in this group, which include Amendments 157 and 158 and consequential Amendments 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514. These amendments seek to bring these changes in employment regulations to children in Scotland and Wales too. Our aim is that all children, regardless of where they live, can benefit from these new employment opportunities. These amendments will ensure that children in Wales and Scotland, as well as children in England, will be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility that this clause allows. This means being able to work more hours on a Sunday, an hour before school, and until 8 pm—crucially, without increasing their overall weekly working hours. This is to ensure that employment does not negatively impact on their health, development and education.
We have also made a small amendment to the definition of “light work” so that it better reflects the circumstances of children who are educated at home, not just those who attend school. I will try to come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The new definition of light work is probably more appropriate at this time, when children’s work is not necessarily going to be about only the physical efforts that they are engaged in but other elements of that work which could have an impact on their health, development and education. Overall, this increased flexibility will ensure that a child can, if they want to, benefit from the positive impacts we know that the world of work can bring, and we will have a more consistent approach across Great Britain. In doing that, we will be allowing all children to benefit from the same employment opportunities. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these government amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those extensive replies. The delightful reminiscence from my noble friend Lady Fraser conjures up the thought of Report on the hereditary Peers Bill being conducted through the medium of expressive dance, featuring the Committee fly.
On the more prosaic question of these amendments, on Amendment 228 I hope that the Government will be determined that children should be recorded somewhere at all times. It would not be an acceptable part of the system if people could drop in and out of being registered at all. The point of the register is that we know where children are.
On Amendment 154, I got the impression that the Minister does not know any better than I do what this phrase is doing there or what it would be used for. I will write to her between now and Report to see whether we can explore what practical application it has, because I cannot see that, in the context of our modern attitude to disability, it should be the business of a local authority to say, “No, you’re in a wheelchair; you can’t do this”. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Employment of children in England and Wales(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is amended as follows.(2) For section 18 substitute—“18 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work—(a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The appropriate national authority may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority.(4) The appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority; (d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection);(h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in England or Wales or to a local authority in Scotland.(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 7 of the Education Act 1996 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 560 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.18A Regulations under section 18: further provision(1) Regulations under section 18 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions; (c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 18 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 18 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 18 are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.(7) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 21 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 28 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(5) In section 30 (interpretation), in subsection (1), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(6) In Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996, in the table, omit the entry for section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (including the title of that Act).(7) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 (anaw 2), in the table, in the English language and Welsh language texts, omit the entry that relates to byelaws made under section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (referred to as “adran 18 o Ddeddf Plant a Phobl Ifanc 1933” in the Welsh language text).”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 26 makes provision for England restricting employed work by children. This amendment replaces that clause to extend the application of that provision to Wales. It also includes a change to the definition of “light work” in the inserted section 18(8) to reflect that children may receive their compulsory education outside of school.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Employment of children in Scotland(1) The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work— (a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority;(d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection); (h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in Scotland, to a local authority in England or to a local authority in Wales.(6) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 30 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 123 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in England” and“local authority in Wales” have the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (see section 579(1) of that Act);“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.28A Regulations under section 28: further provision(1) Regulations under section 28 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions;(c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 28 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 28 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 28 are subject to the negative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(5) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 31 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 35 (confirmation of byelaws), in subsection (1), for “Secretary of State” substitute “Scottish Ministers”.(5) In section 36 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(6) In section 37 (interpretation), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(7) In section 38 (savings)—(a) omit subsection (3);(b) in subsection (4), for “The said provisions” substitute “The provisions of this Part relating to employment”.(8) In section 110(1) (interpretation), omit the definitions of “borstal institution” and “residential establishment”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes equivalent provision for Scotland to that made for England and Wales by my amendment to replace clause 26.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
“Establishment of Child Protection Authority(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.(2) The purpose of the Authority is to—(a) improve practice in child protection,(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection,(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards, and(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.(3) The Authority must act with a view to—(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the Child Protection Authority for England.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 160 to this important Bill. Amendment 159 relates to the establishment of a child protection authority and is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments, grounded in the belief that every child, no matter where they live and what challenges they face, should be guaranteed a basic level of protection. Amendment 159 proposes the creation of a child protection authority, in direct response to one of the most urgent and widely endorsed recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Amendment 160 seeks to establish national thresholds for children in need support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Neither of these proposals is theoretical. Both are urgent responses to real-world system failures that we have seen repeated with devastating consequences across our country.
Amendment 159 calls for the creation of the child protection authority, as recommended by the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. That inquiry, after seven years, 325 days of public hearings, and testimony from over 7,000 victims and survivors, concluded that existing child protection mechanisms are fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable. Among the 20 recommendations, the establishment of the independent child protection authority was second only to mandatory reporting.
This body would have four core responsibilities: to improve child protection practices across public and private institutions; to provide expert advice to the Government and the sector; to conduct inspections of institutions and systems where safeguarding concerns are raised; and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other major safeguarding inquiries. Critically, this authority would be independent and established as a non-departmental public body, similar to the structure of the National Crime Agency. Its independence would give it the mandate and credibility to act across departmental and institutional silos.
We cannot ignore the repeated failures of the current framework. The names of Sara Sharif, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson will remain etched in our nation’s conscience for years to come. Each of those children was known to professionals and each was failed by a system that saw the risk but lacked the clarity, co-ordination and accountability to prevent harm. The Government’s response has been to strengthen existing structures rather than create a new body. Although that is understandable, it risks reinforcing the very fragmentation that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse warned about. We must be bolder, take a systematic view and act decisively.
Amendment 160 is on national standards for children in need support. Let us begin with the children in need framework. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 empowers local authorities to offer services to children whose health or development would suffer without additional support. Yet, in the absence of a national threshold or quality standards, this power is deployed deeply inconsistently. In her 2022 report, the Children’s Commissioner for England uncovered stark regional disparities of how children in need plans are used. For example, in Knowsley and in Blackpool more than 60% of children known to social care were supported through a child in need plan, in stark contrast with Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, where the figure is less than 20%.
Let us be clear: this variation cannot be explained by demographics or the level of need alone; it is a result of fragmented local practice in the absence of national guidance. That creates a system in which access to help is determined not by a child’s vulnerability but by their postcode. The situation is compounded by variations in the quality of those plans. Many are vague, lack time-bound goals and fail to specify what support a child will actually receive. Social workers have expressed frustration with a system that burdens them with process but does not enable them to deliver change.
This amendment seeks to fix that. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake a national review of how Section 17 is currently implemented, including an analysis of demographic variations and effectiveness; to issue statutory guidance establishing clear minimum thresholds for child eligibility and a template for high-quality planning; and to use automatic referral triggers, such as a parent entering prison, in-patient mental health care or a child being arrested, to ensure early intervention where risk is identifiable. This is not about removing local flexibility; it is about setting a national baseline of protection so that a child’s right to support is not dependent on what they have.
This Bill is an opportunity to do more than pass yet another set of well-intentioned clauses. It is a chance to confront two crucial, long-standing failures: the lack of consistent, enforceable thresholds for when and how a child receives support under Section 17—on that note, I add that the Children’s Commissioner has today come out in support of my Amendment 160—and the absence of a single, independent body tasked with improving, inspecting and co-ordinating our child protection infrastructure. We often speak in this Chamber about opportunity, fairness and levelling up. These amendments are a test of whether we mean what we say because, for children growing up in hardship and at risk of harm, fairness begins with visibility and opportunity begins with protection. Let us give these children more than words; let us give them a system that supports them and keeps them safe where they live. I urge noble Lords to support my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 159, to which I added my name. It is a probing amendment, so I hope the Minister has not been equipped with various intricacies on the drafting. I believe that His Majesty’s Government intend to consult on child protection.
As the noble Lord outlined, this is a recommendation from IICSA, which envisaged the child protection authority having an inspection function of certain settings within its purposes. However, there was another recommendation from the independent inquiry, which said:
“All religious organisations should have a child protection policy and supporting procedures, which should include advice and guidance on responding to disclosures of abuse and the needs of victims and survivors. The policy and procedures should be updated regularly, with professional child protection advice, and all organisations should have regular compulsory training for those in leadership positions and those who work with children and young people”.
Although the child protection agency will be led by the Home Office and the honourable Member Jess Phillips, this second recommendation sounds like a description not only of charities but of out-of-school settings. I am aware that, since the amendment was laid, a call for evidence went out from the Department for Education on safeguarding for out-of-school settings, but how are they intended to fit together?
In addition to religious organisations, sports clubs, informal educational settings, summer clubs and private tutors seem not to be within a regulatory framework at the moment. Is this not what the independent inquiry envisaged that the work of a child protection authority would be, or could be? Those organisations are outside Ofsted and, despite the excellent work of the Charity Commission—many of them will be charities but not all of them—the threshold for intervention by the Charity Commission on the grounds of safeguarding is statutorily very high. It is not an inspectorate, it seems, or an accreditor of safeguarding training.
If one looks momentarily at the scrutiny function that the Church of England is trying to set up, that function, which should be independent, looks as if it should be inspection, audit, accreditation and an end of complaint process facility. In these informal settings, out-of-school settings or charities, who accredits the safeguarding? Who does the inspecting? Who holds low-level concerns regarding staff and volunteers? Many of those settings will be a single charity under no umbrella organisation—and I thank the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight for its excellent work on safeguarding. If you are the trustee of a stand-alone charity and you begin to have concerns about a volunteer or a staff member—the kind of low-level concerns that are that are dealt with in Keeping Children Safe in Education—where is the umbrella organisation that will keep track?
We have to keep one step ahead of people who have this intention to get access to children. They will disappear from one independent stand-alone charity and have the potential to pop up, maybe in a different place—a different church or sports club—but who is keeping track of those concerns? You might informally tell another charity such as thirtyone:eight, but who will be collating that information? Could the Minister consider arranging a meeting for any interested Peers at which we can talk about the scope of the child protection authority and the call for evidence for out of school settings?
The call for evidence is, I believe, like a survey that you fill in. I promise the Minister that I will fill out the survey and go through that facility. But could she also confirm to noble Lords that the child protection authority will go out for consultation? What will the scope be for that and how will it fit together with this large gap—or number of small gaps—we have with out of school settings? This is an important moment to finally cover the many loopholes that still exist in relation to child safeguarding, particularly in out of school settings.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I find these two amendments extremely interesting, and I very much support the spirit of them. But I am not at all happy, I have to say, about exactly how they are put forward. I think it is important that the Government reflect on Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and the extent to which it could be updated and improved. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to find out rather more about it.
I was extremely interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, but I am not sure that they come into either Amendments 159 or 160. It does not mean that it is any less important. This is a wider issue of some real importance. I am not quite sure where it should come, but it certainly needs to be regarded .
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to be able to respond, as this is Committee. With the child protection authority, the question is about what scope that will have. If it is to have an inspectorate function, which is what was recommended by IICSA, will it have a role to inspect out of school settings? That is the way that, I would say, it comes within the scope of the amendment. But I accept it is a probing amendment. We need to make sure that we put the DfE and Home Office together to keep children safe .
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on his powerful speech. I listened to his maiden speech, and this is the second time I have heard him speak. I see that he will be an important addition to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
In relation to his Amendment 159, I am slightly puzzled and look forward to the Minister’s response. As the noble Lord said, the Government have accepted the recommendations of IICSA to create a child protection authority and this will initially, as I understand it, form part of the child safeguarding practice review panel. My noble friend Lady Berridge made good points about out of school settings although, in general, I worry about the extent of regulation that might fall on very small organisations and the impact that might have. I remember thinking about this when in office. One of the organisations we met with said there were no incentives in the system today to encourage organisations to do the right thing; there are just penalties if you get it wrong. Maybe that is a constructive path for the Government to consider.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to protecting children from serious harm and ensuring that they can access the right level of support at the right time. That is what the amendments in this group seek, rightly, to pursue and challenge on.
Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is on the establishment of a child protection authority, as recommended in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Just to be clear, this Government have made a series of announcements that demonstrate our commitment to strengthen the response to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Establishing a child protection authority was one that we have, in looking at the recommendations from IICSA, committed quite clearly to. I was a bit unclear about the charge made by the noble Lord that we had not accepted that recommendation. In the Government’s update on our work to tackle child sexual abuse, published in April, we announced that we would establish a child protection authority in England. As the noble Lord says, this will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners.
Of course, there will be lots of questions about what form the authority takes and its scope—some were raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with specific questions on safeguarding. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have absolutely aligned the work on the CPA with the out-of-school settings call for evidence that she referenced. She identified that the design and the delivery of the authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and victim groups to ensure that it has the right constitution and the right powers. We have already begun our work towards a consultation on the child protection authority, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will engage with key stakeholders as part of this process. We will consult on developing the new child protection authority this year, and the consultation will set out in more detail the proposed roles, responsibilities and powers of the authority.
However, we do not want to wait until we are able to set up the child protection authority in full to take action—there has arguably been too long a delay in acting on the recommendations of IICSA—so we have also already begun to strengthen the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on some of the key aspects IICSA envisaged for the child protection authority. In 2025-26, we are increasing the resources at the panel’s disposal so that it can increase its analytical capacity and its ability to develop high-quality material for practitioners.
That is part of the overall action that this Government are taking: the strongest possible action to tackle child sexual exploitation, including immediate action to take forward all 12 of the recommendations for change from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which were published in her audit just this week. That includes setting up a new national inquiry, with which government departments will co-operate fully to make sure we are tackling this vile crime and supporting victims and survivors. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, also recommended that the mandatory sharing of information be enforced between all statutory safeguarding partners in cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The child protection authority will play a critical role in addressing this recommendation through national oversight of the child protection system and supporting the co-ordination between agencies. Of course, provisions within this legislation are already taking forward other elements of the IICSA recommendations.
Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, aims to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which, of course, places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need by providing appropriate support and services. Here, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord’s analysis. Prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would risk narrowing the cohort of children and limiting local flexibility in providing support. Section 17 rightly allows local authorities discretion to provide support and services based on local need and resources. On this at least—and on other things as well—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran and I are in agreement. A danger of being specific in the way suggested is that groups are left out, narrowing the cohort who receive support—exactly, in fact, what the amendment is seeking to avoid.
It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggested, that there is no national guidance. There has recently been strengthening of the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, to make it explicit that local authorities and safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document for statutory services under Section 17 so that there is clarity for those working within an authority area about what that threshold would be and what action they should take. Furthermore, Ofsted inspects whether these local thresholds are set appropriately.
Working Together is clear that plans setting out support and services for children should be reviewed regularly against progress. All this comes within the broader context of our reforms to family help and multiagency child protection, which we have talked about at some length in earlier proceedings on the Bill and in Committee—reforms precisely aimed at supporting provision at an earlier stage for identifying children who will need support and wrapping that around them, and reforms backed by over £500 million of investment in this financial year and supported by additional investment made available in last week’s spending review for future years. These will provide help for families at the point of need and decisive action when protection is needed.
While I accept that the noble Lord raised important issues about the current working of the system and the need to develop the child protection authority for all the reasons that he spelt out, I hope that I have addressed some of his concerns and reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting children from significant harm, providing the right support at the right time and, ultimately, improving outcomes so that all children can thrive. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their interventions and comments, some of which I agree with and some I may not agree with—but that is the nature of the Committee; we are here to debate and improve Bills that come forward from the Government. I welcome the comments from the Minister, particularly on the national protection agency. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail about its powers and how it functions, rather than just establishing the authority.
On Amendment 160, I clearly still have issues with the disparity between some local authorities having up to 60% of young people in their care with child in need plans and others having 20%, as in the examples I gave. My aim was to raise this in Committee and hopefully for the Minister to look into it. I will continue to press and probe as this Bill travels through your Lordships’ House but, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
“Automatic enrolment for Healthy Start scheme(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, introduce a scheme to automatically enrol certain individuals for the purposes of the Healthy Start scheme.(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain individuals” means people who are eligible for the Healthy Start scheme on the basis of having a child under the age of 4.(3) The scheme must provide the means for individuals to opt out of enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the auto-enrollment of certain individuals on to the Healthy Start scheme.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 190 in my name and one or two other amendments in this group. Amendment 161 would allow auto-enrolment of families entitled to the Healthy Start prepaid card. The Healthy Start scheme provides extra cash for families on certain benefits when the mother is more than 10-weeks pregnant or has a child under four years old. The card can be used to pay for milk, formula milk, fruit, vegetables and vitamins. Families receive £4.25 per week for a pregnant woman and for each child aged one to four years old, and £8.50 for each baby under one year old—unless the Government have changed this in the last few days.
The value of the payment has not increased since April 2021, despite considerable food cost inflation since then; Scotland’s similar scheme has been uprated. Some supermarkets, such as Sainsbury’s, have topped up the card with an extra £2 a week, which has been shown to increase purchases of these healthy foods. Presumably as well as increasing footfall in the shop, those supermarkets understand the importance of this extra money to the health of a young family on benefits. Even though it is not enough, it certainly helps in light of the inequalities in diet and obesity among young children below school age. In 2022-23, 12.4% of four to five year-olds in the most deprived areas were already living with obesity—more than double the number in the least deprived areas. These payments are an important lever to address this inequality.
However, many eligible families do not know about their eligibility for this scheme and therefore suffer more food insecurity than they need to—I know one myself. The House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee last year heard that there are no current figures on uptake due to a “data issue”. That is just not good enough, because we know, anecdotally, that many families are missing out. The committee heard that the local authority in Blackpool was so concerned about it that it launched a programme to inform eligible families—on which I congratulate the local authority. It has now reached 80% by its calculation, which is much higher than other areas, but what about the other 20%? Its success indicates that there is a need for a national scheme.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I attached my name to Amendment 161 on automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme, as indeed did the noble Lord, Bethell—so if we are looking for broad, cross-party-political spectrums, this is one of those.
The noble Baroness has already set out the powerful case for this amendment—I will just add one thing. She spoke about the Government’s apparent lack of data in this area. In the other place, my honourable friends asked the Government a whole series of questions about this. The response was that the NHS Business Services Authority, which operates the scheme, does not hold any data on the number of people eligible. That is surely fixable, so it should surely be fixed.
I will focus on Amendment 175 in my name, which is kindly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It would insert a new clause to provide for
“holiday … and activity programmes for pupils in receipt of free school meals”.
This would be a lot of pupils. Before the Government’s recent changes, about one in four pupils were already eligible for free school meals. Those were extremely tight criteria; the Government have now opened them up a little. There is some debate about the number of children affected. None the less, these are children whom the Government have acknowledged, and most of whom the previous Government acknowledged, really need the support of hopefully healthy—I will get back to that—hot meals during term time.
However, what happens at weekends? There is a reason why #HolidayHunger has almost become a cliché. Those children come from families whose budgets are at the absolute edge anyway. Then, the holidays come, and they cannot be guaranteed to be fed.
This amendment would also ensure that there are activities and programmes relevant to those children during the school holidays. One thing we have seen in many of our areas, particularly some of our poorest areas, is that the availability of free activities during the school holidays has fallen and fallen. We have seen the privatisation of public spaces, the fencing-in of playing fields and the removal of public spaces that then become privatised and can be quite hostile to children. If you go out and you need access to a loo, you have to buy something, and that is just not available to people. So, this amendment would ensure that there is a meal and a holiday programme that supports those children and those families. It is tackling poverty and tackling some of the very acute issues of public health that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to.
I note, declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, that this would have to be funded from the centre. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred, I think, to difficulties with the free school breakfast programme and how some schools have had to pull out of it because they did not have the funding. Certainly, local government would really struggle to fund the proposal in this amendment, but I would argue to the Government that the relatively modest costs would be far outweighed by the benefits for public health of the inclusion of some of the poorest children in our communities, giving them a space that is constructive when otherwise they might be spending their time in potentially destructive ways.
I think it is worth noting that this is not just something that I have dreamed up. My honourable friend in the other place, Ellie Chowns, tabled a similar amendment. We have only to go to the Republic of Ireland, which quite recently announced a programme for the coming year that looks remarkably like this: activity programmes for two to four weeks aimed at the children at most risk of disadvantage and those with complex special educational needs. In Ireland, 58,000 pupils took part last year and they are expecting more next year, so this is something that a very broadly comparable society is already doing, acknowledging the need and acting on it.
Finally, there are a huge number of positive amendments in this group, and I am not going to speak to anything like all of them, but I particularly want to highlight Amendment 190, to which I would have attached my name had I got my act together, and Amendment 194, to which I would have attached my name if it were not already fully subscribed. Both are about the quality of school breakfasts and lunches, which is so crucial. I make one general point in this context. The Times Health Commission reported recently and it had a really interesting look at Japan and what a contrast Japan shows compared to us. In Japan, just 4% of adults are obese, compared to 26% here. In Japan, fewer than 2% of under-fives are overweight: they are essentially all at a healthy weight.
What we have is school systems. The Times journalists visited the school system and saw what school lunches are like at Kohoku primary school. The children were eating spiced baked fish and vegetables sprinkled with dried bonito and rice and they were ladling out the food themselves. A pupil got up at the start and explained why the sweetcorn in the rice had a beneficial nutritional advantage. The school is built around a giant kitchen with windows on every side, so pupils can see the chefs preparing the meal.
I wanted to say that because I was reflecting on the Committee’s debate a couple of days ago, when we were talking about children’s social care and I had an amendment that said we should end for-profit provision in children’s social care. It struck me when I read Hansard afterwards that nobody had actually defended the idea of a market in private provision of social care. All the people speaking against my amendment said, “Oh, well, we are where we are now and it’s too difficult to change”. I think that when it comes to free school meals or school meals—on a later group I am going to say that there should be school meals for everybody—we have to say that this needs a giant leap of change. We cannot allow this to continue as it is now. We have to have the imagination to think, yes, we are in a bad place, but we can do significantly, massively better than this, not just try to have a little improvement.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I shall be brief, because the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has set out comprehensively so much about the amendments that I support, Amendments 175 and 194. Amendment 175 echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about the need for “holiday hunger” to be sorted out in this country. For a parent the summer holidays are a cliff edge in all sorts of directions. Not only are you deprived of the possible childcare while struggle with your two jobs, your mortgage and so on, but your children are also deprived of possibly the only decent meal that they might get in the day—and I shall qualify the word “decent” when I come back to it in a minute.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I invite the noble Baroness to acknowledge that this Government, since they were elected, have committed £1 billion to school meals. It would be nice if she would mention that, as well as everything else, which I am sure we all agree about.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Thank you—I acknowledge that more money is going in and absolutely acknowledge that there is an expansion of free school meals. I am only worried about the evidence that we have seen. Yesterday, we had a whole-day meeting of Feeding Britain, and I am afraid that a lot of the information that we heard is that this is not there yet. I hope that it filters down, because it is a very straightforward thing to do.
I have put a lot of things into the amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Walmsley, on what school standards should be. It is a good thing for the Government to aim at, and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendments 183D, 186A and 187A in this group. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to offer universal breakfast clubs for all primary-age children, which will be a significant step towards ending morning hunger in schools across England. But there is a concern that the policy appears to be designed solely for mainstream pupils and, as a result, risks failing to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. My amendments would make school breakfast provision more accessible to SEND pupils and create a more individualised approach to the provision.
Although most pupils with SEND are in mainstream education, special provision is vital for many children and young people across the country, for whom there are different barriers to accessing education, which need to be acknowledged and supported by government. The format in the Bill for universal free breakfasts applies only to primary-age pupils, which would mean excluding secondary-age pupils in special schools from breakfast provision. That is inequitable and, within those schools, ultimately unworkable. Special schools are more likely than mainstream schools to be all-through settings, where children can be taught based on need rather than age. My Amendments 183D and 186A would therefore extend the school breakfast provisions in the Bill to include secondary-age pupils in special schools.
Many of these children also access school transport funding, and it is vital that schools and local authorities work with families to create flexible transport approaches, so that anyone wanting to access breakfast clubs is then enabled to. Additionally, some children with SEND access one-to-one support during the school day. This support is a vital key in unlocking the education system to these young people. Without funding for this support being extended to breakfast clubs, they face the prospect of being locked out. For that reason, I support Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would ensure that breakfast clubs are accessible for all pupils with SEND.
Breakfast clubs need to be accessible, but they should be able to deliver a mixed-model approach to breakfast provision. That means being delivered in the classroom or in nurture groups, as opposed to being available only in the normal dining area. Breakfast clubs are harder to access for pupils with SEND, which is why, in special school provision, only 16% of schools partnering with the charity Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club without another style of school breakfast being delivered as well. I was privileged to witness that at first hand when I visited Eko Pathways school in East Ham recently. More than just instructive, it was an absolute joy to see the children so enthusiastically engaging in the breakfast club. I was struck by the way in which some of them, after queuing for their food, then took it to their classroom and began to tuck in as the lesson began. I accept that that would not be appropriate for mainstream pupils, but it was clearly an important part of making the delivery of breakfast at Eko Pathways school so effective in preparing pupils for their lessons each day. For that reason, I am happy to signal my support for Amendment 187 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister.
I turn to my Amendment 187A, which calls for the Secretary of State to gather and then publish detailed information on the state of breakfast club provision in schools. Of course, the Department for Education will monitor the overall uptake levels of school breakfast provision, which is the key metric in understanding how far-reaching the impact of the policy is proving to be. I believe that the DfE should gather representative data on the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, such as eligibility for free school meals, eligibility for the pupil premium and inclusion on the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, which has been referred to in previous groups today. That list is not exclusive, but these are the measures that include children and young people most at risk of morning hunger.
I believe the DfE should also consider collecting what is known as satisfaction data from pupils, teachers and caregivers. Without underlying metrics such as satisfaction, it is difficult to improve and augment the policy to increase its reach. Finally, impact measurements should be considered. These can include measuring positive effects on attendance, behaviour and health and well-being, as well, of course, as educational achievement further down the line. The charity Magic Breakfast collects data in relation to these, through both school surveys and academic studies. I hope my noble friend will agree that the Government should consider a balance of such methods to ensure robust data collection. I suspect she may say in her response that this is not required in the Bill, and I would accept that if she would also give a commitment that the data will be collected along the lines that I have suggested.
However, outside of the legislative structure, the Government are showing a commitment to developing better evaluation of policy. The Evaluation Task Force says that it drives
“continuous improvements in the way government programmes are evaluated in order to inform decisions”.
Including data collection and publication in the Bill would be a strong indicator of the Government’s commitment to evaluation.
The risk of not collecting this data is shown by the Welsh Government example. I refer to Amendment 187B in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, regarding impact assessment. I believe that six months is too short a timescale for meaningful assessments to be made. To some extent, the same might be said of Amendment 190 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Cass, but a period of 12 months would at least allow a full school year to be assessed.
Data collection is essential. Primary school free breakfast provision has been available in Wales since 2007, but the Welsh Government do not publish, nor seemingly even record, significant data on the effectiveness of their policy. That might explain why there have been no substantial changes to that policy, which has been in place for some 18 years.
In 2022, Wales was included in Magic Breakfast’s Hidden Hunger report, which found that, despite the legislation being intended to reach all primary schools in Wales, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were not reached by the provision. In another 2022 report, the Child Poverty Action Group and Parentkind noted that school breakfast clubs in Wales were
“not being made available to all families, despite a universal free primary breakfast offer”.
Wales was a leader in school breakfast provision, but a lack of monitoring risks the policy falling behind. Robust data collection being mandated by the Bill could avoid the risk of England falling to the same eventuality.
Lastly, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not in his place to speak to his Amendment 184, which seeks to ensure that the Government underwrite the cost of providing breakfast clubs. Although it is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, I sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, this point was also made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, in their contributions. I was of course pleased to see the rollout in April of the first 750 schools providing free breakfasts for almost 200,000 pupils, but some schools have either not put themselves forward to participate or, in a few cases, have even withdrawn, citing financial reasons.
We all want the breakfast club provisions to be in place the length and breadth of the country, and eventually that will happen. I hope my noble friend the Minister will have something to say on the question of schools having their costs covered to ensure that the rollout can be completed as quickly as possible.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 175, 190 and 194. The recent Food, Diet and Obesity Committee special inquiry, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a wake-up call for all of us who served on it. We were shocked by the evidence from parents, campaigners, academics and others about the quality of food in schools. Our recommendations were powerful but are, sadly, unimplemented to date. However, there were bright spots, including Chefs in Schools, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which showed how good food can be delivered at very little extra cost.
The Government’s announcement that they want a major shift to prevention in healthcare is welcome, but they need to follow through with children’s nutrition if they are serious about that. Frontier Economics has estimated that overweight and obesity costs the UK economy £98 billion every year. Much of that is due to increased spending on the NHS—money that is then denied to other departments.
We have an obesity crisis—especially childhood obesity—in the UK. One in five children is already overweight or obese when they start primary school. That rises to one in four among the most deprived 20% of the population, who are most likely to be receiving free school meals. We also have increasing rates of tooth decay in children, and type 2 diabetes. Before 2000, it was unheard of for children to get type 2 diabetes. Many of the poorest children require a strong nutritional safety net to ensure that they are well fed and well nourished as they grow.
Amendment 175 relates to the holiday activities and food programme. The introduction of that programme was a proud achievement of the previous Government. It does what it says on the tin, providing activities and meals to children on low incomes during the summer holidays at a time when they are not able to access free school meals, which many rely on. However, unlike free school meals, the scheme has no basis in legislation; this amendment would change that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187 in my name, and I am supportive of others in this group, particularly those in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote and support a mixed model of breakfast provision, already mentioned by my noble friend, which would better meet the Government’s objectives, in the view of Magic Breakfast, which has years of experience of school breakfast provision, and to which I am grateful for its support.
I have long been a supporter of free school breakfasts, particularly for children living in poverty, for whom the provision of breakfast can make so much difference to their well-being and their ability to benefit from their schooling. I was therefore delighted that the Government had included them for primary school children in the bill. However, I am persuaded by Magic Breakfast’s argument in favour of a more flexible approach that would embrace other forms of provision as well as breakfast clubs—“breakfast clubs plus”, if you like. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the duty it places on schools is a minimum. The official guidance for the early adopter scheme makes it clear that schools are encouraged to go beyond the minimum standards. This amendment would signal that more clearly and would support schools in going beyond the minimum.
Magic Breakfast very much supports the breakfast club model as a minimum standard, but suggests that, because its inflexibility means that it can limit access to food in ways we already heard about, it is not the best model on its own for tackling hunger and child poverty, which I know the Secretary of State cares passionately about. The two other models that could play a valuable role are classroom-based and nurture-group provision. Classroom provision is delivered within the main learning environment, either straight before the start of the school day or as part of a soft start to the day. The latter can support the development of soft skills and ensure that all pupils are adequately fed and ready to start learning.
Nurture groups are commonly used in both mainstream and specialist settings to provide a small-group environment, particularly for pupils with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. Many Magic Breakfast partner schools deliver such provision in a variety of ways, enabling them to take a more person-centred approach to the needs of pupils. The amendment will support both these models but would leave it open to the Secretary of State to promote other models that go beyond the delivery of food.
Magic Breakfast sums up the amendment as encouraging a “place-based approach” to breakfast policy-making. It believes that such an approach has been a key driver behind the scale of take-up of breakfasts in its partner schools. On average, this is 375% higher than among non-Magic Breakfast schools. It suggests that the reason is that alternative models do not require access to childcare or necessarily being at school early. Not every pupil at risk of hunger is able to access before-school provision due to factors beyond their, and often their parents’, control.
This is particularly true of those with SEND, an issue that was raised a number of times in the Commons and by my noble friend Lord Watson. A mixed model is better able to respond to difficulties that SEND pupils might have with transport, specialist medication and eating needs and large-group provision. It can offer the kind of pupil-centred provision that is needed. It is no accident that only 16% of special schools partnered with Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club-only model. I am sure many noble Lords have received the open letter signed by leading charities on this matter.
According to Magic Breakfast, the breakfast club model is particularly expensive. In 2021, analysis by the Education Endowment Foundation found mixed models make more efficient use of staffing and that, on average, a mixed model approach was up to 75% cheaper than a pure breakfast club model. I would have thought that that would be music to the ears of the Government.
In conclusion, the Government’s laudable objectives with regard to education, hunger and child poverty would be better met by adopting the mixed-model approach put forward in this amendment. If my noble friend the Minister does not feel able to accept this, or an alternative, amendment, I would urge her in her response to first explicitly recognise the case for schools delivering school breakfast in a way that has regard for the varied needs of their pupils and that is focused on alleviating hunger and, secondly, to commit to encouraging mixed models of provision in national guidance.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about my amendment, which is about a slightly different area but attached to the same part of the Bill.
School activity has taken rather a pounding of late. If you link sport, arts, music, culture, youth clubs and so on only to a school, so they happen only in a school setting, they stop when school stops. If you make it just about education—sport is a very good example of this—dropout ages are 16, 18 and 21, because that is when you leave your educational institution. I hope that here we would have an opportunity to get the voluntary sector back talking to and helping young people.
On the amendments I tabled, subsection (2A) in Amendment 185 is at least as important, because it means providing voluntary activity in schools so they can identify with and get in contact with these groups outside. The groups outside want to make contact. Their survival and the survival of their activity depends on getting new people in, and they are giving something positive back. Anybody who has had any experience with anything from an am-dram group to a rugby team knows there is a social network that is interdependent and builds up a sense of community and purpose, and helps that group and those people in it, effectively providing almost a family group at times. It is a place where you can find jobs, structure, help, support and purpose; it is all there.
Apart from a diatribe that amateur sport will save the world, it is a fact that we are going to very solid, well-established ground here. I do not think anybody is going to disagree that these things are beneficial. We talk about the health aspect and the need for a good diet, but it is possible to put on weight on healthy food if you do not move. Let us look at how we can expand education not just through the education establishment. We should look to people who are doing positive things on a voluntary basis and helping you get out there.
Just to cast an eye on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we are about to discuss, this is another good amendment. I know the noble Lord well, and I have no doubt that he will have more to say on it. He refers to me as his “friend in sport”, and I am glad to carry on that one. Basically, if we do not encourage these formal lines back into our education system—unfortunately we have broken, or at least damaged, the informal ones—we are going to lose this contact with somewhere where you go on to do something positive. I look forward to the Minister’s answer, and to her answer on the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, while we are still on breakfast clubs, I hope I can jump in to speak to Amendment 184, which relates to the additional costs of breakfast clubs in primary schools, combined with the quality of food expected. The amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, who is sorry that he cannot be in the Committee right now. Like others in this group, this is, to a certain extent, a probing amendment to understand how much the Government understand about the whole-of-service costs that this part of the Bill will impose on schools and how they plan to meet them, based on conversations with those currently involved in making breakfast clubs work.
I support breakfast clubs. I have previously declared an interest as a mum whose daughter goes to breakfast clubs, and I am a big fan of their provision. For me, they provide hugely valuable additional childcare that allows me and my partner to meet our work commitments, but I also recognise the role that they play in ensuring that no child starts school hungry and unable to learn.
Turning to the practical implications, let us assume that a breakfast club in a primary school is taken up by 50% of the children in that school. A two-form entry school would require oversight by seven members of staff, and a school with a single form would require four members of staff. This does not include the catering element. That ratio is set out in regulations, so it is not advisory. A single-form entry primary school is highly unlikely to have sufficient unused non-teaching staff resource to handle the new obligation without drawing on directed teacher time.
That brings us back to the vital concept of the hard cap on directed time. If, for example, a teacher now has to be diverted for an hour a day to support and supervise a breakfast club, that is around 170 hours a year out of 1,265. Some 15% of the time, they will no longer be available for other duties—most significantly teaching. How are the Government going to account for this?
To the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I say that I completely acknowledge the additional money that has been put into schools through last week’s spending review settlement, and previously, but, when we take into account increased eligibility for free school meals—which is welcome—increased SEND costs, teacher pay awards and increased national insurance costs, my understanding is that there is currently no additional funding to meet the costs of a national rollout of breakfast clubs. That is a question that remains unanswered. The same applies to non-teaching staff: more hours will be required, so how will it be paid for?
Currently, schools can charge parents for early delivery of children before the academic day begins. As I have said, this enables working parents to drop their children off on their way to work, and it works well. I pay £3 for 45 minutes, including breakfast. This will rise to £4 pounds in September, but with provision extending to an hour. For me, it is fantastic value. Many schools deliver this provision for free or at a lower cost for children in receipt of free school meals, with the costs covered by the pupil premium income that a school receives.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments and to follow all noble Lords and give more than a nod to many of the amendments that have already been debated. I also wait in anticipation for my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment, which I would have signed if I had been quicker with my drafting pen. I shall speak to Amendment 186 in my name and I thank my friend in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for co-signing that amendment. I am also grateful to all organisations that have been in contact with me on the issues this amendment addresses.
The Government have set out their plans for breakfast clubs, but in many ways those plans are silent when it comes to children with special educational needs and disability. There is a whole series of risks with not being clear in the Bill in relation to the issues that are specific to those groups of children: not least the question of food itself and the attendant issues; transport—how those young people get to school in the first instance—and the specialist support that is often required throughout the school day. Without consideration of those three issues, it is likely that the plans will leave children with special educational needs and disabilities with suboptimal—or potentially no—ability to access the breakfast club provisions.
Current data shows that a third of children with special educational needs are entitled to free school meals but do not access them. That stat would increase if you considered the specific context of breakfast. The evidence is clear that, as other noble Lords have pointed out, when it comes to good-quality, nutritious food there is an academic benefit and a mental and physical benefit—food for thought, food for sport.
If a third of young people with special educational needs and disabilities are not enabled to take the opportunity of free school meals, it seems clear that the Bill needs to be far more specific when it comes to the nature of provision that can be inclusive for all those who would wish to benefit from such provision. It is a question not just of the nutritious food but of the social network and the relationship element. If SEN and disabled children are unable to access the breakfast clubs, they are cut out of not only the food provision but that important part of the social network—the relationship nature of the whole school day experience. What happens if the transport is structured in such a way that it does not get to the school until the official start of the academic school day? Again, SEN and disabled children are effectively excluded.
For many people, food can be a difficult subject to discuss. There are specific issues when it comes to those with disabilities, particularly those who suffer from ARFID and other such conditions. The relationship to food can be complex. The Bill is largely silent in this respect. If the Bill does not specifically address the issues around transport, the provision of that specialist support and food provision, breakfast clubs will not be inclusive and will not enable and empower those with SEN and disabilities. There are many start points in life that impact people’s educational career and, subsequently, their work career. They can be positive or otherwise. Breakfast clubs need to be in that positive bracket. Currently they are somewhere short of it.
In short, the Bill needs to be clear that breakfast clubs are inclusive for all. As ever, “inclusive by design” does not just mean making provisions that benefit those with special educational needs or disabilities. It means benefiting the whole school population and the whole school experience. If the Government do not make amendments to this effect, the outcome is far more likely to risk those children with special educational needs and disabilities being disadvantaged before the school day has even begun.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes. I am a little surprised that we are making such fast progress in this Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is making her way here as quickly as possible from chairing another meeting, her amendment having been reached mildly in advance of when she thought. She is passionate on this subject. If anybody can get here quickly from a meeting, it will be one of our finest Paralympians in history. I hope that she will be joining us shortly.
I welcome that we have grouped the importance of food with that of physical education and activities. To use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, if she had got her act together, I hope she would have also signed my amendment and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. When it comes to activities, it is exceptionally important. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, a passionate sports fan and an exemplar of fitness and well-being from Lanarkshire, would also have added his name to this amendment. It is great to see the Minister for football now taking her seat on the Front Bench for this important debate, even if she is not wholly focused on the importance of the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines, which are the subject of my amendment.
Before I come to Amendment 185A, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I thought she spoke outstandingly well about the Healthy Start scheme, but while the Healthy Start scheme focuses on nutrition, physical education in schools contributes to physical activity and overall well-being, which are essential to a healthy start in life. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in focusing on provision before the start of the first school session to improve well-being, highlighted an important point about not just community sports but arts and music and their engagement in the schools programme.
In my Amendment 185A, I talk specifically about
“the provision of activities consisting of physical activity which contributes to the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines before the start of the first school session on each school day”,
although, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we could stretch that out throughout the whole school day. In that sense, this is a probing amendment.
By any educational measure, physical activity in our schools would be placed in a category of concern. It requires improvement. It needs special measures. Physical activity in schools, sport, physical literacy, teacher training, the opportunity to engage in sport and the benefits that come from sport in schools have been in decline over not just the past year but the past 20 years. I have said many times that one of the greatest sadnesses in my life has been the fact that despite an outstanding London 2012 Olympic Games, with the fantastic changes that took place in the East End of London, we did not leave a legacy for school sport or in opportunities for young people to engage in sport.
The Chief Medical Officer expects young people from five to 18 to engage in moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity for an average of at least 60 minutes per day across the week. This can include all activities, such as physical education, active travel, after-school activities, play and sports, including walking to and from school. That is a very low bar. In Australia and New Zealand, the chief medical officers add on top of that several hours of light physical activity. The chief medical officers in both those countries take walking and playing out. The UK Chief Medical Officer’s focus on one hour includes those things, so we have a very low bar.
Let us look at what is happening in the UK when it comes to delivering on those guidelines. I mentioned the Chief Medical Officer’s basic recommendation for physical activity. The reality is that 30% of children do less than 30 minutes of exercise a day, and a further 22.7% average between 30 minutes and an hour. That means that more than half our children, some 3.9 million, do not meet the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation. If that is not the definition of a crisis of physical education in schools and a crisis of opportunity for our young people, I do not know what is. It is essential that in an important Bill such as this, on well-being, we have at least some mention of physical activity, some mention of sport, some national plan that remedies and addresses one of the biggest crises that we face in schools at present.
I put today’s amendment out there as a probing amendment to set the scene for many amendments that are going to come before this Committee much later in the Bill when we will look in detail at what can be done. Right across the board, it is important to look at the curriculum, teacher training, facilities, and co-operation and engagement with local authorities and local clubs, maximising the opportunity for young people to participate in physical education and sport in schools.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I was not originally planning to trouble this chorus, so I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I absolutely endorse and support his Amendment 185A, which he spoke to just now in very cogent and powerful terms. If we can ensure that there is more sport in schools, that will have a read across to health and well-being and it will help counter obesity.
I suggest that one of the most important takeaways from this short debate has been the figures put forward and explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, around the obesity crisis we are facing in this country. It really is quite shocking. The impact that will have on the health service in future generations is something we should all be really concerned about. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also made that point extremely well.
During my 32 years as an MP, I tried to visit a school every fortnight. Over 32 years, that is quite a few schools. I saw a great variety—a huge spectrum—of performance in terms of school meals. To be honest, you can have whatever standards you want, but if there is not leadership in schools on the part of the head and the chairman of governors, and there is not determination and will to ensure that food is of a high standard, then even with more money schools will not deliver. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made a very good point that it is not just about cost, as you can deliver better-quality food with really good ingredients at very little extra cost. That has been proven beyond any doubt.
I had a look a moment ago at Ofsted’s responsibilities. Ofsted is not actually responsible for food in schools but can comment on the standards of food. I have read a huge number of Ofsted reports over the last number of years, and I do not recall any of them commenting on food standards, even when it is well known that food standards in that school are at a very low level. It is legally the Minister’s department’s responsibility, but Ofsted can comment, and I think that it should comment much more often. Can she comment on that point?
I raise very quickly the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, regarding SEN pupils at special needs schools. In my old constituency, there were two special needs schools and there were a number of autistic units in secondary schools. A special school, with the leadership and the right policies in place, can often deliver really high standards of food; I have seen that on many occasions. Normally, there is a determination and will in those schools to make sure the pupils are properly fed and given every opportunity. That is very often in the context of a well-equipped and well-funded special school.
However, when it comes to an autistic unit within a secondary school, as my noble friend Lord Holmes pointed out, there are lots of issues around transport, the one-to-one attention that these children often demand, the role of TAs and the fact that very often you have an autistic unit that is separate from the main school, although it is part of the school. I suggest to the Minister that sometimes that unit can get left behind. What is her department going to do about that, because so much of what we heard during this group of amendments is very positive but it requires delivery? Even when the legislation is passed, I hope that some of these amendments will be picked up by the Government. Although my noble friend Lord Moynihan said his was a probing amendment, I see no reason why the Government cannot adopt and support it, go away and think about it and include it in the Bill when we come back on Report.
With those few remarks, I hope the Minister will take on board the point that, whatever the Bill says, it will require her and her department to make sure it all happens in the future.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I always enjoy the sports love-in we get in these debates. I admire the support we have for each other.
I was a great fan of the Blair Government in so far as, on the curriculum, they ensured that in primary schools there was at least two hours of physical education a day—and that happened. They also encouraged swimming and after-school activities, with the setting up of after-school clubs. That was really important but, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggested, since those days we have gone backwards.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that you can link after-school provision and breakfast clubs to activities as well, and that happens all the time. We have talked about the 400 breakfast clubs, or however many there are, but for years many schools up and down the country have been providing breakfast clubs, either for free or sponsored by a local business or provided by the school itself from its pupil premium or at very little cost. There are probably more breakfast clubs in that category than the current pilot has to offer. We should thank those schools for what they have been doing.
I also have a great deal of time for the coalition Government’s decision to bring in free universal meals for all of key stage 1—that is years 1 and 2. The independent results from the provision showed that providing free meals improved attendance and learning, helped children who were in poverty and improved social interaction between children, because when you have breakfast together, you talk and relate to each other, and that is hugely important.
The amendments that have been tabled have to be thought through very carefully. They all have something that adds to what we understand. I do not understand, for example, why the Government never consider automatic enrolment. Is it to try to save money? Surely not. I also think that we have got to a stage now where we have the 300 or 400 pilot schemes in the breakfast clubs, and I would like to know when the next phase is going to happen and how many schools we think we will want to encourage. There will no doubt be a question about the provision of kitchens and all those sorts of things. I would like to know the answer to that.
We have that. We have the free meals for key stage 1, which have been extended with the Government’s announcement. Presumably we will look at after-school provision at some stage because providing meals for children after school is important as well. There is the issue of meals in holidays. All those have a cost to them. I understand why the Government do not want to do things straightaway, because you have to find the money to pay for them, but we could have a road map of where we want to go—what do we want to do first? What are the next things we want to do?—so that the points made in Committee can be clearly thought through.
We started this debate with the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I was fascinated by the information that she gave us, which was picked up, of course, by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It is not just about provision; it is about the quality of the provision and how healthy that provision is for children. It is easy to give a plate of toast or whatever, or a soft drink, but that is not necessarily healthy. It is easy to give Kellogg’s—and yes, Kellogg’s would want to sponsor various schools, would it not?—because it is filled with sugar. That is not the breakfast I think children should be having. Those are really important issues and when the Minister goes away from this Committee stage, I hope she will reflect on these amendments, because I think they are potentially life-changing for our children and young people.
Finally, let us just remind ourselves that, as of 2023, over 4 million children across the UK live in food-insecure households, with the cost of living crisis creating further problems in terms of access to nutritious food. The absence of school meals during holidays has been linked to cognitive decline, poor nutrition and a rise in child hunger-related hospital admissions. That is independently verified. I thought the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in relation to special schools was hugely important; again, the Minister should think very carefully about that. I thank noble Lords for the amendments, which, if enacted, will make a huge difference to our children and young people.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the provision of food in schools. It is essential that children have a balanced diet to ensure that their development can progress as it should. As such, this is an incredibly important group of amendments, as a balanced diet is the cornerstone of ensuring that our children grow up healthily.
I will speak first to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which I have signed. Amendment 186B is a probing amendment that seeks to understand why the Secretary of State would not be able to exempt a school from the duty of providing free breakfast clubs without a prior application from the school. It seeks to question how this application system will work in practice. Can the Minister say what the process will be and whether there will be a time by which the Secretary of State must respond?
Amendment 186C probes the same area but seeks to clarify the consultation process that a school authority must take before making such an application. It seems important that teachers are also involved in the process, so will the Minister give greater detail about the process and explain why the teachers are not included?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we know—and it has been expressed several times in this very wide-ranging debate this afternoon—that too many children are not getting the nutrition that they need to thrive at school. We know that hunger affects concentration, behaviour and learning, yet many pupils arrive at school without breakfast. Many schools excel in meeting the nutritional standards expected of their food offer, but some fall short. We also know that excellent schemes such as Healthy Start remain underused, not because families do not need the help but because they are not aware of it.
Clauses 27 and 28 seek to close the gap between intention and implementation. Together, they aim to ensure that no child is too hungry to learn and that our school food system works fairly and consistently for all.
Amendments in group 7 cover a wide range of areas, from breakfast clubs, school food standards, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme, and I will respond to all those amendments. To begin with the point about breakfast clubs, the delivery of breakfast clubs is a government manifesto commitment. We have committed to introduce free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. Of course, I accept that, for very many years, including when I was last in the Department for Education, there have been schools that have offered support for breakfast, or breakfast clubs, in a whole variety of ways in order to support children.
However, what there has never been is a consistent entitlement to that opportunity which is universally available for all children and free. That is what this legislation aims to promote. It places a duty on state-funded schools providing primary education to make accessible a free breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes before the school day, for every pupil from reception to year 6, helping them start the day ready to learn. This is of course about food, but it is not only about food. Free breakfast clubs will mean that every primary school child, no matter their circumstances, is well prepared to learn. It is good for attendance, behaviour and attainment, and it will also support parents to have more choice on when to work and will support families with the cost of childcare.
Amendments 183D, 186 and 186A, in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly concern access to breakfast clubs for children with special educational needs and disabilities of all ages in special schools, and access for children receiving education otherwise than at school.
My noble friend, the noble Lord and others have made a very fair point about the unique challenges for special schools in delivering breakfast clubs. It is categorically the aim of the Government to design this scheme to be inclusive. We all know that the landscape across SEND is extremely complex, particularly given that needs and abilities can vary significantly across age groups.
I also accept the important points made by noble Lords about the challenge of transporting children to school and the challenges of the additional support necessary for some children. We are convinced of the benefits of a breakfast club and we want to start by giving the youngest pupils, regardless of their circumstances, a great start to the school day.
However, we are not hiding from the fact that there will be challenges in doing that. That is why we are working with our early adopters—of which there are 750, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. They include special schools and mainstream schools with pupils with SEND. The aim of this scheme is to test what works, where there are difficulties and how the policy can best be implemented.
Amendments 185 and 185A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan, seek to extend the definition of breakfast club provision to include physical enrichment, art and cultural, and youth mentoring activities. Amendments 187 and 187B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to promote alternative forms of breakfast provision, alongside publishing an impact assessment. I absolutely assure your Lordships that I agree that sporting and enriching activities offer fantastic benefits to pupils’ health and well-being.
I am enormously delighted that I can respond to the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the Government’s commitment by pointing him to the Prime Minister’s announcement today, while visiting the Lionesses to offer them support in the forthcoming Euros tournament. He announced a new approach to school sport, with new school sport partnerships bringing together schools, local authorities, local sports clubs and national governing bodies, and a new enrichment framework for schools to ensure that all young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extracurricular activity. The new approach includes aims for minimum teaching times for PE, and for girls to be given the same opportunity as boys to play sport at school, as well as equal access for those with special needs and disabilities. I think that is an important announcement, and I hope that noble Lords will look further at what the Prime Minister has announced today, as well as offering their support to the Lionesses in advance of the Euros.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I appreciate the detail that the Minister has gone into and that further information about the national rollout will happen in due course, but we have just had the comprehensive spending review, so can I ask whether the funding for the national rollout is included within the DfE’s settlement from the comprehensive spending review or whether there will be additional funding on top of that settlement to fund the national rollout? I am not asking how it will work but whether it is in the CSR settlement or whether there will be more, in addition, at a later point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What we have announced as part of the spending review settlement is separate to the funding for the national rollout, about which we will bring forward information.
On Amendment 505B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, early adopters are key to ensuring that we get implementation right before national rollout. This learning will help develop our statutory guidance. More information will be made available, including on the exemptions process, to Parliament and in the public domain.
On that exemptions power, in relation to Amendments 186B and 186C, I understand that there may be extreme and, critically, individual circumstances that could prevent individual schools meeting their duties to provide breakfast clubs. The exemption power is designed to address this on a case-by-case basis. That is why schools would be expected to apply and to be able to demonstrate their exemption eligibility under one of the criteria set out in the legislation. Our expectation is that any school seeking an exemption will actively engage with its school community, the local authority and the department to ensure that it has done all it can to meet its breakfast club duty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt. It may be me—I may have missed it, as it getting to the end of the week—but I am not sure that my noble friend responded to Amendment 187 with the Government’s position on the mixed models. I know she talked a lot about physical activity and so forth. If she did say, can she repeat it? There is quite a lot that she is having to cram together into different slots, and I do not think there was anything explicit about the mixed model promoted by Amendment 187.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The point I made was that I and the Government disagree with my noble friend that there should be a sort of all-flowers-blooming approach to breakfast clubs. I set out the reason why the Government believe there should be a basic set of conditions and criteria for breakfast clubs. Of course, it is completely possible that schools may well then decide to put on other provision alongside the basic provision laid out in the criteria set out for breakfast clubs in legislation—this is one of the things that we will look at in the early adopters scheme—but the Government are not favouring the idea that there would be a variety of different routes. That is because of the points I made about this being about the provision not just of food but of the club and of the 30 minutes of childcare. Those things are quite an important basis of what is being delivered through the breakfast club programme.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I just have one more question for the Minister before we move on from breakfast clubs. I really appreciate what she said about the pathfinder schools being used to understand how, for example, the very clear provision that the Government want would work alongside existing provision or extended provision and to learn from that. Can the Minister commit to publishing the findings of those pathfinder schools and that initial work and laying those findings before the House before we consider the regulations that would come subsequent to this legislation, so that we can see and fully understand what has been learned and taken on from those initial 750 schools when moving to a national rollout?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have already made clear that monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme. That will not only enable us to work out how to develop the scheme further in terms of a national rollout but allow noble Lords and others to analyse the extent to which the model is working and what some of the challenges may be around issues raised by noble Lords this afternoon.
Baroness Penn (Con)
To be really specific, will the outcomes of that monitoring and evaluation be made available before the regulations are laid to implement breakfast clubs nationally? That is my question. If the Minister’s answer is no, that is fine. Maybe she has been clear, but I would hope it would be yes—that is what I would like to know.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What I have been absolutely clear about is that the point of the early adopters scheme is to enable us to design the national rollout. If the noble Baroness wants me to commit to bringing back further information to the House, I am of course willing to do that. My point is that the information will in fact be much more widely available in terms of all of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. I thought that I have been pretty clear about that.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, which is very welcome. It is very similar to a proposal made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which, sadly, did not happen, in the build-up to the London 2012 Games. One reason why it faltered was because the cost associated with delivering those objectives was very high indeed. I happen to believe it was well worth the budget. Can the Minister confirm whether the costs associated with what has been announced this afternoon will be covered by her departmental budget, or are they coming from elsewhere in government?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, I am not going to go into those details, and neither would the noble Lord expect me to. He challenged me about whether any announcements had been made, and I pointed him to one made today. I will just point out, however, that the reason why the plans outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not come to fruition was because, of course, after 2010, Gordon Brown was not the Prime Minister anymore and those who were did not choose to take forward those plans. That is why we have had to wait until this point, under a Labour Government, for another commitment to the sort of sporting entitlement that he asked about earlier.
To move on from breakfast clubs, I turn to Amendments 190 and 194 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Boycott, which seek to establish a school food improvement scheme and to update the school food standards. I recognise the importance of these reforms and the vital work that noble Lords have done to raise the profile of school food policy. That is why I am pleased that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able to announce in the other place, on 5 June, that we are working with stakeholders and experts from across the sector to revise those standards, to ensure that they support our work to create the healthiest generation of children in history. We will share further details on this consultation in due course. I invite noble Lords to engage on this, including on the important question of how we can ensure that schools comply with the updated school food standards. I am sure that that will build on the work already done by the compliance pilot and by the work done to support governors to challenge and assure the quality of food that is being offered in their schools.
There were several questions raised relating to free school meals and entitlement. We will of course have the opportunity to return to those and to deal with them when we come to the group that is specifically about free school meals. That is why I am not covering them now.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have really enjoyed this debate, which has covered many aspects of the well-being of children, including good food and exercise and the effects they have on their health, learning and ability to socialise. I particularly enjoyed a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, when he said he enjoyed seeing the children “tuck in”. I think all of us want to see children tucking in to healthy, tasty food.
I was a little disappointed by the Minister on Amendment 161. I had hoped that she would be able to tell me how she can do it, rather than why she cannot, but I think I shall have to be satisfied for the time being. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, responded to the recommendations of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, and I expressed disappointment that all she was able to tell me was that she was going to implement some of the things that the previous Government had already promised, but she did promise that there would be more. I said that I was really encouraged by that, and I hope that the Minister took on board that I said earlier, in terms, that I very much welcomed the widening of eligibility for free school meals and the commitment to reviewing school food standards, which Minister Morgan promised me last November. That is very good indeed. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I welcome every extra penny that goes to providing children with more good food.
My noble friend mentioned Tony Blair. I do not know if the Minister is aware that a few months ago, Henry Dimbleby and Dolly van Tulleken produced a report called Nourishing Britain, in which they interviewed previous Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State for Health and other appropriate Ministers and asked them what they wished they had done. Most of them said that they wished they had done more. Tony Blair said that his advice to a Government is to be bold and act fast. While welcoming what the Government are already doing, I say to them—and I hope I will not be blamed for saying this: be bolder and act faster. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, although the Government have taken some important steps forward, there are still a number of places in which to do even better. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 161.
Lord Bird
“Child poverty targets(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the publication of the Child Poverty Strategy and no later than 31 March 2026 if that strategy has not been published, lay regulations made by statutory instrument that establish binding child poverty targets.(2) Child poverty targets must include—(a) targets for reducing the number of children living in poverty, and(b) timescales by which each target must be achieved.(3) The Secretary of State must lay an annual report before Parliament setting out—(a) steps they have taken to deliver on the child poverty targets, and(b) progress that has been made towards the child poverty targets.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets in regulations.
Lord Bird (CB)
Amendment 163 in my name would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets and report on them annually to Parliament. This amendment will hold the Government to their promise to reduce child poverty and enable them to measure their progress. This amendment would secure long-term focus on tackling child poverty which transcends changes of government.
I have listened to the former discussion and I am of the opinion that a lot of government and parliamentary time goes into chasing the horse once the horse has bolted. That is one of the big problems we have. We are talking about food and the fact that our children do not get fed properly; the poverty of knowledge, experience and need means that there are many millions of children in this country who have inherited poverty and, because they inherited poverty, they have a particular attitude towards food. I myself came from the Tizer-swilling, ice cream, Kit-Kat, Twix generation that took all those sorts of things, largely because that was what was on offer. I was culturally educated and socially created in that tradition.
I would like to see the Government have targets on reducing poverty, and I would like to have a debate on how we reduce it. I am not saying that I stand against the idea of giving children food—I welcome it. We welcomed it in the Big Issue and we celebrated the occasions when people like Marcus Rashford rushed forward and said, “Let’s have more food and free school meals for children”. I am a great believer in that. But the point is, when are we going to move beyond always responding once the horse has bolted? When are we going to move to a situation where we prevent children needing this?
One of the things that we could be doing is setting targets. We would be helping the Government, and ourselves, to look at all the things we can do to get rid of poverty, prevent poverty and cure people of poverty. I do not think that being well fed at school will necessarily make enormous changes to the trajectory of your life if you have been an inheritor of poverty. That is one of the major problems that we have. We have this situation where we are always coming up with bright and clever pilots, programmes and initiatives. Governments spend an enormous amount of time doing that.
I would love a situation where we try to say goodbye to poverty, and that will mean moving beyond these emergencies. I listen to the Government and the debates in society and I feel, in a way, that they are not much different from refugeeism. They are not much different from the internal refugees who exist in Britain: the people in the poorest situations who have inherited poverty. What we are doing is trying to make poverty a little bit more comfortable.
I am calling for the Government to have targets so that we can measure the effects of their efforts and advise and help them to move beyond this emergency-ism into prevention and cure-ism. Those are the kinds of areas I am interested in and why I tabled Amendment 163.
Will the Government commit to targets to reduce child poverty? Will the child poverty strategy include targets? I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 163, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for tabling it.
A recent article in the academic journal Social Policy & Administration on the harm done to children by the benefit cap and the two-child limit, demonstrated the implications of poverty for children’s well-being. The authors concluded that their evidence provides
“a stark illustration of the multiple and severe harms”,
including social and emotional harms,
“caused by poverty, and … the benefit cap and the two-child limit”.
Similarly, other academic research points to the “hidden injuries” and “degradations” suffered particularly by families in deep poverty. The Children’s Society’s The Good Childhood Report makes clear the damage poverty does to children’s well-being. New research from the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, highlights the ways in which lack of money can prevent secondary school children attending school and limits their time at school.
The establishment of the child poverty task force and the commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy, which is the kind of thing the noble Lord is asking for, is thus very welcome. In a report I wrote recently for Compass, I supported the case made by End Child Poverty and many others for legally binding targets with clear milestones, pointing to the experience of the last Labour Government, when targets helped to galvanise action on child poverty, leading to a reduction of 600,000 or six percentage points. That experience underlined the importance of targets to the effectiveness of the emergent strategy.
CPAG conducted interviews with 40 practitioners with a range of expertise relating to child poverty. They were unanimous in their view that an effective strategy must set clear targets. CPAG argued that such targets for the short, medium and long term need to be “aspirational yet achievable”, learning from other countries.
The practitioners also make the case for a target relating to the depth of poverty, such as reducing average or median poverty depth. This, they suggest,
“will spur the strategy to increase incomes for all children in poverty and help to demonstrate progress even for children who remain in poverty”.
It might be “making poverty more comfortable”, to quote the noble Lord—like him, I would like to see the end of poverty—but in the short term, for those who are really pushed deep into poverty, making it slightly more comfortable is, perhaps, no bad thing. It would also help to counter the argument sometimes used against targets: that they encourage a “poverty plus a pound” mentality that thinks the job is done once enough people are pulled just across the poverty line. Incidentally, the same could be said of a parallel duty to measure children’s well-being, which is the subject of a later amendment.
In its latest poverty report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation observed that the average person in poverty has an income 28% below the poverty line, up from 23% in the mid-1990s. Those living in very deep poverty have an average income 57% below the poverty line—an increase in the gap of nearly two-thirds over the past 25 years. Families have been pushed deeper and deeper into poverty, largely due to the huge cuts in social security made by the Conservative Governments.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bird, to which I added my name. One of the advantages of membership of this House is the free subscription to the New Statesman, which recently devoted a whole issue to Britain’s child poverty epidemic. From it, I will quote Andrew Marr, who wrote that
“child poverty is inescapably central to any party with a sense of justice and fairness—it creates damage for a lifetime”.
As a teacher, I am increasingly aware of the growing research that shows that education is not the leveller that we thought it was. What comes in goes out. Poverty, lack of opportunities, transport and cultural capital all impact on a child’s progress and attainment. As Gordon Brown said, it costs more not to invest in children than to invest in them. We have déjà vu here. Once again, like the curriculum review, the Bill is arriving before a crucial report. This amendment, so movingly and passionately introduced by my noble friend, enshrines that the findings of the child poverty strategy are acted on. If they are not, a lot of work that we have been doing on this Bill will eventually be proven to have been expensively wasted.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tour de force. One thing he did not say was that, as soon as children, particularly children from low-income families, go into school, the gap in their learning narrows as a result of child poverty. Growing up in poverty is strongly linked to lower educational outcomes, worse health and reduced lifetime earnings. As of 2022-23, 4.3 million children, 29%, in the UK lived in relative poverty. Rates are higher for single-parent and minority-ethnic families. An estimated £500 million in unpaid child maintenance exists, and many lone parents do not receive the money that is due to them. The Child Poverty Act 2010 led to measurable progress until—and this is crucial—the targets were removed in 2016. During that period, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%.
We could all get involved in talking about the effects of child poverty, but the amendment is about saying, “We need to have targets”, and that is absolutely right. You cannot go on a journey unless you know what you want to achieve and measure as you go along. I will repeat the evidence to support that: the Child Poverty Act 2010 had targets, and it led to improvements. As soon as those targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. What does that tell us? Does that tell us targets are right or that they are not the best way of moving forward? I do not know, but my common sense tells me that you need to have targets to understand where you are going. I do not understand what I am saying, to be quite honest, because I thought the targets were—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have not spoken on the Bill, but I have been present for quite a lot of the debates. I am slightly confused by the what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, and I wonder whether he meant to phrase it like that. He said that when the targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. Does he mean it the other way round—that it rose, rather than fell? I just wondered whether he might be able to clarify that.
Lord Storey (LD)
I have to be careful here with what I say. When are you are in Committee, you are dealing with dozens of amendments, and you get handed briefs to do that. Initially, I read that to be the way the noble Baroness said it. But when I read it again, I thought, “This does not make sense. Could it be the other way round?” I slightly inwardly panicked and thought, “I am not going to mislead the Committee and say something that is not correct”. I am going to put that down and say that my common sense tells me that if you are doing something, you need to know where you are going on that journey. You need to be able to understand that a target is set and ask, “Have I reached that target or not?” The best example of that is—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am so sorry; this is perhaps just to put the noble Lord out of his misery. I remind noble Lords that under the last Labour Government, there were targets. They were made legally binding in the 2010 Act, but the targets were already there, and child poverty fell. Under the subsequent Governments, child poverty started to rise again, and it has risen. I am not saying it is just because of the targets, but the targets certainly helped to galvanise civil society, local authorities and central government. That is why the noble Lord’s gut feeling is absolutely right.
Lord Storey (LD)
It is wonderful to be surrounded by so many supportive people, including someone in the Official Opposition, who has just told me it should be the other way round.
What I originally said should have been the other way round. You have only to look at the NHS to see that: when we had clear targets in the NHS, we could see the progress that was being made or not being made. As soon as we did away with targets, we did not know how successful or unsuccessful we were. I support this amendment because it says, “If we are going to deal with child poverty, we need to say what we want to achieve and the targets we want to set”, and we can monitor them and know whether we are successful or unsuccessful. I apologise for misleading the Committee.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I begin by stressing that reducing child poverty is a goal that we clearly share across the House, and tackling the challenge of child poverty must be a priority for every Government. This Government have been very clear on that point.
Understandably, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, reflects his desire to drive forward real progress on this issue, and he brings extraordinary experience from his own life. My remarks and caution about the noble Lord’s amendments are in the spirit of honesty and respect to the noble Lord and in no way diminish the aims of his amendment but raise, I hope, reasonable questions about the approach.
As the noble Lord said—I have never heard the phrase used like this before, but I thought the concept of inherited poverty was very helpful—we know that child poverty stems from a number of different interconnected factors, including employment patterns, housing costs, structure of families, educational opportunities and regional economic conditions. My overriding concern is that having binding central targets risks oversimplifying this very complex challenge and could overlook local interventions that genuinely improve children’s lives. The challenges and underlying causes of a child living in poverty in Hackney or in Jaywick are significantly different, despite them being only about 50 miles apart. In fact, I would argue that, for a child growing up in poverty, the differences between Bristol and Weston-super-Mare, which are on each other’s doorstep, are also very great.
We have seen repeatedly how targets can distort behaviour and priorities. When governments and local authorities face binding targets, there is a risk that they are driven to pursue interventions that improve statistics rather than outcomes. This can lead to short-term fixes that artificially move families just above the poverty threshold without addressing the underlying causes; somewhere back to the empty stable and bolted horse that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, referred to. However, I absolutely recognise the reality behind the call that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made to make particularly deep poverty more comfortable—a slightly curious concept, but I think we all understand exactly what she means.
Child poverty, as noble Lords know, manifests differently across England—from rural communities that face challenges with transport and access to employment, to urban areas grappling with housing costs and concentrated deprivation. What works in Manchester would be inappropriate for rural Devon, and I would argue that local authorities, combined authorities and community organisations are perhaps often better placed to understand and respond to their specific poverty challenges than central government.
Setting binding targets risks creating a hierarchy of government priorities which may not reflect emerging needs or, indeed, changing subjects. Such targets risk us focusing on specific areas rather than the underlying causes of child poverty. So again, I do not agree with the approach set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, but I do agree with his ambition; and I also agree with the call of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for action as well as words.
As I said in opening, I know that the Government are very focused on reducing child poverty, and I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I just ask her why she thinks that all the charities working in the field and with local authorities, as well as academics, are calling for legally binding targets, if they would have the effect she says and would not help to address the systemic causes of poverty?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, I respect their opinions, but there is plenty of evidence—and the noble Baroness will know this in other contexts, not necessarily about child poverty—where targets have distorted behaviour, not always delivering on the aspiration of those who recommended them at the time.
Before I sit down, I would like to put on record a clarification about my closing remarks earlier on the first group that we debated today. I remain very concerned about the lack of a comprehensive and up-to-date dataset and analysis of the financial position of independent providers won from the Government, but I was wrong to say, in the earlier debate on Tuesday evening, that the figure the Minister quoted regarding the profits of the independent children’s home sector was for the whole sector. When I reread Hansard, possibly for the third time, it was clear that she had stated that it was for the largest 20 providers. In fact, the figure was for the 19 largest providers, but none the less I apologise to the Committee, to the Minister and to officials.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I inject one further thought that she might agree with? While the sentiments adduced in this debate are entirely right, and the concern is absolutely an important concern, does she agree that, in that discussion of centrally imposed targets versus the removal of targets, looking at the particular circumstances is profoundly important? The targets were removed after what those of us who do financial services call the global financial crash, when GDP declined considerably—in fact, we are still seeing the effects of what happened in 2008—but, because child poverty is relative, a decline in GDP has a material impact on whether child poverty goes up or down. I wonder whether that should be part of the consideration of where the targets fit. My own view is that some targets are important, but it is more important to get GDP going, which I think is the Government’s intent in this case, so relative child poverty of itself becomes less of a problem.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, and I absolutely agree with it.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Hampton in saying that education is fundamental here. You do not resolve poverty unless a child is put through education successfully. Therefore, my plea is that the main message from this debate should be that local authorities should prioritise promoting education for children in poverty. That is actually the way to a successful resolution of this problem.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the clarification at the end of her comments.
Amendment 163 has enabled us to have a very good debate about the importance of making progress on child poverty. I agree fully with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lady Lister for ambition on reducing child poverty. The success of the last Labour Government in tackling child poverty is the legacy that we are aiming to build on in this one. We want to see an enduring reduction in child poverty over this Parliament as part of a long-term, 10-year strategy for lasting change. The child poverty strategy, which we will publish in the autumn, will set out the Government’s strong commitment to this and, importantly, how we plan to achieve this reduction. The strategy will tackle overall child poverty as well as going beyond that to focus on the children in the deepest poverty, lacking essentials and what is needed to give every child the best start in life.
I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that this is a multifaceted problem. Several noble Lords have identified particular issues that are likely to benefit children. I agree that education, and particularly recognition of the need for education for disadvantaged children, which is also a key theme for this Government, is an important part of that, but there are in fact a complex and interrelated range of issues that lead to child poverty and that can help to alleviate it.
We have already started to take substantive action across major drivers of child poverty through the spending review 2025. This includes: an expansion of free school meals, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament; establishing a long-term crisis and resilience fund, supported by £1 billion a year; investing in local family support services; and extending the £3 bus fare cap. We have also announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation and £13.2 billion across the Parliament for the warm homes plan.
Our commitments at the 2025 spending review come on top of the existing action we are taking, which includes expanding free breakfast clubs, as we talked about today; capping the number of branded school uniform items that children are expected to wear, which I think we will talk about on Monday; increasing the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes; and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. The Child Poverty Taskforce will continue to explore all available levers to drive forward short and long-term action across government to reduce child poverty. The strategy will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience and better local support, especially in the early years. This will build on the reform plans under way across government and work under way in devolved Governments.
We agree that timely reporting is important in monitoring progress. The Government already have a statutory duty to publish poverty statistics annually. In addition, in the autumn we will set out the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we will put in place for our strategy for this year and future years, so that the progress we make is transparent for all. I very much take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made about accountability, both to this House and more broadly, for making progress on the strategy, but our view is that statutory targets for child poverty would not in themselves drive reductions in poverty. They can be reversed, and have been in the past, so do not serve as an effective means of binding government to a specific course of action. As my noble friend referenced—although only to say that she did not agree with it—they also risk adversely narrowing the focus of effort to moving the children closest to the poverty line over it, rather than the direct and comprehensive approach that we will take to helping children in relative and deep poverty across the United Kingdom.
I cannot help but add that noble Lords have come up with all sorts of reasons as to why things might have changed in 2010, but my view is that the defining issue in whether children get out of poverty is not whether targets are set but the nature of the Government at the time. The last Labour Government saw reductions in child poverty; this Labour Government are committed to achieving that as well. I hope that provides assurance to noble Lords.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I have a last point to make. I am obviously disappointed by my noble friend’s response on targets, but she talked about monitoring and accountability. One of the really good things about the way the Child Poverty Taskforce has gone about its work has been the way it has engaged with—and listened to—both parents and children with experience of poverty. One recommendation made by a lot of people in the sector is that this engagement with those who have experience of poverty should continue as part of the monitoring and accountability mechanism. I just wanted to throw that into the pot.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for recognising the enormously broad way in which the Child Poverty Taskforce has undertaken its work, under the leadership of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It has been about looking at the whole breadth of actions that this Government can take, and engaging with those who have the most experience of what it means to be poor, as well as others who represent them. I hope and believe that broad approach and the commitment of this Labour Government will make the real impact to children that we all seek.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her assessment, but I do not agree. It is interesting that, when she outlined how she will tackle poverty, she mentioned school uniforms, breakfast clubs and social housing. I have an opinion, which I expressed earlier; I think that food clubs are a response to the fact that the horse has bolted and we are chasing it down the hill. The same goes for uniforms: they are not necessarily methodologies to dismantle poverty.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that I was not making that argument? What I was actually arguing—in agreement with him—is that we need a multifaceted approach and that we need to look at the causes for people ending up in poverty. Taking action to reduce the costs for families around the country—the costs he has just referenced—is an important thing that the Government can do, alongside the more strategic, detailed and cross-cutting work that the child poverty task force is also doing.
Lord Bird (CB)
I agree with the Minister 100%. We should never, ever abandon people who are in an emergency. But, if that is what we are doing, and if that is what most of our efforts go into, we will never come to the day when we dismantle poverty.
My problem—I have talked about this on a number of occasions in the House—is around social housing. I had an argument with a leading Member of this House, who was in social housing for many decades. I made the point to him, “Isn’t it interesting and damning that, if you give somebody social housing in current times, there’s a distinct possibility that their children and their children’s children—and, probably, their children’s grandchildren—will live in poverty?” Because social housing produces only in the region of 2%, 3% or 4% of the social mobility of finishing your levels and getting into university or an apprenticeship. Social housing is not a route out of poverty; it is, in a way, a stumbling block.
We will not move forward until we revolutionise social housing and go back to the kind of social housing that I had when we moved from the slums of Notting Hill and into a Catholic orphanage. We then left that and went into social housing in Fulham, where we had sociable housing: the people there included police officers and a trainee teacher. I have talked about this on countless occasions. We had our first parking warden; we did know what to do with him, because most of us did not have a car. The point is that there was a social element, including the disabled and the old. The problem is that, because social housing has lost its sociability and has become a place of refuge and deep need—which we cannot turn against—we have people who remain for ever in an emergency.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because they argued for targets far more eloquently than me—this is my first amendment, so I am getting used to it and learning on the job. The point is that targets will get us thinking about those kinds of levels. What do we have to do next to get people out of poverty? We have to go beyond the food, the uniforms and the social housing. We have to get to the enemies of the people who pass through poverty, because they are “mind-forg’d manacles”.
I am not decrying this, but I had an argument a few years ago when they were saying, “Why don’t we list all the ingredients that go into a Mars bar, a KitKat, a Twix or a bottle of Coca-Cola?”, so that people would read them and say, “I’m not going to eat that”. The “mind-forg’d manacles” of poverty mean that you will go for the Coca-Cola whether or not it is good for you. These are the things that we need to do to dismantle poverty. One of the simplest ways is to concentrate the Government by bringing in all the philosophical, intellectual, cultural and social reasons why people are caught in poverty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Lord brings his amendment back, will he consider adding a target on deep poverty? A lot of what he has said so eloquently has been about people who have been pushed, by a range of policies, into deep poverty.
Lord Bird (CB)
I have never heard of the concept of deep poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that poverty is different if you are in Weston-super-Mare or in Bristol. I was privileged to be banged up with people from the countryside, from the little cities and the big cities. I met all of them. We had a uniformity of thinking, which was so self-destructive. There is uniformity. There is a philosophy of poverty. Until we break through that, we are not going anywhere. The idea of relative poverty is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, we have increasing poverty because we have not attacked the inheritance of poverty. So many people break out of poverty because the parents choose not to simulate or duplicate what has happened before. My wife’s family come from poverty in India. They said goodbye to poverty. All the children have gone through college, done the levels and been to university. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.