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
Knife Crime
(1 day, 11 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
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I am sure Members will have relevant constituency cases that they want to raise during today’s debate, but under the terms of the House’s sub judice resolution, Members should not refer to any cases where there are ongoing legal proceedings. They should also exercise caution if raising matters that are not the subject of active legal proceedings but where discussions could prejudice ongoing police or other law enforcement investigations.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. We know that knife crime is not a random event—it does not happen by accident. It is a consequence of decisions made by individuals who choose to carry knives and then to use them to brutally murder people. And what do we do? We light a candle. We hold a memorial service. We say things like, “This should never happen again,” and then we go on to blame lack of investment, lack of youth services and lack of youth clubs. But I am not buying that at all. While we are sat here in the Palace of Westminster, the families of the deceased must live a life of pain, and the families of the attackers have to live a life of shame.
Let us look at the facts. We know that knife crime in England and Wales has been rising for a long time. In 2014, there were just over 27,000 recorded offences involving knives or a sharp instrument. In the space of five years, that number doubled to over 52,000. Last year, there were more than 50,000 such offences—an increase of 4.4% from the previous year. Some 41% of all homicides in 2022-23 involved a knife or a similar weapon. I could go on and on. These numbers point to hundreds of lives being lost to extreme, senseless violence. Each murder leaves behind a grieving family, friends and community.
Since saying I was going to have this debate, I have been contacted by families who tell me they face unimaginable pain and loss. At the same time, they feel like they have not received justice for their loved ones. That should fill us all in this place with a sense of shame. We cannot blame this on a lack of investment, lack of youth clubs or lack of youth facilities. Most of the blame, I believe, lies in this room and with every single politician in this Palace, past and present. We are legislators—we can change this.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Having had to work with the families of victims of knife crime, I know that this is a hugely important and very sensitive issue. Given the picture he is portraying, does he welcome the fact that the violence reduction unit and other efforts in London, including a public health approach, have seen a reduction in this problem in the capital city, led by our Mayor but also by individual councils investing to support families and individuals to stay out of crime?
Lee Anderson
Of course, we welcome any sort of policy in the capital city and Ashfield that reduces knife crime, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
We are all legislators, and if we cannot reduce knife crime and save lives, there is not much point in us being in this place. Some will say that we are doing enough.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate, because it is immensely important. Of course, we sympathise with the families who have had these awful experiences. As he rightly says, we have to look at what we, as legislators, can do to make a difference. I point to two instances in Wales, the Dyfed-Powys and the North Wales police, where the rates are so much lower: 30 per 100,000 of population in Dyfed and Powys, where the police and crime commissioner is Plaid Cymru’s Dafydd Llywelyn; and 49 per 100,000 in north Wales. Both forces have maintained school officers who talk face to face with children and young people about the reality of crime, such as knife crime, and violence. It is to be hoped that that makes something of a real difference.
Lee Anderson
Education can play an important part in the reduction of knife crime, and deterrence should too. Some will say that we do enough and that action is being taken, such as the use of metal detectors or knife arches, which are being installed in schools and colleges, but how did we get to the point where knife arches are being installed in the buildings where we send our children to learn how to read and write?
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. My constituent, Cody Fisher, a young footballer, was brutally stabbed to death at the Crane nightclub in Birmingham nearly three years ago. Since that horrific night, his family and especially his mother have been campaigning tirelessly with two Governments to get bleed control kits and the use of metal detectors in late-night venues. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to support Cody’s family’s campaign to ensure that no more families have to endure the heartbreak that they have endured?
Lee Anderson
I am happy to support the hon. Lady on Cody’s family’s campaign.
Politicians highlight the bans on certain knives, such as zombie knives, and in all honesty, those bans are not a bad thing, as we need fewer weapons on our streets, but the most common weapon used in knife crime is a simple kitchen knife, which is used in more than half of all stabbings. If someone wants to cause someone harm or to intimidate, they do not need a zombie knife, a machete or a sword; they can just get a kitchen knife.
Members will have heard about surrender bins or knife amnesties. This time last year, during the unrest, one knife bin was located outside a mosque in Small Heath in Birmingham. It was found to contain dozens of machetes, an axe, large knives and even an adapted knuckleduster knife, but how did we get to the point where we politely ask people to hand in their weapons at a local mosque? That is not policing or law enforcement; at best, it is wishful thinking or, at worst, it is total surrender to the problem.
That brings me to stop and search. In the year ending March 2024, police officers in England and Wales conducted more than half a million searches. More than 70,000 people were arrested and 16,000 weapons seized. That is thousands of potential crimes prevented, including murders, assaults, robberies and serious sexual offences. That is impressive, and we should commend our brave police officers for acting in the line of duty. A lot of people might say that stop and search does not have an impact on overall crime rates and that it does not put people off carrying knives, but that is to miss the point. Stop and search is about not only deterrence, but detection. It gives police officers the power to remove dangerous weapons before they are used, and it takes dangerous people off our streets.
In fact, in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), in London under Sadiq Khan’s leadership, there has been a reduction in stop and search of more than 23% in just one year, between 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, knife crime in London has increased by nearly 60% in just over three years—
Lee Anderson
I want to make some progress. That figure is from a Policy Exchange report. [Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because a lot of people want to speak in this important debate. I have already taken three interventions.
That is not a coincidence. It is a classic case of a Mayor who could not care less. He would sooner spend his time calling everyone who disagrees with him—
Lee Anderson
I have just said that I am not going to give way. Sadiq Khan would sooner spend his time calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist, rather than stopping endless knife attacks on the streets of London.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Is it a point of order? I remind Members that it is down to the Member speaking whether to accept interventions. I will listen to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and we will decide whether it is one.
Neil Coyle
Thank you, Ms McVey. Members are all required to not mislead, or accidentally mislead the House, and there is an issue with some of the figures that have just been presented. Could you encourage the hon. Member to either give the dates for the figures he was using, which will show that they are out of date, or use the correct data, which show that knife crime has fallen in the capital, which is something we should welcome together?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
It was a point of debate. There are at least 10 people who would like to speak today. You had your chance to speak, but I am afraid your temper and your attitude do not belong in Westminster Hall. I call Lee Anderson.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Ms McVey. It is not the first time that the hon. Member has been thrown out of a room on this estate.
We must use powers lawfully, and our police cannot be hindered. We cannot allow a fear of red tape, or baseless accusations of institutional racism or unconscious bias to stop police officers doing their job. Serving police officers and former police officers reached out to me ahead of this debate, and they all said the same thing: we need to reform policing priorities from top to bottom, we must protect police officers and increase stop and search, without apology and without hesitation. In the same way, the message coming from our courts must be clear: if you are caught with a knife, you go to jail.
When someone puts a knife in their pocket and walks out of their front door, they have made a choice and there must be consequences to it. Today the maximum sentence for possession of a knife is four years. For second knife offences, adults are supposed to face a mandatory six months’ jail sentence, but that in reality looks completely different. In 2023, only 28% of people caught with a knife went to prison, down from 33% in 2018. Dangerous men are walking away with little more than a slap on their wrist or a community sentence. The rate of offenders who receive just a caution has dropped a lot over the past 30 years, and we know that the average custodial sentence has crept up to just over seven months for possession of a knife, and almost 15 months for threatening offences. That might sound like progress, but those sentences are far too short. Community sentences are still being handed out to most youth offenders, and it is no wonder that young lads are becoming more brazen, carrying knives in broad daylight, and making TikTok videos with their machetes. They do that because they know that our justice system is a soft touch.
There are lots of reasons why a boy might decide to pick up a knife. Some believe it is for protection, but we should never have got to a point in our society where someone feels the need to carry a knife to be protected. That said, I must highlight that adult men are the primary offenders, and they are responsible for over 80% of all knife crime offences. These are not just isolated incidents among youngsters, and that is no wonder when grown men are getting off too. Just a couple of weeks ago we all saw a man avoid prison despite attacking someone with a knife. The person was burning a Quran, and in this instance the court basically said, “It’s okay to take justice into your own hands. If you attack and threaten someone with a knife for causing you offence, he will be the one who is convicted, and you won’t have to go to prison.” At the same time, people are getting locked up for Facebook posts or offensive tweets. It is madness. Communities across the country are fed up with our weak and flimsy justice system. They have had enough; they want action, not words.
Over the summer I submitted several written questions to the Home Office about illegal migrants crossing the English channel in small boats, and I asked how many of them have been found carrying drugs and weapons on their arrival in the UK. I got a response from the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). She told me that the migrants were searched upon arrival and that:
“Some small weapons—for example, knives—have occasionally been seized as a result of those searches over the past seven years,”.
“Some small weapons”—what kind of pathetic, weak answer is that? People in this country want to know how many people, and how many knives have been found. How many of those men are still here, and how many are still being put up in taxpayer-funded hotels? The Minister owes it to our concerned constituents to tell us what is happening to men who arrive on our shores carrying knives.
We have enough of a home-grown knife problem already; we do not want to import more. While I am on this point, I want the Minister to tell us how many illegal immigrants have committed knife offences in our country over the past few years. Individuals might have had a knife taken off them when they got to this country, but it is not that difficult to get another knife. That information should be made publicly available.
I know I speak for a lot of people when I say that I am sick of politicians speaking at vigils, lighting candles and sharing their sympathies with the families and loved ones of another person murdered on our streets, only to come back to this place and avoid taking decisive action. We need police officers who take violent criminals off our streets, courts that administer real justice for victims and a Government not afraid to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to knife crime. How else are our constituents going to feel safe?
Our message needs to be plain and simple: “If you pick up a knife, you will feel the full force of the law and go to prison.” I have one ask on behalf of the law-abiding British public: anyone caught carrying a dangerous weapon should receive an automatic custodial sentence. I am not talking about Swiss army knives, penknives, small knives or tools used for fishing or arts and crafts, nor about men coming back from a shift at the local factory, plumbers, electricians or carpenters. I am talking about the type of knife carried by people who have no reason to carry such weapons in a public place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to be here for the start of the debate and to bob if they wish to be called to speak. A lot of Members wish to speak. If everyone keeps to a maximum of five minutes, we should get everybody in.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing the debate. Although we may not agree on how to fix knife crime, I believe everybody here cares and wants to sort out the issue.
Knife crime is huge and devastating, with a massive impact—not just on friends and families, but on communities. When we talk about this subject it is important to remember that these are not just statistics, numbers on a piece of paper, but people who have lost their lives. This is a little personal for me because I witnessed a slashing. When I left the Army, I took a job as a bouncer and there was an incident between two gangs outside the club after closing hours. I will never forget seeing a human flashing a blade at another human. Bear in mind that I was in the Army and have seen a few things, but that was a crazy situation that will always stick with me. As the hon. Member for Ashfield said, we have a duty as legislators to get a grip of the situation.
I am going to talk about two stabbings that happened in Swindon. Owen Dunn was murdered on 4 December 2022. He was only 18 years old, basically a child, and was stabbed in his armpit with a machete. He had his whole life ahead of him; that was completely unacceptable and tragic. Through their grief, his family have set up a charity, Owen’s World. They have honoured his death by going into schools, educating students about knife crime and raising funding for bleed kits. I do not believe we should have to have such kits but, when there is an incident, they are needed.
The second person I want to talk about is Lee Turner. I knew Lee because we grew up in the same area. The place where he was stabbed, the Venney, is around the corner from my house. His was another life taken too soon. Lee might not have been a model citizen, as even his sister would admit, but he did not deserve to die. His sister has done a fantastic job, putting her energy into setting up Change Lives No to Knives, which focuses on education and amnesty bins. The hon. Member for Ashfield might not agree that we need amnesty bins but there are people in our community who do not feel comfortable going to the police. We need to rebuild that relationship with community policing. Amnesty bins serve a purpose by offering the opportunity to hand blades in without fear of repercussion.
I am so proud and grateful to both those charities and all the charities across this country. Their focus on education and prevention will play a massive part in addressing knife crime.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I can say that my own life has been changed through knife crime, having been attacked on some occasions in my youth. I have lost some friends to knife crime and over the last 25 years, when I have been mentoring people, I have supported families who have lost loved ones.
The pain that we see in those families is something that I find difficult to explain or describe. Southend East and Rochford, the community that I represent, is vibrant and bustling, but young people in that community suffer knife crime, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, alongside initiatives such as Young Futures hubs, will strengthen prevention and early intervention?
Will Stone
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing a personal part of his life. I absolutely agree that that measure will help. It is the first step, but we need to go further. As I have said, knife crime is devastating. Although I agree that the Government can always do more, I will praise their Crime and Policing Bill for providing new powers to seize and destroy weapons; introducing tougher sentences for online sales; getting zombie knives off our streets; and introducing new offences of possessing weapons with intent to use. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield for bringing forward this debate.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
We all have stories. In my constituency, we used to have quite a number of knife crimes, but the early intervention and violent crime reduction unit that the Mayor has put in place has helped to reduce that and young people in pupil referral units are also mentored and looked after. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot just look at the end stage? As people did in Scotland, we have to look at a public health approach to how we combat knife crime in our country.
Will Stone
I absolutely agree. I know that my hon. Friend is an active supporter of trying to reduce knife crime and has done fantastic work in her constituency.
I am incredibly proud of what the Government are doing, but we need to do more. I want to give one more shout-out to Owen’s World for the fantastic work that it does and to Change Lives No to Knives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and hearing from everyone else in the Chamber.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and to give you the respect that you deserve for the position that you hold. May I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for leading today’s debate on this very important issue? Knife crime is such a prevalent issue across the UK, mainly here on the mainland, of course, where the figures are higher, although unfortunately we are also seeing an increasing number of incidents with knives back home in Northern Ireland, so I am very pleased to be here to try to raise awareness of that. As previously stated, the prevalence of knife crime is not and historically has not been the same in Northern Ireland as it has been in England and under other devolved institutions—
Adam Dance
Does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that knife crime is not increasing just in towns and cities and that we desperately need more funding for community policing in rural areas, such as the Yeovil constituency?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do and I commend the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that he has done lots of work with youth groups in his constituency. Sometimes we need to be at that level to try to change the mindset. All Members are probably focused on that as well.
In Northern Ireland, we are seeing a substantial number of violent and sexual offences that involve sharp instruments. For example, in the 12 months to September 2024 in Northern Ireland, there were 846 violent crimes involving a knife or blade. Those include rape, assault, attempted murder and robbery. I well recall the occasion when my son was a manager of a shop in Newtownards and someone came in high on drugs and probably drink as well and told him to empty the till. This is a question we all ask: when we are younger, we perhaps do not see things the same way and perhaps we are more brave and courageous; for just that second we say to ourselves, “Do I hand it over, or do I grapple with him?” Grappling with someone high on drugs or whatever would not be a wise thing to do, so my son stood back on the other side of the till. The person did not get the money, but the best thing to do was not to grapple and not get stabbed as a result of money in a till. That is one of the things that happened in Northern Ireland.
Some 31% of homicides over recent years have involved a knife and 25% of robberies have involved a sharp instrument. I am sure I do not need to mention the matter of violence against women in Northern Ireland. Since April 2019, there have been some 34 deaths in Northern Ireland from killings involving knives. Those are worrying, tragic, disturbing figures. I have on numerous occasions spoken about this and how horrendous the statistics are. Those victims are more than numbers and we must do more to put our words into action.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend talks about putting words into action. Does he agree with me—this has been expressed in the debate—that it is good, proper and appropriate that we have a debate like this on the increasing prevalence of knife crime? It would be better to see the result of this debate in Government action across the United Kingdom, particularly in towns and larger conurbations where knife crime is on the increase.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry for his intervention. As always, he brings pertinent words of wisdom to the debate and I thank him for that.
There is a worrying trend as well. I read an article about children—my goodness, it is hard to take this in—as young as four years old taking knives or sharp objects into school. It is so bad that parents are calling for metal detectors or arches to be installed in schools. The hon. Member for Ashfield referred to that in his contribution. A freedom of information request highlighted that there were some 1,304 offences involving knives in 2024 at schools and sixth form colleges. Long ago are the days when our children were dropped at school to learn and integrate with their friends. Now some parents are terrified that their son or daughter may fall victim to a knife attack.
Concerns were also raised through the Netflix show “Adolescence”, which brought to light the dangers of social media in regard to knife crime among children. The key word here is “children”. These are not 16, 17 or 18-year-olds who have some capability to make the correct decision; they are young, impressionable people using knives to seriously hurt people or who feel that they have to protect themselves. We are worried about that scenario, so what do we do? I am not saying it is right, by the way. I am just saying that sometimes the reaction is, “I had better carry a knife.”
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In Dorset, where I represent Bournemouth East, figures show 39 knife-related incidents per 100,000 people. That is more than half below the national average, but behind every statistic there is a story. I am thinking particularly of 18-year-old Cameron Hamilton, who was tragically killed. His grandmother Tracy, who I had the honour to meet, has set up an organisation called Changes Are Made. Does the hon. Member agree with the mission of that organisation—that we must put lives before knives? Would he also agree that no one should carry a knife, because the quickest way to destroy a life is to carry a knife?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member, who is a very assiduous MP, puts forward a viewpoint from his own constituency, which we all endorse, and I thank him for all that he does in his constituency to try to stop people carrying knives.
If we look further across the globe, we hear of knife incidents most days in newspapers or news headlines. The one that probably shocked us all was the case of Iryna Zarutska, who was stabbed three times from behind on a train in North Carolina. She was an innocent lady sitting on her own murdered by a disturbed person. And recently someone was stabbed at a Manchester synagogue—we had a statement yesterday in the Chamber about that. These instances are endless and the stats show the situation is not getting any better.
I hope there is more we can do—I think there is. There are ways to educate young people on the dangers of carrying knives, which is what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East referred to. We need to educate the children at a very early age that it is not wise to carry a knife. We need to take the angst away from the parents who have concerns as well and learn about the reasons why young people feel the need to carry a knife.
I am always very pleased to see the Minister in her place. Her ministership has changed, and I wish her well in her new role; I know that she will try to take forward the same excellence in her new role that she showed in the last one. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). The Minister’s job is to ensure that we do more to protect people and give the harshest sentences to those convicted of knife crime.
Adam Dance
On a point of order, Ms McVey. May I just correct the record? I think you may have called me by the wrong name when I intervened.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate.
Knife crime and the gang activity that comes with it ruin lives and leave whole communities living in fear. This debate has been wide-ranging, but for Greater Manchester, and Oldham in particular, there is an urgency to tackling youth knife crime, gang activity and the real threat of child criminal exploitation in our communities—a threat that continues to hit working-class communities the hardest. I place on record my thanks to Greater Manchester police and their partners in the violence reduction unit—chaired by Kate Green, the deputy mayor for policing—for recognising and acting on the issue, and for meeting me to discuss the issue further.
Since 2020, Greater Manchester police have run the forever amnesty, which has taken thousands of weapons off our streets. However, the police themselves would say that knives remain easily available in households and in everyday lawful life, so unless the culture and environment change, we will not break the cycle of offending and the harm that goes alongside it.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether we like it or not, social isolation and a lack of opportunities are possible causes of knife crime? I am an OnSide youth zone champion, and my constituency has The Way youth zone. It is launching a comprehensive knife crime prevention initiative to tackle such issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need well-funded youth services that prioritise early intervention, empower our youth, foster community safety, and thereby help to achieve safer streets and stronger youth?
Jim McMahon
That is very important, and it has to go alongside other interventions. Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, Oldham has an OnSide youth centre, called Mahdlo, which provides significant intervention and support for young people. It is fair to say that the world has changed since I was a child at school. The online world means that it is difficult for young people to escape threats of violence and intimidation, and their glorification on online platforms, which allow videos showing young people threatening young people to be uploaded, seemingly without any challenge whatever. The culture and environment are important.
In Greater Manchester, Operation Venture, which was launched in 2022, has led to hundreds of arrests, improved intelligence and a clearer understanding of where and how weapons are used. However, I want to focus on the young people most at risk, both as offenders and as victims, and to call for stronger safeguarding and prevention response. Gangs have always existed in some areas—lines between estates and postcodes are not new—but what has changed is the speed with which petty disputes can escalate, and the online meeting the on-street, with little escape for those who are at risk. A perceived lack of respect can turn into revenge, and verbal exchanges can quickly become fatal violence involving knives. Many young people live in fear—afraid simply to walk home from school, making them a target.
The same culture that drives that fear also traps young people within it. Simply telling young people to stay away from trouble is not realistic when violence and intimidation follow them home through their phones, consoles and social media—24 hours a day, seven days a week. In that environment, some young children start carrying knives themselves, for what they believe is self-defence—an avoidable and dangerous response to fear.
More sinister still is the impact of child criminal exploitation, or county lines, as it is sometimes called: the systematic grooming of mainly, though not exclusively, working-class boys—girls can be impacted too—by older men and their peers into organised crime such as robbery, drug dealing and violence. In some cases, there is a proven link to sexual exploitation alongside it. In the House, we recognise the patterns of child sexual exploitation and abuse and the characteristics of victims and offenders, as we now know them to be. We also know when we see clear and present safeguarding failures. We must apply the same urgency to understanding and acting on child criminal exploitation.
None of that takes away the importance of individual responsibility or the role of parents, but too often the system looks at these working-class young people and writes them off. It sees them as bad kids or lost causes, instead of as vulnerable children being exploited and abused. That attitude reflects a class bias that is still far too common—the idea that some estates or even some families are just rough and that being drawn into crime is inevitable. Too often, that allows neglect to go unchallenged. If that mindset persists, we will continue to fail young people, and entire communities will remain trapped in fear.
For too many families in Greater Manchester, that fear has become a reality. We have seen repeated knife attacks, many involving children. In New Moston, just streets away from my constituency, a 15-year-old boy was chased down the street and stabbed to death. I cannot say any more, as the Chair reminded us at the start of the debate, because it is an ongoing case, but what is beyond doubt is that another family have lost their son.
In Limeside, in Oldham West, the community has spirit and solidarity, but its foundations have been weakened. The local police post, the GP surgery, the housing office and other public services have been eroded in the last decade and a half. Those who remain, such as the Avro football club and Anthony Crolla’s gym, are doing heroic work to give young people purpose and safety, but they are fighting to survive every single day when the community needs them more than ever. These same areas experience some of the highest numbers of section 60 stop and searches in Greater Manchester. The Limeside estate alone has had seven stop and search orders in the last two years.
There has been some progress. To June 2025, the homicide rate in Greater Manchester was 8.8 per million people, a decrease of 21% compared with the previous year and down 45% on the last three years. While youth violence overall is decreasing, more must be done to prevent children from being exposed to violent crime at such a young age. The police identify that most young people supported by the violence reduction unit are aged between 13 and 15—these are children. Reported knife and offensive weapon offences have risen from 220 in 2014 to 413 10 years later—a significant increase. Some of that reflects increased police activity, including stop and search, which should be welcomed, but let’s not kid ourselves: every one of those cases represents a real threat.
Knife crime is not inevitable. My call today is for a step change in how we safeguard young people from criminal exploitation. That means recognising vulnerability, not just criminality. It means restoring trust in communities where fear has replaced hope. It means tougher action to hold social media giants and messaging platforms to account. It means rebuilding the foundations of our youth services, safe spaces and neighbourhood networks to give young people a sense of belonging and a reason to believe in a better future, to finally break the cycle.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
We had a little dispute earlier about the statistics on knife crime. The fact is that we clearly do see from the evidence that knife crime is a serious problem, and it is rising in pockets. We have a clear problem in London. The stats are disputed, but the fact is that any knife crime is unacceptable, and the crimes that lead to death are utter tragedies.
Dawn Butler
The Metropolitan police briefing for October 2025 said there were 1,154 fewer knife crime offences in the 12 months to August 2025—a 7% drop. Is the hon. Member disputing the Met police stats?
Danny Kruger
I am sorry, but I do not think we should spend the whole time disputing the statistics. I can cite statistics suggesting there has been a 60% increase in knife crime in the last year. Let us not trade stats, but by all means let us take this offline, if the hon. Lady would like to trade citations. The fact is that significant studies demonstrate there is a real problem—an increasing problem—with knife crime in some areas. As I said, any knife crime is unacceptable, and the tragedies that lead to death are to be enormously regretted.
For the last 20 years, I have run a charity working with people in prisons and with ex-offenders—many of them involved in knife crime and violence—to try to reduce reoffending in London. I know from first-hand experience, and indeed from encounters I have had this week, how much our justice system is disrespected in our communities. So I absolutely agree with the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): we need to increase the deterrent effect of the justice system, and that means having clearer and sterner punishments for the crime of carrying weapons. We need swifter justice, to ensure that the time between the committal of an offence and punishment is as short as possible. We also need—this is the work I do—to focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, because the cycle of crime is the cause, the real heart, of these terrible statistics. It is not the number of first-time offenders, which is always terrible; it is the number of people who stay in a life of crime.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for referencing the families of the victims. Ultimately, those are the people we should bear in mind when we consider these tragedies. But I also pay tribute to him for mentioning the families of the attackers, whose lives are also ruined when their son—it is usually the son—goes to jail for many years as a consequence of knife crime. As my hon. Friend said, they suffer shame and trauma.
I want to mention family—this is really my only real contribution to the debate—because I do not think we have heard the word “family” mentioned yet, and it is rare that we do. All my experience of working with offenders is that in almost every case—it is almost absurd how standard it is—the father is absent from the young man’s life; it is not always the case, and of course there are exceptions. I therefore pay tribute to the amazing women who try to bring these boys up in very tough circumstances and who overwhelmingly do their best to ensure that their boys stay on the straight and narrow. But in the absence of a father, how are those boys to understand what it is to be a man, to respect authority, to respect women and to collaborate constructively with their peers? Those lessons are so much harder to learn for boys growing up without a positive male role model in their lives.
I want to make a simple point in response to a remark the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) made earlier about the public health approach to crime. I respect that concept; if we are talking about knife crime as an epidemic comparable to a contagious disease, that is a very apt analogy. I also respect the principle that we should have a whole-community approach to knife crime. My concern is that the concept of a public health approach is really code for a statutory response that says that the reason we have knife crime is that the wider community—which really means what the Government are doing—is inadequate and needs to step forward in some way. As I said, a lot of my life has been committed to the principle that community needs to step forward.
However, the role of the state is fundamentally to enforce justice; the job of the Government is to ensure that people are safe in their streets and that the law is respected. The real source of the knife crime epidemic, and the resolution to it, does not lie with the state, nor with the nebulous community; it lies with the individual themselves, who needs to grow up learning and knowing what it is to do right and wrong, and it lies with the family. If Government can do anything apart from enforce justice—which of course is their primary function —they should be instilling the principles of right and wrong in our young people through the education system. More importantly than anything else, they should be supporting stable families, because that is the context in which young boys will grow up much less likely to go off the rails.
Dawn Butler
The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely valuable points. The public health approach is not something I have invented; when there was a knife crime epidemic in Scotland and they needed a way to curb it, they adopted a public health approach—and it worked. I am talking about doing things that work. The first law of a Government is to protect all their citizens. Families also include blended families, so there are many different family structures.
There is some discrepancy in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has to recognise that a public health approach works; it worked in Scotland, and it is working in London—the police and the mayor say so. The hon. Gentleman mentioned male role models, and the mayor’s mentorship programme to mentor 100,000 people is helping. We have to look at this in the round if we are really going to curb knife crime.
Danny Kruger
I agree with every single word the hon. Lady said, except the implication—actually, I will just leave it in agreement.
I respect what has happened in Scotland, and I welcome the reductions they have seen there, but my concern about the public health model is that it might mean we have an excuse not to think about the essential moral challenge of individuals understanding the difference between right and wrong, and the role of stable families in preventing crime. We would then have abused the valuable concept of a public health model.
Will Stone
I want to point out one thing. I agree that stable families are incredibly important. I am from a single-parent family: my mum died when I was young and my dad worked. Youth clubs established by the then Labour council kept me on the right track and stopped me going into certain circles. One of my friends stabbed someone in the behind with a screwdriver and went to jail. Those youth clubs were essential for me to find leadership through sport, so I think there is a role for the state to play. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Danny Kruger
I agree, although most youth clubs are not statutory institutions—they might be publicly funded but they belong to civil society, and I honour and welcome them. I pay tribute to the youth club that supported the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the armed forces, which I suspect he would also say played an important role in his being the fine, upstanding citizen that he is today.
Nevertheless, we will never compensate for the epidemic of family breakdown in this country with youth clubs. Youth clubs are vital, the armed forces are vital and all the other institutions of society that come around individuals play an essential role, but if the family is broken in our communities, we will continue to have the tragedies that we have been discussing today.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate.
I will speak about some of my experiences as a magistrate for 20 years in Cheshire. I am sure many think of Cheshire as a sleepy county, but statistics show that knife crime increased there by 7% year on year from March 2024 to March 2025, which may surprise some. I will take time to look into that with my chief constable.
Over my 20 years in court, I heard so many reasons—in fact, excuses—for why defendants might have been carrying knives at the time of the incident or when the police caught up with them. Those ranged from “I forgot it was in my pocket” to “I needed it for work”—that was always a standard one, no matter what they actually did for work. Today, there is a mandatory six-month custodial sentence for anyone caught carrying a knife in the community, but the fact is that magistrates often do not enforce it after listening to and accepting the mitigating factors put forward by the solicitor on behalf of the defendant. Sometimes, a suspended sentence might be given, but the point is that this is soft justice, and I have seen it time and again.
The courts must get tougher on doing what they say they will do—doing what we ask them to do—and enforce that custodial sentence, because only by enforcing the custodial sentence will the message start to get through. I would say that the mandatory six-month sentence is not currently a deterrent, because people are not afraid of going to court. That is an issue for people like us who set policy.
Sarah Pochin
I will make a little progress, if that is all right.
My only observation about stop and search is that it has an effect, and I believe very strongly that stop and search needs to be brought back with absolutely zero tolerance. We need to support the police in putting aside any worry about being accused of being racist or of targeting particular groups in particular communities, because these policies work in taking knives off the street.
Sarah Pochin
Let me make a little progress, sorry.
The other point about stop and search is that the police, and indeed politicians, should not congratulate themselves on how many knives are found through stop and search; we and the police should congratulate ourselves on how many knives are not found when stop and search is used to its maximum power, because that is the measure of success.
I now come on to the point about why so many young men carry knives, and it is generally young men who carry knives. Again, over the years of my experience, I have seen the fear that young men often have—sadly, sometimes when they are going to school. People have said to me that they felt threatened at school, so they took knives into school. Of course, this also affects older men out in the community. There is a difference between these two groups, and it is a problem for magistrates. There is a difference between a young man, a youth, saying that they were frightened to go into school without a knife, and an older man going to a pub with a knife in his pocket.
This is an interesting issue for magistrates, because magistrates need to have some insight into people’s lives. We have heard talk this morning about role models and that type of thing. It is a huge problem that we never see the parents when these young men are in court.
The other thing is the problem of drug gangs and county lines, which we deal with all the time as magistrates. That culture on our streets is feeding this knife crime, and it is not just in cities any more. It is all over the counties, with young people—and they are often very young—carrying knives because they are drug runners.
Dawn Butler
I, too, was a magistrate and heard lots of cases. The hon. Member might be coming to domestic violence, as there is a lot of knife crime in the home.
However, I do not quite get the hon. Lady’s thread with regard to the police searching people and not finding knives. In August 2024, the police had a 10% success rate with stop and search. In August 2025, there was a 25% success rate. The difference was that the later stop-and-search operation was data-led and intelligence-led. Do we want to go forwards or backwards? That is the question.
Sarah Pochin
My point is that if stop and search is working, we will eventually get to a point where knives are found less often. That is the measure of success.
We as politicians need to give our courts and our police the power to have a zero-tolerance approach to stop and search. The police need to have the confidence to carry out stop and search without fear of criticism. They need to be given funding to carry out thorough intelligence work on drug gangs, and they are doing an incredible job on the county lines operations that are now overtaking our society. However, they need to be given more funding for that work. The courts also need to be given the funding and resource to enact swift justice.
Clearly, we also need education in schools and the community initiatives we have talked about. All of this is important, all of this is a package, but it starts at the top. It starts with us.
Warinder Juss
Of course, it is the job of the state system to act as a deterrent, so I understand the hon. Lady’s point.
I sit on the Justice Committee, and I have visited prisons and spoken to young people. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not think they will be sentenced to a long period in prison if they commit a crime—that is not in their minds. Does the hon. Lady agree that our focus should be on enabling the people who are likely to commit knife crimes to make the right choices in life? That is what we should focus on, rather than trying to get the message across that if they commit a crime, they will end up in jail. We need to be enabling our youth, our young people, to make the right choices in life.
Sarah Pochin
Clearly, at the moment, the threat of a custodial sentence is not the deterrent that it has to be, which is an important point. The Sentencing Bill, which will have its next stage on Tuesday, will take away the power of magistrates courts to hand down custodial sentences of less than 12 months. That is a big issue, but I will talk about it on Tuesday.
Finally, it is important for all of us, as politicians, to remember that David Amess was brutally stabbed and killed four years ago today. What we have talked about this morning does not touch on the extremists and the nutcases who are out there in society, and from whom we are all under threat. I acknowledge that today is the four-year anniversary, and I urge everyone to take the utmost care when we are out in our communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind Members that we want to get to the Front Benchers as close as we can to 10.30 am, so be mindful of the time.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this crucial debate. He always says it as it is and speaks common sense. He is speaking for millions of people in this country who are sick of the knife-crime epidemic that we see across our nation. This is a timely debate, following the appalling events in Manchester only a few weeks ago.
As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) just said, the appalling murder of our friend Sir David Amess took place four years ago today. We continue to grieve for that great parliamentarian and his family. We all felt the loss when he was taken from us.
Every one of us in this place will have heard of the fear and frustration of our constituents regarding the rising tide of violence in our cities. As the Member of Parliament for Romford, an Essex town on the periphery of Greater London, I see that fear at first hand. Ordinary, law-abiding people—mothers walking their children to school, young people heading home from work, shop workers locking up at night—are frightened to walk the streets of their own city.
A fortnight ago, the police cordoned off Romford High Street due to a knife-crime-related incident. Last year, a man was stabbed and killed only metres from my constituency office. That is not how London used to be. When I was growing up, it was not like that at all. It is not, and should not be, characteristic of the world’s greatest city.
My constituents are dutiful people. They respect the police and they respect authority; they expect their Government to defend them. Many residents have sought refuge in Romford from the crime that is spiralling out of control in inner-London areas. However, we fear that Havering will one day go the same way.
It fills me with shame and anger when I hear that other nations now warn their citizens to exercise a high degree of caution when visiting our capital. Australia has raised its travel advice for the United Kingdom from level 1 to level 2. That places us in the same bracket as countries such as Albania, Senegal and Tunisia. The embassy of the United Arab Emirates has gone further still, warning of a recent increase in violence and knife crime in London.
When foreign Governments are advising caution on British streets, something has gone very wrong indeed. Yet the Mayor of London chooses to accuse others of spreading misinformation, rather than confronting the truth on knife crime, along with the rest of his totally appalling record. I agree with President Trump’s assessment that Mayor Khan is doing “a terrible job” for our capital.
According to the recent Policy Exchange report, which has already been mentioned, there are almost 17,000 knife crime offences in the capital, which is an 86% increase since 2015. London now accounts for nearly a third of all crime in England and Wales, and almost half of all knifepoint robberies. Robbery is now the largest single category of knife crime, with more than 10,000 offences in 2024, the majority involving mobile phone theft.
During Boris Johnson’s term as Mayor of London between 2011 and 2016, knife crime in London fell by almost a third. Since Sadiq Khan entered City Hall—sorry, I should say Sir Sadiq Khan—the number of offences has climbed relentlessly, but Mayor Khan takes no responsibility for the shocking situation. The reality is that Londoners have been failed by a mayor who spends most of his time virtue signalling, rather than restoring order to our capital. The result is that criminals have been emboldened, while the law-abiding majority have been abandoned. Stop and search, used properly, is working and needs to be extended, and I am glad that my party is suggesting that. I am sure that others in this House agree.
We need zero tolerance in policing the worst hotspots. That means returning to the principle of having large numbers of uniformed police officers patrolling our streets. It means tough sentences for those who carry knives and immediate prison terms for repeat offenders. The first of nine policing principles outlined by the former Prime Minister and founder of the Metropolitan police, Sir Robert Peel, is that the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. That may have worked in the 19th century; it certainly worked in the 20th century; and I am convinced that it will work in the 21st century. We must ensure, however, that the police are doing the job of policing and not acting as social workers. We want more police and fewer PC PCs—politically correct police constables.
I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield for bringing this debate before the House. I hope that the Minister is listening to everything that is being said, because the people of my constituency and throughout London are fearful that the Government and the Mayor of London are simply not doing the job that they were elected to do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, as always. I congratulate my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), on securing this vital debate.
Knife crime is the scourge of our society. Almost every day or every week, in the newspapers and in our constituencies, we hear horrific stories from people and we have our own experiences. Many good examples have been spoken of today, and there have been different suggestions of how to try to reduce it, whether that is through education in schools, amnesty bins, knife arches —we do not want them, but maybe they help—youth clubs and much more besides. We have to be prepared to try things to see what works, and different police forces will make different progress. Ultimately, however, there has to be a deterrent.
Earlier this year, I had a slightly strange experience while campaigning in the glorious town of Boston in Lincolnshire, in my constituency. Some of my team were driving down a neighbouring street where a gentleman was walking along carrying a machete. They took a photograph of the machete and called the police, who were fantastic and responded immediately: I was taken off the street and the police found the gentleman. They arrested him and he was charged for carrying a machete. He went to court, but he was found not guilty of carrying a knife that could be a lethal instrument.
We have to ask, where is the consistent application of sensible laws to act as a genuine deterrent? That is the point. Ultimately, with all the good measures that we hear about, which I just touched on and other Members know can work, when we educate people about the horrors of knife crime, there also has to be a sanction. There has to be a deterrent—that if someone does not listen to the wise words of mentors, fathers, teachers or youth clubs, there is a sanction.
It seems to me that the data does not lie. There are short-term variances, but the medium and long-term data is crystal clear in England and Wales: in the past 12 years or so, stop and search has halved, while knife offences have doubled. We have to have automatic detention for carrying a knife and automatic longer sentences for using a knife. A zero tolerance policy is what our constituents want.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
This is my first opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I welcome the chance to talk again about knife crime in this place and I will outline the ways in which this heinous crime is marring communities and claiming too many lives. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on most topics, this is an important debate. I hope for the sake of all victims that we can make constructive suggestions to improve the situation. I think we can all agree, across the political divide, that young people in every corner of the country should not be growing up in a climate of fear.
I have outlined the Liberal Democrat approach several times, because, unlike the Reform party next to me, we believe in evidence-based policymaking. The public health approach to knife crime, which has worked in Scotland and has also shown signs of success in London, holds the most promise. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats are clear on the need for a proper joined-up approach to youth diversion, making it a statutory duty with proper funding, so that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25.
I am increasingly conscious that over the past year or so figures on the extreme right of British politics, seemingly with the backing of a stream of American malcontents who reach from the mad fringes to the White House, have chosen to weaponise the issue of crime in London. They paint a picture that few Londoners recognise of a city rife with violent crime on every corner. It is as though we have all descended into lawlessness, scared to walk the streets because of a mad, feverish crime wave, driven by liberal, middle-class squeamishness.
As a proud Londoner, I totally reject that nonsense. Violent crime fell in London by 6% in the year to last March. The following three months saw a 19% fall in knife crime compared with the same time last year. Knife-enabled offences have dropped in each month of 2025 from the same months in 2024; I invite the hon. Member for Ashfield to correlate that with the reductions in stop and search over the same period. I have been to Scotland Yard with colleagues and heard that the Met’s action in recent months has been modestly successful. I believe that, given the Met’s increasingly limited resources, it is affording the issue the priority level it deserves.
To avoid the risk of being misrepresented, I will be clear that I do not wish to minimise the issue, for two reasons. First, looking further back in time, knife crime has gone up dramatically since 2016 under the Labour Mayor’s watch, as Conservative Government cuts to local government and the police obliterated the community support networks that the public health approach relies on. The hon. Member for Ashfield was happy to be part of delivering those cuts as a Conservative MP. Secondly, every childhood snatched, every pavement stained in blood, every family with one too many chairs at the dinner table is one too many.
Policing alone cannot and does not pretend to effect the culture change we need. For that, we need to deliver the public health approach properly. In London, the growing funding gap for local councils after years of austerity is about to be made worse by the Government’s unfair funding review and the risk of new Labour austerity. That means that the cracks in the system are now chasms.
For too many young people in Britain, feeling unsafe is not an occasional fear; it is part of the everyday fabric of their lives. I have met young people in London and in my constituency of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park for whom that sense of vulnerability sits in the background of everything they do. What we too often fail to recognise is that, when young people start to believe that no one else will protect them, they ask themselves a simple but devastating question: “If no one is going to keep me safe, how do I keep myself safe?” For some that is a turning point, when anxiety stops being a feeling and starts becoming a plan. Far too often, that plan involves carrying a knife.
We cannot wait until a child reaches that point. We have to intervene before that fear hardens into a decision to carry a weapon. Last May, 60% of young people surveyed told the Ben Kinsella Trust that they feel worried about knife crime. A 2009 study by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies showed that 85% of young people who carry a weapon say they do so for self-protection. Many of the knives they carry are not the exotic or illegal zombie knives that attract headlines, nor weapons smuggled in on small boats; they are kitchen knives. That is not organised criminality; that is the tragic banality of a deteriorating everyday experience.
Jim McMahon
I understand the hon. Member is still developing his argument, but does he accept that one place young people should feel safe is in their own home? With the online world and messaging platforms, any intimidation, abuse and threats that might take place in school or on the street follow them 24 hours a day. Many parents, sometimes in the next room, have no idea what threats and intimidation their children are facing.
Luke Taylor
I agree that ensuring protection online is important, but as we have already heard, the loss of officers who most closely support children outside the home, such as those in schools, is equally important. The loss of those in London will be devastating to our communities.
Tackling knife crime cannot just be about enforcement; it must be treated as a health issue. It must be addressed early, consistently and systematically, and it must bring together a range of services that deal with young people, such as early intervention schemes, councils, NHS workers, carers, police officers, teachers, community leaders, social media influencers, parents, mental health workers, restorative practice advocates, and the various arms of Government that young people interact with, all under serious, mission-driven violence reduction units. That needs political buy-in, rather than meaninglessly aping its language without funding its tenets—a mistake that the former Government made with their serious violence strategy in 2018, and that the Mayor of London has made by not giving the violence reduction unit in London the tools it needs to do its job as effectively as possible. If we married that up with other key steps, it could be utterly transformative, turning good public policy into a vision for wider social renewal for young people.
The Minister may be aware that I met her predecessor to discuss that approach in more detail earlier this year, and I ask whether she would be willing to meet me to continue that discussion and see where we can work together on this vital issue. Surely in 2025 we have grown beyond the two-dimensional approach to the causes of crime, or the response to knife crime that the hon. Member for Ashfield presents. Surely by now we should be able to recognise that violence spreads among the most vulnerable like a virus, but it can be stopped in its tracks by good interventions acting as a vaccine to stop the spread. Surely by now we have learned that we cannot punish or scare away violent crime, and that good deterrents are not enough to stave it off when it has already buried its roots far too deeply in our neighbourhoods.
Not so long ago, a leader of the Labour party pledged to be
“tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”,
and all I ask is that the Government recognise that we have done far too much of the former, and far too little of the latter. They must show that they recognise it is finally time to properly adopt a public health approach to save lives, save communities and save futures.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Ms McVey, and I offer my condolences and pay tribute to those whose lives have been tragically lost as a result of knife crime. We recently saw the tragic dangers posed by knife crime during the appalling terrorist attack at Heaton Park, and I offer my condolences to the victims of that cowardly attack. As has been said, today marks four years since the death of the great Sir David Amess, whose family I am sure will be in all our thoughts.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate, for his ongoing work to highlight the impact of knife crime, and for his straight-talking common-sense efforts in this place. Crimes involving knives are devastating. The lives lost, and the crimes committed using those weapons, scar our society.
Given the Government’s ambition to reduce knife crime by half, I look forward to hearing what the new Minister has to say about the methods they intend to use to reach that ambitious target, which we would all like to see achieved. Under the last Government the headline rate of crime, excluding fraud and computing misuse, dropped by more than 50%, showing that such reductions in crime are possible. As shadow Minister in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee, I listened carefully to the proposals put forward by the Government. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Government bringing forward further proposals that could deliver reductions in such crime even more swiftly.
Although the number of hospital admissions related to knife crime has declined from its peak, it remains far too high. That problem is further exacerbated by the concentration of offences in hotspots: the crime survey for England and Wales from March this year shows that the Metropolitan police service area accounted for 31% of all offences, West Midlands police recorded 8%, and Greater Manchester 6%. The Met police recorded a staggering 9% increase, and data up to December 2024 shows that London accounts for 45.9% of all knifepoint robberies in England, despite having only 15.5% of the population. The Government must take further targeted action to address the situation. Over the past decade, steps have been taken, from banning knives to legislating for the serious violence duty and the role of violence reduction units, and violence against the person has decreased significantly since 2010, but knife crime remains far too high.
I welcome measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that replicate the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill for more stringent rules on knife possession and expanded police powers. Increasing the penalty for those selling to under-18s is clearly a welcome means of protecting young people, but as police have highlighted, its practical impact on investigation timeframes will be critical in their efforts to prevent the illegal sale of these weapons. It is also important that, when police search a property, they have the authority to seize and destroy weapons where there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be used in unlawful violence.
Legislation alone is not enough. Getting more knives off our streets requires us to have more police on the streets, with the power to act and a focus on the crimes that really matter. The previous Government put a record number of police on our streets, and when the Conservatives left office there were more police on our streets than ever before, but since Labour came to power, we have seen a real hit to police funding affecting both the headcount and the resources available to police. This Government hit our police forces with a £230 million national insurance bill—literally taxing the police off our streets—and their failure to build the pay award into the funding settlement, as the previous Government had, is a further £200 million hit to funding.
The result is that police numbers are falling when they need to be increasing. The number of police officers, police community support officers and staff has already fallen by 1,316, and looks set to get much worse. The biggest hit is to the Met, which deals with a disproportionate amount of knife crime, as we have said. I hope that the Minister will be an active champion for our brave police officers, PCSOs and staff, and take the challenge to the Treasury so that police get the resource they need to tackle knife crime and save lives.
As I have said many times before, not only do we need to put more police on the streets, but we need them to be able to focus on the crimes that matter. Non-crime hate incidents have morphed beyond all recognition, and well beyond their intended purpose. Originally intended to apply when there was an imminent risk of crime, they now tie up 60,000 police hours every year—policing our tweets rather than policing our streets. The argument is well trod, whether in the press or in this place. Will the Minister comment briefly on what is being done to ensure that our police can focus on the crimes that matter most, such as knife crime?
The most direct way for the police to remove the threat posed by knives is to remove the knives from those who might do harm with them. Yes, we need to tackle gang culture and improve education so that young people are aware of the risks and harm created by their actions, and yes, we need to restrict sales to prevent young people from getting hold of weapons, but we also need to give our police officers the power, authority and backing they need to remove knives from the hands of those who might do us harm.
Stop and search removes knives and saves lives. We can see that in London without a doubt. There is a correlation between the Mayor’s decision to allow stop and search to decrease by 60% between 2021 and 2024 and the fact that the volume of knife crime offences increased by 86%. We need to remove the barriers that prevent our police officers from using stop and search. We debated this issue at length during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, and we encourage the Government to make appropriate amendments to legislation, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A, to make it easier for officers to use.
Just before the election last year, the Government gave the Home Office £4 million to fight knife crime and boost the use of technology, including new technologies that can detect carried knives from a distance. What progress has been made with that, and what steps are the Government taking to harness new technologies in the fight against knife crime?
Given the impact of knife crime on families and communities, reducing it is an essential task for the Government. I hope that the Government will consider what more they can do to increase the ability of police to clamp down on these awful crimes. Alongside measures relating to education and support, we must ensure that our police are properly funded, deployed and resourced to tackle knife crime.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I echo the comments that Members made about David Amess; we are all remembering him today. He was very kind to me, and he was a very good man, and we miss him very much in this place.
It has been a really good debate, and I thank Members for their contributions. I will pick out three that were particularly powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) brought his personal experience and history to the debate, which was very powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) talked about working-class boys being written off, and whole communities not being given the intervention and support they need. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) talked about families and the need for our young people to understand what it is to be a man; that is so important and powerful, and I was pleased to hear it.
I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing the debate. There is much that I agree with him on. He made the point that if we cannot reduce knife crime and save lives, what are we doing in this place? I 100% agree. As the new Minister for Policing and Crime, tackling knife crime is an absolute priority for me.
Last week I met Pooja Kanda, the mother of Ronan Kanda, who in 2022 was fatally stabbed with a ninja sword. He had no involvement of any kind in crime. He was stabbed and ran to try to get home but collapsed a few doors away from his house. His mother has been campaigning ever since. She asked the Prime Minister to change the law on knife crime to stop a situation like this happening again. The Prime Minister listened to Pooja, and we are changing the law, because this Government believe in action, not words. We are introducing tougher rules for online retailers selling knives, with a penalty of two years’ imprisonment if they sell to a minor, and we are changing the age verification system, which is incredibly important, so that under-18s cannot get access to a knife.
It is our great mission in this Government to halve knife crime, and we will use action, not just words. Since taking office, we have reversed the trend on knife crime, and we will continue to work to do so. Where overall knife crime was rising, it is now falling. There has been clear, measurable progress: knife-enabled homicides fell by 23% in the year ending March 2025; hospital admissions for sharp object assaults dropped by 10% and are now 26% lower than pre-pandemic levels; and police-recorded knife-enabled assault dropped by 4% in the year ending March 2025.
Knife crime affects the whole country, but if we look at the statistics, we see that knife crime is most acute in certain areas, and that is where we are putting our resources. In the top seven police force areas, we have established a taskforce to attack knife-enabled robbery in particular. We have released new statistics today which show that those seven police force areas have turned a 14% increase in offence levels at the outset of the taskforce into a 10% reduction, which is an incredible achievement.
In London, which has been much discussed today, violent crime leading to injury has fallen in all 23 boroughs. We can all produce statistics—the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is right that there are statistics that show progress, and there are statistics that do not. I gently ask that we all interrogate those statistics. I want to highlight one particular statistic: although it is correct that the number of stop and searches has fallen in London, the number of stop and searches for offensive weapons has increased. There has been a 27% increase in the number of searches for offensive weapons, as opposed to other stop and searches, which tend to be drug-related. We need to investigate statistics and use them wisely, to make sure we are reaching the right conclusions.
I want to highlight a couple of policies that we are introducing that I have been particularly impacted by. I have had the honour in the last four weeks of being Policing Minister of attending two police raids where we arrested some nasty criminals. I am very proud of our police for what they did. The first involved a huge gang network in London that was taking stolen phones and selling them to China and Hong Kong. This huge operation undertaken by the Met has taken out a gang that is responsible for up to half of all the phone thefts in London, which is quite extraordinary.
The second involved county lines, which the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) talked about. We took off the streets a nasty, violent criminal who has been running a county line. We are investing significantly in police resources for county lines because the connection between knife crime and drugs is clear. In the areas where we have invested and supported the police in tackling county lines, there has been a 23% reduction in stabbings. Focused policing works, and it is absolutely the right way to go.
We are also changing the law to help the police to tackle county lines. We have three new offences: child criminal exploitation, cuckooing, and plugging, which is—I do not really like to speak of it—when people are forced to put drugs inside themselves to hide them from the police. It is increasingly used with children and we need to stop that. There is some evidence of our intervention in county lines having an effect: the age of those exploited is rising because the criminals have realised that we will come for them if they exploit children. That is a good thing, but the criminals will try to find other vulnerable people to exploit, so we need to keep on top of that.
I am aware of the time, but there was a lot of talk about sentencing. I agree that we need to make sure that sentencing acts as a deterrent and that it needs to be swift, clear and consistent. We inherited a situation where around 1,000 young people a year caught in possession of a knife received no meaningful intervention. That cannot be right. We are changing that rule and introducing sentences around knife crime that will ensure that people are given the right punishment. We are not abolishing short sentences—I need to be really clear about that. Judges will always have that power.
I am paying close attention to a new policy in Thames Valley, where if a person under 18 is caught in possession of a knife, they are referred to a youth offending team for interventions, and over-18s are remanded straight away, before they are charged. There is evidence that that is starting to have an effect. We need to watch that and make sure that we are following the evidence in terms of sentencing, but it is a reasonable point to make.
I am aware that I need to give the hon. Member for Ashfield time to respond. There are many more things I could say. I have not responded to his points on migration, but I can talk to him afterwards. I have some things to say, but I know that he needs a couple of minutes to respond. I would like to finish by saying that this Government’s mantra is “Action, not words”. I absolutely support the police in what they are trying to do. I will ensure that we reduce knife crime. It is the mission of this Government to do so.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Ms McVey, for the way you handled the unruly situation early on with great dignity. I would like to give a special mention to Sir David Amess. The last time I spoke to Sir David was in this room, when he chaired a debate just over four years ago. I thank everybody for turning up today and for their contributions. I agreed with a lot of most of them.
The Lib Dem spokesman spoke about the time when I supported the Conservative Government’s cuts to the police force. I gently remind him that I was not in the Conservative party at that time—he might want to take that away. I am a little bit encouraged by what the Minister had to say. I thank Adam Brooks and Norman Brennan, who are in the Public Gallery today. They set up an online petition to bring this debate to Parliament and asked me to sign it. I said, “No, I’m not signing it—I’m going to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.” If the Lib Dem spokesman wants to speak to a retired police officer and a gentleman whose family was affected brutally by knife crime, he is welcome to do so after this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.
Community Helipads: Rural Access
(1 day, 11 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
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to community helipads in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to be speaking on an issue that impacts not just my constituents, but pretty well the whole of rural Britain.
I spoke in this Chamber earlier this year during the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on coastguard helicopter services. At that time, I pointed out that search and rescue helicopters are an extremely valued facility; I think everybody who has had any dealings with them would respect the quality of people involved. I have personal gratitude to them, because my wife was going along a ridge and fell off and was scraped up by Arrochar mountain rescue team and flown to Glasgow hospital, where they fixed her up—which was good news, she tells me. In addition, my father was involved in the Glencoe mountain rescue team for the whole of my youth. He said the search and rescue helicopters were probably the biggest positive change for saving people’s lives in the mountains, so this is a very important debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Representing a rural community, I, like him, understand how important this is. We are very blessed to have an air ambulance available for our communities in Strangford and Northern Ireland. It truly has been the difference between life and death for so many. However, there is a definite issue with safely landing and taking off. Does he agree that there must be access for that purpose alone? It is sometimes possible to land near where an accident takes place, but they must also be sure not to interfere with telephone lines or traffic, and safety must be paramount.
Mr MacDonald
The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Safety is at the bottom of it all, but I will be talking about over-safety in one particular instance.
I am always pleased to recognise the dedication of the helicopter crews, but there is one specific case I want to talk about, in Portree on the Isle of Skye. The Portree and Braes Community Trust manage the helipad, not NHS Highland or anybody else. The helipad is a community venture; the trust raised the money and built it. It was set up 30 years ago and has been refurbished in conjunction with the coastguard, NHS Highland and other bodies, so it is very much an approved helipad. The ambulance can drive right up beside it; there are lights that can be turned on from the helicopter; it has windsocks; it is fenced off; it has special paint demarking the H—it has every facility one could want from a helipad.
Despite that, members of the community trust tell me that the helicopter is not allowed to land on that H. It has to land on the boggy, wet hillside beside it. It is not allowed to use that helipad. That sounds quite extraordinary; I am sure everybody here is wondering why, so let me inform them. The aviation regulations have been updated, meaning that the helipad is no longer functioning for search and rescue. It is being used by air ambulance and other helicopters, but not by the Bristow search and rescue helicopters. Understandably, that is causing a lot of confusion and irritation for mountain rescue, the community trust and the wider Portree community.
What is behind this? In March 2022, a lady attending an appointment at Derriford hospital in Devon was knocked over by a downwash from a helicopter and died tragically from a head injury shortly thereafter. Following that tragic incident, safety guidance was tightened—but in practice the new approach has gone too far, and has created a fear of litigation rather than a focus on safety.
In April 2024, the Civil Aviation Authority published the third edition of its guidelines, “CAP1264: Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals”, which some Members may have read. In August 2024, following the CAA’s publication, Bristow helicopters undertook a thorough review of all helicopter landing sites and helipads that may be used for hospital purposes, to assess their compliance. The review highlighted that the majority of those sites were not compliant with the new guidance, and so Bristow withdrew from operating on the non-compliant helipads. Out of fear of litigation after the Derriford tragedy, Bristow insists that it needs legal authority to operate from sites that are not CAP1264 compliant. The problem is not the quality of Portree helipad; it is the red tape around liability and the ownership of risk.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. His situation is not unique; we have a similar one in the Western Isles, at the Stornoway hospital. The Scottish air ambulance helicopter is perfectly free to land at the hospital helipad, but the health board has had to set up an alternative site for the search and rescue helicopter, some distance from the hospital. It should not be beyond the wit of Government or legality to close that gap, by giving a derogation and some assurance to the search and rescue operators—currently Bristow—that they will be able to land at designated helipads for hospitals, not just in Portree and Stornoway, but across Scotland, where I understand that this problem affects some 23 sites. It would be good if the Minister could find a way of bringing two helipads into one space.
Mr MacDonald
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, as usual. I have met all the interested parties, apart from the Health and Safety Executive, which we will come back to. The CAA has made it clear that the new guidance does not prevent Bristow helicopters from landing in Portree. Its guidance is non-mandatory. In any case, helicopter operators can land anywhere if they carry out what is known as a dynamic risk assessment, a real-time safety judgment that allows them to land wherever conditions permit and it is deemed necessary to do so.
One would think that clarification was a cover-all, but the Health and Safety Executive’s rules have led to an overly heavy-handed approach. It now treats every landing site as a shared workplace—those are the key words. It is piling on paperwork and bureaucracy. By contrast, a boggy hillside or the King George V play area in Portree are not shared workplaces, so Bristow can land at such sites. That is ridiculous; Bristow is not allowed to use a helipad, but it is allowed to land in a play area, which it does occasionally.
I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a problem of health and safety over-regulation. The coastguard, Bristow Helicopters, the CAA and the Department of Transport all have a responsibility to make sure that whatever actions they take in the name of health and safety do not hinder helipad sites. I know that the CAA does not wish for its guidance to close helipads; that is why it did not make its guidance mandatory. That was also the sentiment of the family of the Derriford victim, who agreed that they did not want the CAA’s guidance to negatively impact helicopters’ being able to land and pick up people.
I have a brief anecdote, which is true—a real incident in Portree recently. A woman was suffering from a suspected heart attack. An ambulance was called and took her to the bit of land adjacent to the helipad. The ambulance crew could not get a wheelchair or stretcher to take her to the helicopter. Instead, despite thinking that she was having a heart attack, she had to walk across the boggy ground to get to the helicopter. She could have taken the ambulance right to the helipad, but that was not available, so she had to walk across a very rough bit of ground—I have done that walk myself. One could not make it up.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. South Western Ambulance Service covers 10,000 square miles. However, due to the large rural areas in the region—different from, but similar to those in his constituency—the response times are three times slower than the NHS target. Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, which is based in Henstridge in my constituency, provides a vital service to support the ambulance service. They carry out 3,000 missions a year, covering the isolated rural and coastal areas where demand is highest. Does he recognise, as I do, the importance of helipads in rural areas, which enable the air ambulance crews to get to isolated areas, so that they can provide exceptional care and get severely injured patients to hospitals within the crucial golden hour after an incident?
Mr MacDonald
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I do not think that many people in urban Britain know how important the ambulance services are to remote and rural areas, so her point is bang-on.
Had that lady in Portree had a heart attack while walking to that helicopter, would we not all be shouting at the Health and Safety Executive, asking, “Why wouldn’t you allow the use of the purpose-built helipad?” We would all be saying that. We would have had another Derriford-type inquiry, because a helicopter landed on a boggy hillside rather than on the perfect helipad on the other side of the fence.
I hope that I have articulated the reason behind my application for this debate, which was to shine a light on what I consider to be a bewildering anomaly of over-regulation. I have great respect for the CAA, the coastguard, Bristow and the Department for Transport, all of which have been incredibly responsible and helpful. However, I ask the Minister to meet me in person to discuss in more detail the issue that I have raised today, so that, hopefully, we can move to a position where it is resolved once and for all.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I want to use this opportunity to beg a favour of him, although I appreciate that the issue I want to address might not be the responsibility of this Minister. My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue of the collection of patients. However, there is also the issue of the delivery of patients. Far too many hospital helipads do not operate 24 hours a day, especially at children’s specialist trauma hospitals, which results in helicopters having to land elsewhere before the patient is moved by ambulance. If he meets the Minister, can he also press the Department of Health to properly fund 24-hour helipads at specialist children’s hospitals?
Mr MacDonald
I thank my hon. Friend. That is a point I did not know, but I will certainly bring it up should I get a meeting.
Rescue helicopters are vital for rural communities, as are organisations such as mountain rescue, which are voluntarily staffed. It is imperative that we do not over-legislate and create red tape that hampers the amazing work that these crews carry out right across the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I offer my congratulations and thanks to the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for bringing this debate to the House and allowing what has been a very useful discussion.
I begin by acknowledging the vital role played by air ambulances and search-and-rescue helicopters in saving lives. Across the United Kingdom there are 21 air ambulance charities, covering all regions of the country by air and also, often, by land in rapid response vehicles. In Scotland, the Scottish Ambulance Service, funded by the Scottish Government, helps to convey patients to hospital from some of the most remote areas of the United Kingdom. Some of those areas are represented here this morning.
As the hon. Member highlighted from his own family’s experiences—I hope his wife is recovering—these dedicated teams serve communities across the UK day and night and often in really challenging conditions, providing lifesaving care when it is needed most and delivering patients directly to major trauma centres and other specialist medical facilities. It is not only air ambulances that save lives. Bristow Helicopters operates a dedicated fleet of search-and-rescue helicopters on behalf of His Majesty’s Coastguard. From 10 bases, stretching from Newquay in the south-west to Sumburgh in the Shetland Islands, these crews stand ready to respond in order to save lives at sea and on land. When capacity allows, they also support the NHS to ensure that patients receive lifesaving care when air ambulances are unable to operate—for example, in particularly bad weather. I thank all members of our air ambulance and search-and-rescue teams for their continuing commitment to saving lives.
In more remote regions, such as the highlands and islands of Scotland, air ambulance aircraft play a crucial role in transferring patients from smaller hospitals to specialist centres. These operations may be supported by HM Coastguard search-and-rescue air assets when capacity allows and when air ambulances are unavailable or where conditions are beyond the capabilities of smaller air ambulances. Working hand in hand with NHS colleagues, these teams ensure that patients receive the highest standards of care swiftly and efficiently, no matter the distance or challenge.
However, this vital service depends on the availability of helicopter landing sites that helicopter operators are able and willing to use. These landing sites range from helipads and airfields to community spaces, playing fields and car parks, most of which require patients to be transported to and from them by land ambulance. Currently, the CAA does not formally regulate any of these helipads or landing sites. Although the CAA has best practice guidance—as the hon. Member highlighted—for hospital helipads, known as CAP 1264, it is not mandatory guidance. Helicopter operators can face unique challenges at these sites, including questions about legal responsibility for site safety and ensuring that there are no obstructions or bystanders who could be harmed by the powerful winds or downdraughts generated by a helicopter landing or taking off. As the hon. Member set out, that was made evident in 2022, when the downdraught produced by a search-and-rescue helicopter fatally injured one bystander, and seriously injured another, while it was arriving at Derriford hospital in Plymouth.
Following that incident, HM Coastguard helicopters took the decision that they will transfer patients using helipads only where there is clear responsibility and accountability for safety at the site, as well as a helicopter operations manual that manages known risks. When those safety requirements are satisfied, ultimately it is still the decision of the pilot in command of a helicopter to make a dynamic risk assessment of landing at a particular site, based on the company’s standard operating procedures, safety management systems, weather conditions, and the situation on the ground on the day—these are professionals who can make such judgments.
The Department for Transport continues to work with NHS Scotland, His Majesty’s Coastguard and helicopter operators to encourage all parties to work together to ensure safety at landing sites. I completely understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire on behalf of his constituent; he described the situation where his constituent had to be transported to a boggy field rather than a helipad. I understand why he has asked about the role of the Health and Safety Executive, which is investigating the Derriford situation.
It would not be right for me to comment on or seek to intervene in a live investigation—the HSE is not responsible to the Department for Transport in any case—but my officials are working closely with the coastguard, the CAA, the NHS, and HEMS operators, as well as consulting with HSE to understand the concerns and ensure that operators can continue to fly into hospital helipads safely. But the decision about whether to land at any particular site is always at the discretion of the pilot in command.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire set out, at the moment coastguard helicopters are not landing at Portree because they will only land at sites where they know who is responsible and accountable for safety, and where there is a helicopter operations manual to help ensure safe operations. If someone from Portree and Braes Community Trust or NHS Scotland is willing to take responsibility for the site and produce a helicopter operations manual, the coastguard and the helicopter operator will consider landing at the site. I appreciate that this sounds like a huge undertaking, but it is worth saying that the site at Portree is not wholly dissimilar to the site at Arran, where the helicopter operating manual, which sounds like it might be a weighty tome, is only four pages long. It sets out a responsible person and the operations. The manuals can be 60 pages long—it depends on the complexity of the site and how busy it is. There is potentially a way forward, and the hon. Member knows that the Department will work with him and others to help find a solution.
The Government recognise the crucial role that helicopter landing sites in rural areas, especially in the far north of Scotland, play in ensuring that local residents and visitors can access the highest possible standards of healthcare in an emergency. We are also cognisant of the potential risks to bystanders, ground staff and aircraft crew and patients when such sites are not properly managed and lack sufficient oversight.
Since the Derriford incident, the Government have taken on a collaborative role with the blue-light aviation sector, and we remain committed to working together with all parties as one team to explore solutions that are capable of both advancing safety and safeguarding the provision of this lifeline service. I am sure that the Department and ministerial colleagues will be happy to work with the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire to look at the detail of this particular case and see if we can assist.
Sarah Dyke
I also want to celebrate and thank all ambulance crews, as well as everybody working in the NHS, for the brilliant work they do providing this service. Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Since its first mission in 2000, the team has responded to 29,000 missions—an average of eight missions a day— and each mission costs around £3,500.
As well as celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, does the Minister recognise the vital service our air ambulances provide, as well as the work they do to provide rural services? Will she help me to secure and protect those services for the future?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the work of Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance. I add my congratulations on their 25-year anniversary. It is clear that they have made a huge impact not just on the local community, but for the many visitors to that area. I am sure we all want to see the continuation of these vital services, which matter to so many people across this country and share a commitment to work together, where there are any issues, to ensure those services can continue. I have enjoyed today’s debate, and look forward to continuing these discussions on another occasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Educational Assessment System Reform
(1 day, 11 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
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reforming the educational assessment system.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Over the summer, another cohort of young people finished their exams, marking the end of a period that left many feeling overwhelmed, anxious or uncertain about the future. Young people are growing up at the sharp end of so many challenges. We can see that reflected in recent figures from NHS England: one in four young people are struggling with their mental health, and the number of 16 to 24-year-olds with a common mental health condition is up by more than a third in a decade.
We face an unprecedented a youth mental health crisis. I am proud to sit behind a Labour Government that recognise the scale of the challenge. Almost 1 million more pupils will have access to school-based mental health support this year, and 6,700 additional mental health workers have been recruited since last July. But we cannot ignore the impact that the exam system is having on children and young people’s mental health. We must go further.
Paddy, a YoungMinds activist, gave a striking account of his A-level experience. He said that:
“From the start of Year 13,1 found it difficult to think about anything other than exams. At school, I would hardly eat anything, as I was so focussed on studying. The exams massively heightened my OCD. It seemed to know these exams were incredibly important to me, and it went on the attack. The peak was the night before one exam, when I had a complete breakdown and could not stop crying. The pressure was enormous, and I felt like I was drowning in the sea of pressure. Two years after finishing my exams, I still have nightmares about them, imagining I’m back in the exam hall.”
Paddy’s experience is not an isolated example. Research from the YoungMinds Missing the Mark campaign reveals the profound impact that exams are having on children and young people. Over 60% of GCSE and A-level students struggled to cope during exam season, with many experiencing panic attacks, or even suicidal thoughts and self-harm, and taking time off school. At just 11 years old, year 6 pupils said that their SATS made them question their abilities for the first time in their lives, losing confidence and missing out on sleep as a result.
Let me be clear: I am not making an anti-exams argument. Exams help to level the playing field, and there will always be a place for them. But there is a clear imbalance in the system. Young people are simply sitting too many exams in a concentrated timeframe that puts unacceptable pressure on pupils and teachers alike. Reforms to GCSEs over the last decade have led to an eight-hour increase in exam time, with end-of-course exams nearly all taken over a period of six weeks in a single summer term. Sixteen-year-olds in England spend approximately 31.5 hours sitting their GCSE exams. Compare that to Victoria in Australia, where students in low secondary sit around four hours of centralised exams; in Alberta in Canada it is 10 hours, in Poland it is 12, and in the Republic of Ireland it is 16.
I argue that we are now seeing the fallout of those changes: a much less flexible system that is contributing to a deepening mental health crisis. Eight in 10 education leaders surveyed by the Association of School and College Leaders said that reformed GCSEs had created greater levels of stress and anxiety among their students.
The current system is not just damaging to wellbeing; it is failing to effectively assess the skills that young people need today. A focus on memory recall is pushing educators to teach to the test, covering content at pace at the expense of developing a depth of understanding.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has tirelessly championed young people and their mental health since entering Parliament. Over the summer I held a number of workshops with young people and families with special educational needs, as well as schools, to understand their concerns about the ways the current system is failing young people. If the Government are to succeed in their worthy ambition of delivering more inclusive mainstream education—which we know is in every young person’s best interest, if we can deliver it well—would he agree that it is vital that we get our reforms to assessment right, and speak to it in an integrated way, to ensure that every young person can be set up to succeed and thrive at school?
Josh Dean
I could not agree more with the point my hon. Friend makes. I held a number of roundtables with parents and carers in my constituency over the summer as well. We were discussing the SEN challenges we face in Hertfordshire. At every session I held, parents and carers talked about the inflexibility of the system. Getting the reforms right to ensure that the system provides that flexibility and caters for all students could not be more important.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that, because everything we have talked about so far disproportionately impacts the most disadvantaged. Schools in the most deprived areas spend more time preparing for SATs; 76% of children with SEND do not reach the expected standards at the end of year 6, which rises to 91% of pupils with an education, health and care plan. Students with a history of poor mental health are at particular risk, which is even more acute for care-experienced young people, given the prevalence of mental health conditions in that group. Young people deserve a fairer, more balanced approach to assessment, where wellbeing and academic success are not at odds with one another.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on his speech. Does he agree that it is an unacceptable feature of our education system that around a third of young people leave school without a recognised qualification, a grade 4 in English or maths? For many of those young people, the way that the system treats resits traps them in a cycle of demoralising continuous failure, just at the point when they should be discovering their passion—the thing they are good at—and should be preparing to get new qualifications and succeed in life? Does he agree that we need urgent work to stop that cycle of failure both upstream in schools and in post-16 education?
Josh Dean
Again, I could not agree more. Being trapped in that cycle of failure leaves a mark on young people. We want young people to leave school ready for work and life, and to thrive with confidence. A system that grinds them down cannot be correct. I could not agree more on the point of post-16. I have had a number of conversations about that over recent weeks. That is an area that desperately needs reform, so that we get our young people ready to thrive in life.
The independent curriculum and assessment review offers a vital opportunity to tackle that injustice and one of the upstream drivers of the youth mental health crisis, and build a system fit for the 21st century. No 11-year-old child should feel bad about themselves because of exams. SATs are used to rank the performance of schools; they are not supporting children’s learning.
Timed tests over four days in year 6 are neither a reliable way to capture a pupil’s knowledge and abilities, nor a way to monitor school standards. Assessment should support a pupil’s learning and be clearly separated from school performance metrics, because placing the burden of accountability on children at such a formative age cannot be right.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful account of the inadequacy of SATs. Does he agree that the fact that so many secondary schools retest their pupils when they arrive shows that they do not have trust in SATs either?
Josh Dean
I cannot remember the numbers off the top of my head, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the number of secondary schools that retest students because of the lack of reliance and belief that SATs accurately measure their ability. We urgently need to rethink our approach to assessment at the primary level, and all options should be on the table. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the concern around SATs in her response, and confirm the Department’s commitment to addressing them when the curriculum and assessment review concludes.
We need to rebalance the system, reducing the dominance of high-stakes, end-of-course exams for GCSE and A-level students. A diversification of assessment methods could reduce pressure on young people, allowing them to showcase a broader range of strengths and better prepare them for life after school. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Department would implement such an approach, should it be recommended in the independent curriculum and assessment review’s final report.
Moving away from reliance on traditional exams and reducing the volume of exams that young people sit does not mean sacrificing rigour, as set out in Cambridge OCR’s “Striking the balance” report. It concluded that the overall volume of exams can be reduced without impacting the reliability of grades, and that greater consideration should be given to non-exam assessments. A well-designed, modular, multimodal system could be equally robust and offer fairer, more balanced ways to measure achievement. Universities across the country already do that to great effect and could offer a model to learn from for our school system.
More widely, a whole-school approach is essential to supporting children and young people’s mental health. An assessment system that balances wellbeing and academic success would be complemented by a curriculum, teaching and learning approach that promotes resilience and supports social and emotional learning. Will the Minister confirm that wellbeing will be a central focus in the Department’s approach when it comes to implementing the findings of the independent curriculum and assessment review and more generally?
I am under no illusions that reform of the assessment system is a silver bullet to resolve the youth mental health crisis. Young people sit at the intersection of many complicated challenges, and this must be part of a wider piece of work to support them. I recognise that it will take time and will need to be phased in, to avoid overwhelming the education system, in consultation with our educators. But children and young people are experts in their experiences. When they tell us something is wrong, it is our responsibility in this House to listen and act accordingly, not decide that we know better.
The last major reform of the assessment system took place a decade ago. We cannot miss this opportunity to get it right for young people. They need us to embrace ambitious reform now, not in another 10 years, to help tackle the youth mental health crisis and deliver a lasting assessment system that supports their wellbeing and their academic success and better prepares them for work and life.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. We will have to limit contributions to three and a half minutes.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this hugely important debate and for the way he highlighted the mental health impact of exams on children and young people.
I have been contacted by further education lecturers in my constituency who are increasingly worried about the strain that the current assessment system places on both staff and students. Each year, young people are required to resit GCSE English and maths, often several times, even when they have shown real ability in their chosen vocational courses. Many of these students are capable, hard-working and determined, yet they are being judged on a single written exam that often bears little relation to the skills they will need for work or further study.
Those with learning difficulties, other disabilities or complex personal circumstances are particularly disadvantaged by this one-size-fits-all approach. As someone who worked as a university lecturer for many years before being elected to this place, I have seen how different students learn and demonstrate knowledge in very different ways, and the current model leaves too little room for that individuality.
Our local colleges work tirelessly to support our young people, often with fewer resources, larger class sizes and lower pay than schools. The pressure this creates for both students and staff is enormous, and it is clear that the current GCSE resit system is not giving young people the time or tailored support they need to succeed. We should be exploring fairer, more flexible ways for students to demonstrate their progress, such as modular assessments, more coursework or improved functional skills routes that focus on practical communication and literacy.
Too many young people are being held back by a system that measures only a narrow kind of success. Assessment is important, but it should be formative, build confidence and open up opportunity, helping every learner to move forward rather than leaving them stuck in a place. An overview of the assessment system is needed so that every student in Stratford-on-Avon and across the country can develop their skills and unlock their potential.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Ours is a one-size-fits-all system, and it should not be, because one size does not fit all. That was certainly the message I took loud and clear from the SEND roundtable that I hosted in Corby and East Northamptonshire when we brought parents, schools and others together.
SATs measure a school’s performance; they do not measure a child’s potential. The numbers speak for themselves: 56% of 10 and 11-year-olds say that SATs were the first time that they really worried about their abilities, 35% said that SATs made them feel ill, and 28% said that SATs made them feel bad about themselves. Let us be honest: exams are damaging young people’s mental health.
We are one of the most over-assessed countries in the world. In Finland they do not assess at all until 16, but their children still learn and their teachers are still trusted. If we are to have primary school assessment, there must be much lower stakes. High stakes exams are not the only way to see what a child can do. We need to put trust back into our teaching professionals. They know their pupils best—they see them learn, grow and shine every single day. I welcome the Government’s ambition to move from half of young people going to university to two-thirds going on to either university or an apprenticeship. That is the right direction. Not all are good at exams. I went down the apprenticeship route, and I know first hand that there are many routes to success.
Too often, our system tells young people that they have failed—“How did you get on in that exam?”, “I failed”—but that is not the way we should be doing it. Children might struggle through SATs, GCSEs and endless English and maths resits, yet once they get to work they start to thrive. That is not their fault; that is the system we have built. Our system risks teachers teaching for the test not for the child, and the whole of year 6 gets wiped out because of SATs.
I have heard children turning down opportunities for things like sport, or for time with their friends, because they say they need to study for their SATs. Clearly that is not right. Ten-year-olds should be outside playing, not losing sleep over league tables. I am looking forward to the full conclusion of the curriculum and assessment review, and I hope it is radical because tinkering at the edges will not do. We need an education system that lifts children up, not one that weighs them down, and one that measures potential, not pressure. It is time to build a system that helps every child to find their path, their purpose and, most importantly, their pride.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Assessment in education is obviously one of the most important aspects of what we do in education. It gives children a chance to show what they have learned, what they can do, and we want that to be stretching, but also to be fair. Anything that measures our attainment is inherently somewhat stressful. We also want to prepare children for adult life, and part of that is learning to deal with stress and to make it work in a positive direction.
We obviously do not want exams to be overly stressful, and I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for his work on mental health. He poses this as a mental health question, and it is true that there is an upward trend in mental ill health in children in this country and, by the way, in most other countries in the developed world, although they do not all have the same exam system as us. France and the United States have very different exam systems, with one largely a terminal exam system and the other not, but we see a pattern that is essentially the same.
A linear study and terminal exams give us some important things. They give us consistency, transparency, and comparability across the country. Because the exams come at the end we can synthesise knowledge, so it is not just a test of what someone happens to have learned for a test, but it is putting together different aspects of knowledge. It is not just one big exam. First, there are seven, eight, nine or 10 subjects, and typically two papers and multiple formats—multiple choice, short-form open questions, essay questions, orals and practicals in different subjects. Ironically, if we reduce the number of papers we would increase the high-stakes nature of tests that come at the end of study. It is possible that if we had continuous assessments, we might not get rid of stress but just stretch it out over a longer period because, as I said, any assessment inherently has some stress attached.
Let me talk briefly about younger children, because that issue is different. SATs are not public exams, and no child should ever be put under pressure coming up to SATs. SATs are a measure of schools, not pupils—I promise that when someone applies for a job or university in adult life, nobody will ever ask them what they got in their SATs. That is not what they are for. The biggest effect that they could have is what set a child gets into in year 7. But ironically, as the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said, schools do that anyway. Even if we got rid of a high-stakes assessment at the end of year 6, there would still be one in year 7. I repeat that no child should be put under pressure about SATs. That is not their purpose.
I wanted to say a lot, but that is not going to happen in three and a half minutes. I briefly ask the Minister to confirm that Progress 8 is coming back. We have not been able to do Progress 8 for a couple of years because of covid and not having a baseline, but it is by far the better measure—much better than contextual value added or a raw score. Please will the Minister confirm that the Government are not looking at getting rid of handwritten exams done in exam conditions? Those are the best way to guarantee security of assessment and to ensure that handwriting development continues apace.
We should have an open mind on resits. The point about the policy is not to have more people sitting exams but to carry on studying English and maths. That in itself is a good objective, but we should be open about how it is achieved.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing today’s debate.
The assessment system is so broken that it is breaking our young people. It shows that those who can pass exams do well and those who cannot do not do so well. It assesses what people cannot recall or pull together as opposed to emphasising their strengths and building on their knowledge base, skills and talents. I have long researched this issue and believe it is time for the Government to be bold and welcome this review. The level of mental health issues, stress, trauma and anxiety among our young people is unsustainable. We have to change course. That is why I support the recommendation to scrap the SATs assessments, which place such pressure on our young people.
There are other forms of assessment that can continue to map a child’s journey. Assessment should be a continual process for educators, to stretch their pupils and ensure that students can move on to the next stage of their learning. That is what we should do: enable teachers to use their professional skills to maximise a child’s learning journey, stretch their creativity and give them a hunger to explore curiosity and critical thinking—the skills that are so needed in our economy today and which employers often say are so lacking among new starters.
Every child learns differently so the way they are assessed should reflect that diversity so that the fullness of their learning journey can be reflected in the assessments. I hope that we adopt a much more comprehensive form of assessment, in which we look at the diversity of how children express themselves. That should also be ongoing: people who can cram for exams have an advantage over those who process information and apply skills in very different ways. I say again in this Chamber that I recommend listening to the work of Sir Ken Robinson, which highlights how the education and assessment system must change.
Scrap the SATs. We do not need them in our education system. It is not right that young children should be so stressed. I have a challenge for the Government around GCSEs, given that children do not leave school any more. We need to think about how we prepare our young people for the next stages of life, showing that they have proficiency in their learning and encouraging children to stay with and enjoy their learning. If we are to prepare people for the rest of their lives, when they will not continue to sit exams, let us think about portfolios of assignments—learning journals and project work that reflects the reality of the society that we live in. Let us enable people to have those portfolios that they can use as evidence. That would involve the skills needed and mean we could assess better through a modulated system.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this debate.
With severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia, I struggled at school and hated exams. The current system of exam-based learning has a role to play in higher education, but it is far from perfect. Today I will focus on the changes we can make to the assessment system so that it is fairer on neurodiverse students because there is an attainment gap. The British Dyslexia Association found that in the 2023-24 academic year, just two in 10 students with special educational needs achieved a grade 5 or above in English and maths GCSE, compared with over half the students without SEND—that is an attainment gap of over 30%. Current assessments, such as GCSEs, are focused on an intense number of written exams, which favour good memory recall, fluent reading and writing and correct spelling in a high-pressure, timed environment.
When someone’s strength lies in creative thinking, problem solving or practical or artistic work, then exams are not testing or rewarding for their strengths. While assistive technologies can make a huge difference, they are not available for too many neurodiverse people. The BDA found that only one in five dyslexic pupils say they have access to assistive technology at school—that is shocking. The bigger problem is that too many neurodiverse kids do not have their needs identified at all. I come back to to dyslexia: 80% of dyslexics will leave school without their needs formally identified—unless, of course, they are lucky enough to come from a high income family, as 90% of children from households earning over £100,000 have a formal diagnosis, according to the BDA. That is just not fair. The result is not just an attainment gap, but damage to mental health. Seven in 10 people with dyslexia say it has made them feel bad about themselves—I know that all too well. Nearly eight in 10 say people assume they are not clever.
I have a list of demands for the Minister today—and they are demands, because things as they stand really are not good enough. One, identify and support needs for early universal screening and better teacher training on neurodivergence. I have written to the Minister to ask for a meeting on that and I am still waiting to hear back. Two, reduce the intensity and number of exams and have more coursework or continuous assessments where possible. Three, introduce and properly invest in more vocational and functional pathways. Yeovil college in my constituency is fantastic at that. Four, invest in access to assistive technologies and integrate it into teacher training and testing as early as possible. Five, get a designated mental health professional in every school who is trained to support SEND children with anxiety at school. Finally, look at removing spelling, punctuation, and grammar marks from non-English exams.
As listeners can tell, I struggle even reading my own speech. People are struggling on a daily basis and we need that support. If we act on this, we can finally move towards an education system that teaches and tests for the strengths in all of us. Surely that can only be a good thing.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this crucial debate.
Teachers and parents alike tell me the same thing: there is too much pressure and not enough time to focus on children as people. We all want an assessment system that raises standards and helps children reach their full potential. Right now, the pressure it creates is doing the opposite. It is piling stress on pupils, parents and teachers, affecting confidence, wellbeing and learning and leaving too many children feeling like they are being judged and not supported. Too often schools feel like a conveyor belt, moving children along whether or not they are ready and sorting them by how well they cope—not by what they can do.
Our current system focuses on what children know without fully understanding what helps them learn. If we want to improve attainment, we have to look at the emotional, social and behavioural foundations that sit underneath it. When a child feels safe, calm and supported, they achieve more. That is what Nurture UK has been showing for over 50 years. It works with schools across the country helping teachers to assess and support children’s social and emotional development through tools such as the Boxall Profile assessment tool and interventions based on the six principles of nurture. These are rooted in the importance of supporting children to build secure attachments as a basis for lasting resilience and happiness in school. It is a low-cost, evidence-based way for schools to understand how pupils are coping and step in early when they need to.
Schools that embed nurture approaches see improved attendance, better behaviour, fewer exclusions and stronger progress. Just ask James Roach, CEO of the Inclusive Multi Academy Trust, who says that
“the impact of this approach is evident in the significant improvements we’ve seen in attendance, behaviour, and a reduction in exclusions.”
It is a simple truth: when we invest in children’s emotional and social wellbeing, academic outcomes rise. That is what we should be building into assessment reform. Through my work as chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party parliamentary group, I am working closely with Nurture UK, the charity leading this work, to explore how we can make these approaches part of everyday practice in schools. If we want higher standards, we need to give every child the right conditions to meet them. Emotional and social development should be recognised as part of learning, not left to chance.
I have three asks for the Minister. The first is to make sure that schools can assess pupils’ social and emotional development alongside their academic progress so that we understand what is helping or holding back learning. The second is to strengthen support around exams and results. Those moments can be overwhelming, so pupils need guidance and reassurance to get through them. The third is to protect the classroom and make it a safe and stable place, especially during times of pressure. Teachers need time, training and trust to nurture as well as teach. These are simple, practical steps that would lift wellbeing and achievement. If we get this right, we will have a system that works for children, parents and teachers—one that finally gives every child the space to do their best and thrive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this debate and for the personal story he told. That always helps us to focus on where we are and where we need to be.
The issue of educational assessment affects every single constituency within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As every parent, grandparent and teacher knows, exam times are stressful, whether that stress comes from knowing that their child is not studying at all, thinking that they are studying too much, knowing that they are stressed out themselves or worrying that they will not reach their potential. All of it seems incredibly stressful and worrisome. I can still remember the advice that my mother gave to me—wee wise woman that she is, now 94 years of age—“Do your best, work hard and leave the rest to God.” I think that is where we all want to be. It did not do me any harm in my life.
At exam results time in my constituency, I always strive to tell my story. I am the MP for Strangford. I did my GCSEs; I did not do A-levels. The path to success does not always have to be academic. I say that with great respect to those who decide to go that way—I am not against that. It is about making sure that everyone has a chance. I know many businessmen and women who left school at 16 and are multimillionaires. Hard work and good character are their qualifications. My point is that people can achieve their goals in other ways. Exams are not the be-all and end-all. However, they are undoubtedly part of life, and rightly so. Any teacher will tell us that assessment is needed to ensure that a child is getting the help they need and understanding the things they need to.
We are all aware that there are more children with differing needs, and they may well require different assessments. Official stats show a significant rise in autism diagnoses among school-aged children, with the prevalence rate in Northern Ireland increasing from approximately 1.2% in 2009 to 5.8%. However, we know that a diagnosis of autism is an indication not of the level of intelligence, but that a different approach is needed to get the best from that child. That is the way to do it. It does not mean that they are less able; it just means that we need to do it a different way. That is what we need to look at: how do we tailor educational assessment to the large range of needs that mainstream education is dealing with? I believe that that begins with support for teachers in lesson planning to ensure that they can reach a full class that may have a range of very different needs.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford raised some points about assessments being changed, but I believe that our entire approach needs to change. We need an approach that values vocational callings as well as academic ones, and in which children feel that they succeed not because they managed to pass maths, but because they learned their skills well—a system in which academic children can thrive and hands-on learning can be equal.
That will not come by changing exam structures, but by changing the system of education from the ground up. I know that it is the desire of teachers throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to help children to achieve their best, find job fulfilment and be confident in their strengths. I look to my grandchildren—I have six of them, from the age of three to 16—and know that their futures, in each of their own unique ways, are bright. We need an education system that facilitates those ways. That is the change we all need to achieve.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. I also thank the charity YoungMinds for its hard work and dedication to supporting young people’s mental health and wellbeing. I had the privilege of meeting its representatives at the Labour party conference, having previously attended its Missing the Mark event here in Parliament.
It has become clear to me, especially since becoming an MP, how frequently mental health issues appear across many different areas of policy, and how poor mental health in childhood can have knock-on effects on a young person’s future life chances. The impact that school assessments have on the future of our children should not be underestimated. I look forward to considering the upcoming schools White Paper to see how we can implement the changes we need to help our children.
In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, I hear time and again from parents and teachers about the need for improved SEND support. Almost 20% of pupils in our schools have identified special educational needs, and reports indicate that special educational needs are most prevalent in pupils as young as nine years old. Some 96% of headteachers have expressed concern that SATs have a negative impact on the wellbeing of their pupils. Is it not therefore time to consider whether we actually need these exams for our children? At secondary school level, 63% of students say that they struggle to cope in the lead-up to GCSEs and A-levels, and that figure rises to nearly 80% for those with special educational needs. Something needs to change.
When we talk about early intervention to protect our children, we need to consider the reform of the educational assessment system that all our young people go through, which could also alleviate pressures on key NHS and SEND services. How many times have we heard the phrase, “Prevention is better than cure”? As parliamentarians, we have real opportunities to deliver change and make tangible differences to the lives of so many. We need to adopt a joined-up approach to supporting our children—one that links a reformed, child-centred educational assessment system with a holistic strategy for supporting the mental health needs of our young people. We can then provide a future from which we will all benefit.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing the debate.
The current assessment system is failing our children, our teachers and our society. A combination of factors is at play: the focus of school inspections and parental choice on arbitrary pass rates; the narrowing of the curriculum, which devalues creative and vocational subjects; the failure to maintain school funding, which leaves headteachers little choice but to run schools on a shoestring; the explosion in poor mental health and additional educational needs; the long-term impact of the pandemic on children and learning; and the move to digital, which is increasing the pace of life and risks leaving so many children behind.
I should be clear that assessments of progress are important. There is value in benchmarking our children against age-related expectations, using their progress to assess the quality of teaching and helping parents to find the right schools for their children. For most children, it is also reasonable to feel some level of stress. That is a natural part of life, and understanding how we respond to it helps us with our own coping mechanisms and helps us to deal with bigger stressful life events as we grow up. However, it is fairly obvious that some children are not going to meet the so-called normal expectations.
Let me tell the story of a very special child. To protect their identity, I am calling them Taylor. They could not do their alphabet when they started school; they failed their phonics, their key stage 1 test and their key stage 2 SATs. They were finally placed on the SEN register at around 11, but they were not supported. They were assessed as having a reading age of seven years and nine months at age 14, yet the school forced them to continue with a full eight GCSE programme. The school forced them to progress in English and maths knowing they were destined to fail. The mental health impact of failing everything throughout their whole childhood was so devastating, on top of covid and the other pressures on their young life, that they ended up out of school and out of hope. They ended year 11 with no qualifications and no school.
Their story is far from unique—500 children a day are referred to mental health services for anxiety and four in five education leaders say that reformed GCSEs have created greater levels of stress and anxiety. Just under half the children who fail to make the grade at 16 were judged as falling behind at the age of just five. Those children, when identified early, can be stopped from failing throughout their life. They are not stupid; they learn differently, and they need a more inclusive school, a better curriculum and a system that is based not on remembering stuff, but on applying their skills and talents to help them to meet their potential.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I recognise that my constituency has a bad name in this area, because it was largely my predecessor MP who introduced the kind of memorising curriculum that my hon. Friend refers to. Does my hon. Friend agree that to preserve the mental health of our young people, and to maximise their human capacity, there is no point in just testing their ability to remember and regurgitate after two years? Instead, we should engage their creativity and critical thinking skills, and go back to some element of continuous assessment.
Vikki Slade
I absolutely agree. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and allowing me to pause in my emotion. My constituent Kaisey did not pass her English and maths GCSEs. She got close, but she was forced to resit them at college where she went backwards. Now she is being blocked from progressing on her chosen course in animation, and her mum is being told that her daughter cannot access functional English and maths until she is 19, despite her passing the level 2 creative courses that would allow her to progress. A special school would allow her to take those functional courses. Her mum said:
“The resit crisis is leaving students feeling failures and is demoralising, especially to SEN students who may never be able to achieve a Grade 4”.
There is no reason why these children should be forced into a cycle of doom.
To go back to Taylor and what happened to him, he has now been scooped up by the brilliant special Linwood school, where the staff have rebuilt his self-esteem. He flew through his functional English, he is now on to maths, he has passed a home cooking BTEC, and he aspires to be a teaching assistant in a school for autistic children. I want to challenge the Minister on removing the forced retakes of English and maths GCSEs, having a more holistic range of courses and, as some of us just heard in the Dingley’s Promise roundtable, having reasonable adjustments in classrooms to help every child to learn and achieve better outcomes, and to improve their happiness.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Before the summer recess, I hosted a “Truth about SATs” parliamentary drop-in with educational reform group More Than a Score. It was a great event, with MPs from all sides of the House sitting down to take some mock SATs exams themselves. Lots of colleagues sat there quite relaxed, chatting to others and evidently fairly confident that these exams for 11-year-olds would not be too taxing. Then the worksheets arrived, and faces fell. That is why I hosted the event in the first place; I saw at first hand why over three quarters of parents think SATs harm children’s mental health, and why 93% of headteachers want the Government to review the entire system.
The spelling, punctuation and grammar exams are stuffed to the brim with questions such as “What is a fronted adverbial?” and “Circle the modal verb”, and questions about subjunctives, determinants, inverted commas, prepositions and past progressives. We all use these grammatical structures automatically, and of course children need to be able to use them in reading and writing, but these are things that intelligent, hard-working adults up and down the country have trouble identifying, and understandably so. Do we really need such an intensive focus on labelling these devices instead of using them? No one is saying that we should not have high standards, nor is anyone saying that grammar is not important, but there are serious questions about whether that is the best way to teach it.
In four—sometimes five—out of seven years of primary school, children are taking statutory exams. The results of those exams, as we have heard, are important to schools as they are used for accountability. Department for Education officials can use key stage 2 performance data when setting criteria for allocating additional funding, which leads to teaching to a test, focusing on a narrower curriculum with the hope that it leads to better scores for the kids, which schools—strapped for funding for years under the last Government—really need.
There is a real danger that the exams will put kids off learning for life. Cramming a student’s head full of fronted adverbials and the like is not a recipe for a love of literature and language, funnily enough. This is a key concern of teachers and parents who lament that a focus on spelling, punctuation and grammar tests does nothing to encourage students to think creatively about reading and writing. We need to be clear about what exactly we are testing across the different stages of education. Are we focusing too much on detailed knowledge in some areas when we should be increasing our assessment of broader understanding and skills instead? We now have a Government willing to properly look at the shortcomings of curriculum and assessment, and I really look forward to the outcome of the review. The interim report talks ambitiously about empowering teachers to foster a love of learning. I hope to see more of that thinking in the final report.
During my first year here I have had a lot of discussions around the importance of strengthening critical thinking skills earlier in the curriculum, as has been mentioned, particularly in this age we live in of online misinformation and the need to be able to tell truth from fiction from a much younger age than has perhaps been critical in the past. An ambitious and modern review would tackle these problems head on. Although the interim report gives a nod to critical thinking, I would like to see more of a focus there.
To conclude, we have a real need to balance assessment, which is necessary to achieve high standards, alongside a curriculum that gives children the freedom to build a curious and inquisitive relationship with learning.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. For everybody in this room and every educationalist across the country, the aim is to get the best from every child at every age, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and whatever path they choose to take going forward, whether it is university or apprenticeships. However, where we are with our education system and our assessment system does not help us get to that point. As we have heard, our exam system is pushing young people to their limits. For some, exams are the right tool and they are excited by them—they are built for the exams and will show the best version of themselves—but for many, exams are not that vehicle.
Last summer, nearly two thirds of students sitting their GCSEs and A-levels said that they struggled to cope, with many reporting panic attacks, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Over a third of 10 and 11-year-olds said SATs made them feel ill, and more than half worried about their abilities for the first time. Those figures tell us something is profoundly wrong. Our assessment system is damaging the very young people it is meant to serve. We have created an environment where success is defined by performance in a few hours of high-stakes exams, rather than by sustained learning or genuine understanding.
Only around 5% of primary school leaders believe that SATs reflect a child’s true ability, and just 3% think that they accurately measure school performance. Exams are meant to measure learning, not resilience under stress. We need a system that uses a fairer mix of assessment methods, combining exams with course work, project work and modular or digital assessments to better reflect the diverse strengths of every student.
Warinder Juss
Does the hon. Member agree that exams do not even test resilience? I consider myself to be quite a resilient person, but I used to hate exams. Even though I retook my A-levels and succeeded in getting them, for years afterwards I used to have dreams about not having passed my A-levels, and I do not think that is an uncommon story.
Iqbal Mohamed
I absolutely agree. After my last exam at university, I promised myself that I would never take another exam. Before I became an MP—not since—I had nightmares where I believed I had an exam in the morning and had not revised, which is a common feeling among many.
This debate follows the House’s passing of Third Reading of the Mental Health Bill yesterday. I spoke about remembering the importance of centring young people’s wellbeing and mental health, and how we must create policy and legislation that fits them and their experiences and needs. A constituent recently told me that both her daughters have needed mental health support, primarily because of issues in school and the stress that came with that. The pressures of our education system are part of that picture, and cannot be ignored.
We have heard arguments about some of the benefits of exams, and we should try to find an adaptable hybrid model so that schools can adapt how they test and assess the ability of individual children rather than forcing them down a single, cookie-cutter, regimented process that does not show their capabilities, intelligence or resilience.
Teaching children about resilience has to come from real-world scenarios, and exams that concentrate stresses into two-hour chunks at the end of an academic year do not reflect the realities of life. We all experience stresses, and we should all try to deal with them, but I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) mentioned, that they help strengthen children’s resilience.
With the independent curriculum and assessment review expected soon, we have a crucial opportunity to rethink how we assess young people. Reform must place wellbeing, creativity and fairness at its heart, because a child’s worth should never be defined by how they perform under pressure, but by the full range of their potential.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing the debate. Leaders at the Derby college group told me that some of their students, including some with special educational needs, get trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of English and maths resits.
Those experiences put enormous pressure on students, contributing to the very poor mental health statistics that we have. I am keen for the Government to look at this issue. The Government are investing significantly in education and driving reform. I hope this debate will help them to consider how changes to the curriculum can improve young people’s mental health.
As a former music teacher, my perspective centres around creative subjects and the creative industries. One study by the American Psychological Association found that students taking music are one year ahead of their new non-music peers with regards to English and maths, so the higher uptake of creative subjects could go a long way towards helping young people pass their exams with less mental strain.
There is so much evidence for the positive contribution that the arts make to young people’s mental health, in addition to the broader importance of culture to our sense of self, national identity and the economy. The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music runs the largest national survey of children, adults and teachers about music education. Its 2025 “Making Music” report demonstrates the immense benefits that music brings. Of respondents who currently make music, building confidence and supporting mental health were the third and fourth most important motivations.
The highest ranked motivation was that it was fun, which doubtless improves people’s mental health, too. Three quarters of music teachers surveyed described music lessons as extremely important for the mental health and wellbeing of their students, and employers are clear that they want creativity and critical thinking from their staff. These are precisely the abilities fostered through the arts, but too often they are the first casualty of curriculum pressures. Indeed, 40% of schools no longer offer GCSE music at all.
There are two big updates from the Government that many people are waiting for. The first is the final publication of the curriculum review. In it, many people would like to see greater priority given to creative subjects, which are undermined by aspects of the system at the moment. The English baccalaureate in particular has been identified as a barrier to full engagement with creative subjects. Many people are asking for the EBacc to be scrapped, and we should at the very least look to reform it.
The second announcement we are waiting for is the national centre for arts and music education. There is much excitement about this body, but some of the detail is yet to come. If the Minister could furnish us with some more information about that today, that would be very welcome. However, I was concerned to read recently that the Department has decided to cut the training bursary for music teachers, as well as those doing religious education, English and art and design. I have reached out to the Department about that, but if we could get some of the rationale behind it, I would be very grateful. Given that we have missed our target for music teacher recruitment for many years, we need to be mindful that the new national centre has the workforce to staff it.
As a former music teacher, I have seen at first hand the power of a creative education to change lives. Children coping with the most difficult circumstances, through music and the arts, can connect to something beautiful—something that transcends time and space and gives voice to their expression. I know the Government appreciate and understand that, and I look forward to working with the Minister to deliver life-changing opportunities to children and young people in every part of the United Kingdom.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Before being elected, I spent nearly two decades as a teacher. I know all too well the realities of working in a system that prioritises teaching to the test at the expense of a creative curriculum, broader educational experiences and, most importantly, pupil wellbeing.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for education, I recently led an inquiry into the loss of love of learning. It found that current assessment practices have a significant impact on students’ engagement with, and attitudes towards, learning. One submission highlighted that a system which frames learning through a lens of student deficit rather than progress ultimately ends up demotivating learners and narrowing their sense of possibility. When education is reduced to a means of securing exam results, we lose the intrinsic joy and value of learning itself.
One of the most powerful moments during the inquiry came when a group of primary school children from Wales visited Parliament to give evidence. They were genuinely surprised and, frankly, horrified to learn about the pressure and stress their peers in England face when preparing for SATs—and they were right to be shocked. In England, SATs preparation dominates much of the year 6 curriculum, leaving little room for creativity, exploration or deeper understanding.
Research from More Than a Score found that over three quarters of parents believe that SATs have a detrimental impact on their child’s mental health. More than a third reported that their children were not sleeping properly in the run-up to the exams. Of course, that pressure does not end in primary school. GCSEs and A-levels occupy multiple years of a young person’s life and subject them to immense stress.
According to YoungMinds, pupils sitting their exams last summer reported elevated levels of anxiety, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Current systems also disproportionately disadvantage pupils with special educational needs and disabilities—or additional learning needs, as they are known in Wales—as well as those experiencing mental health issues or growing up in a socioeconomically disadvantaged circumstance.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for what the hon. Member is saying. As well as widening inequality through the current assessment system, which we know occurs, does he not agree that it also stifles social mobility, holding many young people back from the opportunities they could have?
Steve Witherden
Yes, I agree 100%.
In 2025, more than 75% of pupils with SEND and over 90% of those with an education, health and care plan did not meet expected standards in their end-of-primary SATs. Many carry that label of failure into secondary school before they have even had the chance to flourish. As someone who is dyslexic, dyscalculic and was functionally illiterate until the age of 11, I know what it feels like to struggle within a system not designed for people like me.
Teachers in schools serving deprived communities consistently report higher levels of pupil anxiety and disengagement related to SATs, compared with their counterparts in more affluent areas. The current high-stakes, one-size-fits-all model is not only outdated; it actively perpetuates inequality. Like Wales, England should abolish SATs. They damage children’s mental health, impose unnecessary stress at a formative age and fail to serve as reliable indicators of pupil or school performance.
At GCSE and A-level, we must reduce our dependence on high-stakes, end-of-course exams or on-demand online assessments, which give pupils—particularly those who struggle under timed conditions—greater opportunity to succeed. For far too long, education policy has been shaped by an obsession with measurable outcomes, too often at the expense of the very learners who most need our support.
I look forward to the final report of the curriculum and assessment review and urge the Government to respond with both ambition and compassion. Let us move beyond high-stakes learning, reduce anxiety in our classrooms, and above all, restore joy, creativity and a love of learning.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately about the subject. Although I have no doubt that his personal recollections of education are more recent than my own, I not long ago lived through the trauma of summer exam season vicariously through both my daughters, and I am glad that is behind us now.
The effect of exams on the mental health of our children and young people is clear. The hon. Member eloquently laid out that problem and showed that other respectable education systems have found a way to minimise exam time. It is possible to do that, and incumbent on us to look at doing so. Education is about so much more than the grades a child receives. It is about empowering every child to become the best they can be, ensuring they leave school equipped with the life skills, confidence and resilience they need, to lead happy, healthy and successful lives, whatever path they choose.
Education is about so much more than teaching to the test. It should be about opening minds and lighting a spark, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) described so passionately. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) said, social and emotional development is also vital, and as important as academic achievement. At the heart of all this is ensuring that school is enjoyable. Most of us remember that one teacher who inspired us, who turned the light on and sparked a love of something, the one thing we did not mind getting up for in the morning.
I saw a perfect example of that during a recent visit to Stokenham primary school in my constituency. There is a forest school behind the school buildings where children learn through exploring their natural environment in a wonderful wooded area, beautifully demonstrating the importance of learning beyond the classroom, and the creative ways we can bring education alive. That is truly the highlight of the week for all the kids. It might also be music, drama, art or sport, textiles, food tech or woodwork. A holistic approach to education is vital because it nurtures social and creative skills that are just as important as the core subjects of English and maths. If a narrow approach to the curriculum is pursued, enriching experiences such as those risk being pushed to the bottom of the pile.
Lessons that foster interpersonal, creative and emotional skills have their place alongside traditional subjects that are measured in exams. Music has been shown to improve performance in maths, helping children to recognise patterns and sequences, improving memory and recall, as I am sure the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) will agree.
Standardised testing remains important. Exams play a vital role in maintaining high educational standards and provide a clear, objective measure of achievement. As the Sutton Trust highlights, anonymous, externally marked exams help to level the playing field for pupils from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They act as a crucial equaliser for students who may not have support at home for coursework, and they are less susceptible to the biases that can arise in teacher assessments or oral exams.
We heard passionate speeches from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and other Members that SATs at 11 should not be included in standardised testing. As the Government’s interim report recognises, the current one-size-fits-all approach is letting down some students. Pupils start sitting exams from the age of 11, and their experience is clear: the system puts enormous pressure on our young people and their mental health. We must take the opportunity to think about how we assess their ability. That is clearly demonstrated in the surge in pupils resitting GCSE English and maths. This year, just under 400,000 students resat those subjects, accounting for 23% of all GCSE entries.
The current system that pushes young people to resit the assessments quickly after their first attempt is flawed. Over-16s are caught in a cycle of repeated resits, with the number of 18-year-olds resitting those subjects rising by nearly 20% from last year. Those students risk falling into a dispiriting cycle, feeling they have failed because they cannot pass the exam and being forced to redo it again and again. Understandably, that has a detrimental impact on their mental health, with repeated resits and a rigid assessment system contributing to heightened anxiety and stress. Alongside increasing support for those pupils to get through their English and maths, we must look at the viability of an alternative functional assessment that better fits ability.
We must also reconsider how certain other subjects are assessed in the first place. Evey child will want to pursue their own path, and in certain subjects such as those that are creative, technical and vocational, exams may not be the solution. Our assessment system must reflect that diversity and recognise the many ways in which children can best demonstrate their learning. As the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) said, we all learn differently, so why assess in just one way?
We also need to be mindful that one in every five students has special educational needs. As the Government’s interim report notes, the assessment system needs to be more inclusive, and that inclusivity must extend to those with higher levels of SEND, as highlighted by both the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Currently, only 24% of children with SEND meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 62% nationally. That imbalance is unacceptable, and we must work hard to ensure that it is rectified.
Children with SEND deserve the same opportunities to succeed as their peers, and the assessment system must reflect their specific needs, enabling them to progress and thrive in their education, rather than be weighed down by exams that fail to accommodate their abilities. We must be creative in finding other ways to assess ability. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who has done valuable work on education for pupils with neurodivergence, spoke passionately about this, and I commend him for his work on the subject.
We also need to think outside the box when it comes to subjects such as music, drama, art and sports. These subjects develop crucial creative and emotional skills, yet they are not always best assessed through exams. They are the subjects that bring joy to education and transform schools into places where children are genuinely excited to learn. As the parent of a daughter who now works as a professional costume maker, I have seen the joy and passion that a creative career choice can bring. Given the love that people have for films, it is no less valid than a career in law, medicine, finance, or, dare I say it, politics.
All too often, however, such subjects are being squeezed out of our timetables due to budget cuts, teacher shortages and a curriculum that is often narrowed prematurely as schools are forced to focus on assessment. That is unfair, disproportionately affecting pupils from poorer backgrounds who do not otherwise have access to extracurricular activities to make up for the gaps. As a rural MP, I will say that the problem is exacerbated in rural constituencies, where students may not be able to attend after-school clubs if their only way to get home is on the 3.30 pm school bus. Limited or costly transport options should never be a barrier to creativity and involvement in sports. We must protect, not diminish, those subjects and ensure that every learner has the chance to excel on whatever path they choose.
The Liberal Democrats want children to be able to thrive in a system that allows them to play to their strengths and supports them in their weaknesses, a system that empowers children, where school is a joyful place that encourages children to follow their passions and get excited about their future. The Government’s interim report says that the system is broadly working well, and that exams can be an effective way to assess progress, but it is clear that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for every pathway, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an assessment system that reflects the diversity of young people’s needs, especially for those with special educational needs.
Holistic teaching and creative subjects have their rightful place in our curriculum, and pupils’ choices should not be narrowed too early to focus solely on examined subjects. Children deserve an exam system that offers choice and equips them with the skills they need, no matter which path they choose to follow. We must find a more balanced approach to assessment: a way to truly assess the gifts and talents that all young people have—because they all do. A system that makes them start to feel like a failure at 11 is just wrong. We owe it to our children to do better and, as the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) said, lift them up, not weigh them down.
I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to seriously consider broadening our curriculum, expanding the provision of extracurricular activities, and developing an ambitious assessment system that ensures young people leave school equipped with the skills, confidence and opportunity to succeed.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks. By almost any metric, the English education system is one of the best performing in the world. In the latest programme for international student assessment results, English pupils have continued to score significantly above the OECD average for mathematics, reading and science. England’s average PISA scores were significantly higher than those of SNP-run Scotland and Labour-run Wales. Assessments and exams have led to that. That is what is at stake here—that is what we are discussing, and we should be clear about that.
That success is owed to the foundations of a knowledge-rich curriculum and rigorous and thorough assessment across all stages of a student’s educational build-up. That success story means that the suggestions from Government Members of reforming the educational assessment system—or, alarmingly, scrapping it—need close scrutiny. When launching their review of the curriculum and assessment system in England last year, the Government made it clear that they were taking aim at the examination and assessment system.
Vikki Slade
I am just wondering whether the hon. Member was listening to all the speeches about the massive increase in mental health issues for young people. Does he acknowledge the link between that increase and the tightened restrictions and curriculum that he seems to be promoting?
Saqib Bhatti
I can assure the hon. Lady that I listened to every speech. As I make progress, I hope to answer her question; if I do not, I will happily take another intervention from her.
The examination and assessment system has ensured that children are learning the basic skills and knowledge needed to succeed in life, that children are improving their understanding in a knowledge-rich curriculum, and that England’s position as an educational world leader in international league tables is secured. The wealth of evidence showing the benefits of exams as a means of assessment is clear, even in the very review of the curriculum and assessment system that the Government commissioned. The interim report, published earlier this year, highlighted that national assessment and qualifications are “working well”, and that examinations such as GCSEs play an important role in driving high standards and ensuring fairness,
“reducing the risk that assessment of students’ performance is influenced by their gender, ethnicity or background.”
Even more encouragingly, polling conducted for the interim report made it clear that students themselves value the role of exams as an
“opportunity to demonstrate everything they have learned in their studies”.
That students themselves recognise the value of exams shows that they understand what this Government seemingly struggle to: that exams offer students of all backgrounds the very best chance to succeed. Our educational system is designed to be a tool of social mobility and to allow the most disadvantaged children to demonstrate their potential—something that replacing exams with coursework would fundamentally undermine. In an instant, every advantage that some children have, such as access to a laptop at home, a tutor or a subscription to an artificial intelligence service, and some children from other backgrounds do not would be baked into our assessment of educational attainment. Students would no longer be rewarded for hard graft in the classroom, which they demonstrate in answering an exam question, but rather for the perks that can access outside school and pass off as their own work.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I was a teacher of chemistry and science. Under the new curriculum that was instigated by the Conservative Government, young people had to learn 19 equations for physics, including mass, units and all of that. I can go to Google and ask for that, but as a scientist, what I need is scientific inquiry and the curiosity to ask, “Is this fact real?” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the change to a knowledge-based system has cut back on the ability for young people to learn curiosity and scientific inquiry?
Saqib Bhatti
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Students need assessment and examinations so they can measure up not just within England but against the international landscape that we operate in. By the way, I am sure that she was an excellent teacher who encouraged and nurtured the curiosity in her children, just as my chemistry teacher and my physics teacher did, but we should be clear about what is at stake here and what is at risk if there are changes to the educational system that we reformed, built and created.
Let me make some progress, and I hope that I can answer the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). The students who would lose out are the very ones the Government claim they want to protect—the very students in our education system we should all strive to empower. There is no denying that exams can be stressful, as we have all acknowledged. Students want to do well, and they are setting themselves up for future study and careers, so it is no surprise that they feel some pressure—a lot of pressure, even—during exam season.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, exams are by their very nature stressful. As a father, it is true that I want to protect my children from every stress and injury, but I also know that they need to go through that process to learn the resilience that they will need to go through life.
Josh Dean
The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about stress. I acknowledge the point about resilience, which is why we need that in the curriculum, but would he equate stress to panic attacks, suicidal thoughts and self-harm? I would say that those are two very different things, and that desperately needs to be addressed in the system.
Saqib Bhatti
I will address that question in one second. As the interim report said, students relish the chance to demonstrate their knowledge and capabilities, despite the stress of exams. I was moved by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He talks about panic attacks, and other people have talked about mental health and wellbeing, so let me be clear: if those things are observed and not accommodated by the current system, Opposition Members will happily look at suggestions and work on a cross-party basis, if we believe that that will improve the system while also protecting our children.
If the Government really want to tackle the challenges affecting student mental health on a day-to-day basis, we have been clear: this is not just about exam season, and we think that banning phones from schools would do far more to relieve many of the social pressures that face young people, and allow them to focus on their educational needs instead. I welcome support from the Government Benches for a proven mechanism that clearly leads to addressing students’ mental health. After speaking to teachers and other stakeholders we are clear about the positive impact that banning mobile phones would have on mental health—[Interruption.] I am happy to take a positive intervention on that.
It is deeply disappointing, if unfortunately not too surprising, that this seems to be the direction that the Government are taking with our education system, given the appalling record of their colleagues in the Welsh Government on education. Even the most disadvantaged children in England achieve better educational outcomes than the average student in Wales, thanks to the Welsh Government choosing ideology over evidence, and it is the students who suffer in the long term.
Steve Witherden
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if we narrow the curriculum, take out the music and drama lessons, fill the curriculum and stack it to the rafters with numeracy and literacy-heavy subjects, all the pedagogies, and teach to the test, with exams, exams, exams, that will lead to better PISA results but not necessarily to better mental health for the students in the system?
Saqib Bhatti
Let me address that point directly. First, I am not sure that narrowing the curriculum to that degree would lead to better PISA results. I think the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about that, and I was nodding my head. I agree that we should have those investments in music that the Government have not committed to—[Interruption.] Let me finish, because it is important to recognise for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—hopefully I have got his constituency right—that Wales, which is run by Labour, has much lower standards. That means less positive outcomes for children, which means less positive outcomes in the rest of their life. It is clear that those children are being let down by Welsh Labour.
We want extracurricular activities. That is why, when I visited Coppice academy in my constituency, which also has a forest school, I was heartened to see all the work that the kids are doing in those schools. Narrowing the curriculum is not what we are talking about. We are talking about something that is wholly rounded, but we must have a standardised and anonymised test system that allows a better level playing field for people from any background to be able to challenge and to thrive in life.
Let me return to the topic at hand. It is almost a month to the day that I welcomed the Minister to her seat, and we had a fantastically packed Chamber where we addressed special educational needs. I wrote to her after that debate, but I have still not had a response. Perhaps she could provide some clarity on the schools White Paper, say what will happen with the SEND reforms and also the curriculum review—I look forward to hearing from her on that, perhaps when she winds up the debate.
The world’s best-performing educational systems test to ensure that all students have a strong grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic in their early years, setting up children for future success at the earliest opportunity in their education. The widespread adoption of phonics testing in year 1 in England has seen English pupils rise up the international league tables, while the Welsh Government’s blind adherence to the widely discredited cueing method and its rejection of phonics testing has seen thousands of Welsh pupils leaving primary school effectively unable to read. Students and parents alike have plentiful cause for concern if that is the sort of education system that the Government want to create in England. I hope that the Minister can wholeheartedly reject the Welsh educational system—one in which thorough assessment of students’ progress has been replaced with a union-influenced aversion to testing in any form.
If the Government do go ahead with banning exams in favour of coursework and formal assessments, they could undermine every major achievement of our education system over the last decade and a half. Academies have changed the lives of their students through the initiative of their leadership. They are already being deprived of the freedoms that they have been used to in leading the way to school improvement and providing a knowledge-rich curriculum that has given every student the opportunity to access quality academic education. That is already being threatened with being dumbed down. If that were to happen, our education system would be left in an even sorrier state.
I hope that the Ministers listen to the views of students and parents. The Conservatives reformed education, and by the time we left, it was one of the best systems in the world. I hope we can keep it that way.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this debate. I know how much work he has done on supporting youth mental health, along with YoungMinds and its wider campaigns. I thank him for his championing of young people. I also thank everyone who took the time to write to the Government’s curriculum and assessment review. I was pleased to hear so many hon. Members talking about conversations they have been having with young people, especially families with children with special educational needs, and bringing their voices to the Chamber—particularly the moving story of Taylor and their experiences. I am glad to hear that they are now thriving.
So many of the contributions have focused on how our education system is not working for some young people. It is true that, on average, we have moved up the league tables, but we have also seen a growing gap for so many young people. It is a disgrace that only a quarter of disadvantaged young people get a grade 5 in their GCSEs. There are too many of those young people who do not get to access all the opportunities that come with it. We have heard time and again, in an absolutely packed Chamber here, how young people with special educational needs are being left behind. As a Government, we want high standards for every student, and no child to be left behind. We want that to be part of our education system.
Sam Carling
I wonder whether the Minister has the same experience as I do. When I speak to employers in North West Cambridgeshire, I hear time and again that young people do not have the skills for the workplace and that the education system has not left them with the right mindset and abilities. Is something going direly wrong with the metrics that the Conservatives have left us with when they talk about how we have had one of the best systems in the world?
Georgia Gould
One of the really damning statistics is how many young people are not in education, employment or training at the end of the education system. We cannot afford to leave any child behind. Every child needs the best start and to achieve at school. That is what this Government are focused on.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister look at how young people can develop a portfolio around their learning as you would with professional development as an adult and in employment, so that they can map that journey and use it as part of the assessment portfolio that they could gather as they move through their education?
Georgia Gould
The Government are absolutely committed to high standards in English and math and the core learning that young people have, but we also want to see young people have a broad experience at school. I have heard the passion of so many hon. Members talking about the arts. I am a former leader of Camden council, where we heavily invested in the arts to make sure that every pupil had access to learning an instrument and the power that brings. We heard about the collaboration and the joy that the arts bring, and the need to ensure that they are taught well and to a high standard. So, I am absolutely committed to that breadth of education and to making sure that that goes through the education system.
Before I talk about assessment, which is the main topic of discussion today, I want to stress that I hear the depth of concern about young people’s mental health—not just from Members here today, but from the young people that I speak to, who talk about the anxiety and stress of being a teenager and the pressures of the huge amount of information that they are getting, and say that we need to address that as a Government.
It is troubling to see any young person struggle with their wellbeing. It can impact every aspect of a young person’s life, from their relationships and confidence to their ability to learn and thrive in school, as we have heard today. Too many young people have struggled to access the support they need and therefore ended up with the kind of deep anxiety and unacceptable mental health concerns that we have heard about when they face challenges, such as when exams are coming up. We need to make sure that we have the right mental health support for young people when they face challenges.
We want to make sure that help is there early by providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and expanding mental health support teams. We estimate that 60% of pupils in schools and further education will be covered by a mental health support team by April 2026—up from 52% in April 2025. Our goal is for all pupils to have access to mental health support in school by 2029-30. To support education staff, my Department provides a range of guidance and practical resources on promoting and supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. Across the system, we are recruiting 8,500 new mental health support staff to support both children and adults. We also recognise how important it is to listen to young people to understand their experiences and make sure that the support that we offer truly meets their needs.
Turning to assessment, it is important to state that well-designed assessments play a critical role in supporting young people to develop and demonstrate their achievement at school. As the curriculum and assessment review interim report states:
“Effective assessment is a crucial component of a high performing education system.”
Members will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the conclusions and final recommendations of the review while it is still in progress. The review’s final report is due to be published in the coming weeks, at which point the Government will respond on the issues of assessment and accountability that Members have raised.
I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised this afternoon and give reassurance that many of these issues are being looked at carefully in the review. Starting with concerns about primary assessments, including SATs, these assessments help to make sure that pupils are building the core knowledge and skills they need to succeed as they transition to secondary school and throughout their lives. SATs are carefully developed to ensure that they are accessible, but I recognise that the experience can feel stressful for some young people, as we have heard today.
Schools should not be overpreparing children for these assessments and we must be mindful of the pressure that they can have on children. They should not lead to the kinds of stories that we heard today of children feeling that they had to give up different activities because of the stress and pressure they were feeling. It is incumbent on schools to ensure that young people have the skills and knowledge that they need, but also to continue to provide breadth. Members will know that the changes to Ofsted’s accountability make it clear that we want to see a wider focus on inclusion as well as a focus on attainment.
Lee Barron
My point is that it is not the schools and the way in which the schools are applying exams; the schools are doing what they can to protect the children. The problem is that the children know they are coming. The children feel the pressure point of the exams coming up. That is why they start to feel how they feel. The reason I can say that is that my daughter is 10, and she is the one who turned down going to the football because she has to revise for her SATs. Parents are trying to manage that situation. But that is the reality. They know it is coming. They feel the pressure point. It is not the school.
Georgia Gould
Sorry, I was not trying to suggest that it was, but it is important that, collectively, we create an environment where children know that this assessment is not a pressure on them as an individual, but part of a wider accountability, and that young people should continue to do all the things that bring them joy. That is part of the ongoing conversation we need to have. As I said, we know that there are areas where improvements can be made. We have heard that today. The Department will consider the review’s final recommendations alongside the voices of those calling for change.
As young people move through their secondary education, the stakes understandably become higher. That is why some people argue that if we removed exams, we would take away a lot of the pressure that young people face.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities
(1 day, 11 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
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will call Esther McVey to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of issuing guidance on tree maintenance to local authorities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Trees—beautiful, majestic and an enhancement to an area—are one of the most visible aspects of our scenery in the UK, yet their sheer size makes their maintenance essential for public safety. Sadly, on public land, the reality is that this work is seldom done and, as we are about to hear today, can lead to devastating consequences.
Last year, I met with my constituents Fiona and Sam Hall, whose lives were changed forever in August 2020, when Fiona’s husband and Sam’s father Chris Hall was killed by a decayed tree that was known to be dangerous. Chris had left the house for a routine lunchtime dog walk on what was a warm and calm summer’s day. He took that walk in The Carrs in Wilmslow, a local park popular with residents. While on his walk, the limb of a decayed 130-year-old tree of 22 tonnes fell and hit Chris, killing him instantly. Chris was, by all accounts, a life force for good—someone who
“loved life and life loved him.”
His wife Fiona described their passion for simple things—spending their time cooking together and walking their dog. Chris’s son Sam shared how much he missed everything about his father—his laughter, his wisdom and the adventures they shared together. The loss of a loved one is a tragedy by any measure, but Chris’s death was senseless and preventable.
Cheshire East council, responsible for the tree, knew it was unsafe. A year earlier, another limb had fallen off the same tree. Ansa Environmental Services, the council’s contractor responsible for tree maintenance, found the tree had significant structural defects and recommended it be crowned, but nothing was done. The tree was not crowned, and no action was taken to mitigate its risk or warn the public of the dangers that that tree presented.
When the case went to court, it was clear that the responsibility for the incident lay with Cheshire East, and after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, the council pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £500,000 in November 2024. The investigation found that since its creation in 2009, Cheshire East council had no formal tree maintenance strategy. The council agreed, following the court case, to develop a tree strategy and partnership with an arborist chosen by the Hall family. The council implemented its tree management strategy in 2021.
However, despite this tragedy, and others we have heard about through the news and in the newspapers of late, there still appears to be a legislative gap, and tree maintenance across the country continues to be ad hoc. Although councillors are required to ensure public safety, there is no statutory duty on them to carry out regular inspections of trees on public land. Regulatory maintenance work is voluntary, and the extent to which councils inspect trees is left to their own discretion. When budgets are tight, maintenance is often the first thing to fall by the wayside. However, maintenance by councils must be a priority—and, in this case, tree maintenance.
To address this, Fiona is now campaigning for Chris’s law, which would require councils to maintain a register of high-risk trees identified by location, species and age, legislating for those trees to be inspected on a regular basis. This is not all trees, but a targeted approach that is manageable for councils and presents a cost-effective solution.
As beautiful as trees are, like us, they have a lifespan and a life expectancy. As they get old, they become sick and weak, can decay and get disease. It is a predictable life cycle. Some examples of common trees in the UK include birches, which tend to live for 50 to 70 years; beeches, 150 to 200 years; and oaks and sycamores, which can last for 200 to 300 years. But they all have a life expectancy. Therefore, it is safe to say that after a certain age, trees need to be inspected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady. One thing that has always come to my attention—I am dealing with such a case in my office at the moment—is about finding out who actually owns a tree and who is responsible for it. We have found great difficulty, through the local council, in finding out who that would be. As we have had more storms than ever —and probably more to come this winter, unfortunately—that means a responsibility on those who own adjoining land, from which a tree may fall into another’s property.
Does the hon. Lady agree that we perhaps need a system whereby, if there is uncertainty about who owns a tree, someone can step in? That perhaps underlines what the right hon. Lady is saying. It is slightly different from the purpose of this debate, but it does highlight an issue that is probably applicable to me—and, I suspect, to everyone else as well.
Esther McVey
I think ownership of trees and people taking responsibility for their trees is essential. In this instance, it was the local council—they were on public land—but the hon. Member is quite right that they could also be on private land.
We know, too, that there have been large drives to plant trees, particularly after the two world wars, so we can age them. The Carrs in Wilmslow was bought by the council and established as a park in 1935 and, logically, there will be a record of when those trees were planted in the park. Those are quantifiable numbers that allow a methodological approach to inspections. Without providing such structure to a maintenance strategy, cases of concern can slip through the net.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I send my condolences to Chris and his family. Over the past five years, Bromley council has planted around 5,000 street trees and another 800 in parks, all working with residents and schoolchildren. Does my right hon. Friend agree that other local authorities could look to Bromley council for best practice in maintenance?
Esther McVey
I will indeed. The Minister too, might like to look at where best practice is happening across the country, because that is what we are looking to achieve.
Since working with Fiona, I have heard at first hand from individuals who have tried to report trees in imminent danger of falling, only to have their urgent complaints lost among other correspondence. Inevitably, such trees end up falling, and people have been injured in those circumstances. The excuse that there was too much correspondence and that the council could not deal with the reports does not really wash.
This is not unique to Cheshire East council. The court heard that five or six people die every year from falling branches or trees. This year alone, we have seen similar deaths caused by falling trees in Southend-on-Sea in June, West Didsbury in August and Blackpool only last month. Last Saturday my husband went to pick up a friend from Wilmslow train station. He drove through Ashley on the way there. On the way back he could not come along the same road because during that journey a tree had collapsed right across the road and he had to take a detour. Trees collapsing is not an infrequent occurrence.
Each case that I have mentioned might have been avoided if the tree had been maintained adequately. In 2025 there is no excuse. We have a wealth of technology at our disposal: drones, microprobes or other advanced tools that make maintenance inspections more effective and efficient. We hear often about budgetary constraints preventing councils carrying out their maintenance duty, but preventive work is cost-effective. Legal fines, like Cheshire East’s £500,000, are far more costly than routine inspections.
Cheshire and Warrington have voted to set up a new mayoral structure costing millions of pounds to establish and millions of pounds to run annually. It seems the Government and councils can find money for pet projects and devolved Mayors across the country and yet routine work, the most basic of maintenance, is forgone at the first sign of financial strain when it should always be a council’s priority.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for securing this important debate. In addition to proper maintenance, which is essential—it is heartbreaking to hear the stories that she has outlined today—the current protection under tree preservation orders is inadequate and covers only a small section of ancient and veteran trees. She talked about the age of trees—300-year-old veteran oaks, for example, and ancient trees even older than that, so they have the ability to live a long time. Somerset has about 3,000 trees on the ancient tree inventory. Nearly 500 of those are threatened by cultivation, development and overshading. Does the right hon. Member agree that, in addition to maintenance, stronger protections for ancient and veteran trees are also required?
Esther McVey
As I started the debate today I said how magnificent and majestic trees can add to an area. I agree with the hon. Member. We have to look after something that so enhances the beauty of our country.
I spend an increasing amount of my time battling with my local council about the most basic of maintenance work that needs to be done now. Drains being unblocked, roads being repaired and rivers dredged all feed into, when maintenance is not done properly, a bigger and more costly problem. I am sure many Members will share that experience. Maintenance must be a council’s priority, especially when it comes to the danger of trees. Too often local councillors treat maintenance work as a box-ticking exercise—a quick fix to get someone off their case while the future consequences of a bodged repair job or no repair job are not considered. Maintenance work is essential. It is not a “nice to have” or a nice little addition. It is essential. As we have seen, if it is not done, it has tragic consequences.
In the four weeks since Fiona launched the campaign for Chris’s law, 35,000 signatures have been gathered and the campaign has caught the attention of the media, too, from BBC Breakfast to BBC Radio 5 Live, and regional channels such as BBC North West and ITV Granada Reports. There is a mindshare among the public and the media that incidents of collapsing trees should not be occurring. Trees are a vital part of our daily lives, bringing many benefits to the environment and our wellbeing. Governments have spent millions of pounds planting trees, with the current Government pledging £800 million for this. But such an increase must be underpinned by a commitment to maintain the trees properly.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
With so many new-build estates that are home to young trees, where watering and aftercare are so essential, does the right hon. Member agree that any new guidance should have a large section with a focus on early years for trees as well?
Esther McVey
I will be asking the Minister for a meeting. This is specifically about older, ancient, decaying and dangerous trees, but I am quite sure the Minister will be considering all kinds of tree preservation, including during the early years.
When people walk through The Carrs now, they can find a memorial for Chris: a hand-carved wooden sculpture erected by his family in his memory. Visitors can scan a QR code to learn about Chris and the need for improved tree maintenance. It is a reminder of the tragedy that occurred and a testament to Fiona’s and Sam’s determination to use their profound grief to fight for change. We owe it to them to work collaboratively for this cause and push for clear standards for local authorities that cannot be skirted or sidelined. The issue extends far beyond Chris. We know that trees have a lifespan, and when and where they have been planted. Without maintenance work on these trees, there will be other tragic cases like Chris’s.
In closing, I thank the Minister for her time and ask whether she will meet Fiona and me to discuss Chris’s law, the best way forward and steps to resolve this issue, and work with us on a meaningful legislative change to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I commend the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this debate, and thank other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.
Let me begin by saying how incredibly sorry and sad I am to hear about Mr Hall’s death. I offer my profound sympathies to his family—to Fiona, his wife, and to Sam, his son—on their tragic loss, as well as to other families who have lost loved ones in similar circumstances. I also pay tribute to their courage and commitment in their selfless campaigning to reduce the risk of other families suffering such a grievous tragedy. We are all here today to think about how we can prevent that from happening to anybody else. Nothing we can say today can make up for their loss, but it is right that we are having this debate.
Health and safety matters to everyone in this country, and this Government are dedicated to protecting people. The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety; it works to ensure that people feel safe where they live, where they work and in their environment. It prosecuted Cheshire East council over Mr Hall’s tragic death, which led to the £500,000 fine.
When those responsible for controlling risks to public safety fail to do so, they will be held to account. As in this case, the Health and Safety Executive will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action where necessary, but I do not want us to be in that position. Local authorities, just like any landowner, must ensure that the land they own or occupy is not in a condition that could cause injury or damage to people who might reasonably be expected to enter it. They must not allow activities or conditions on their land that could foreseeably cause harm. If someone is injured due to negligence, the authority may be liable, as was the case with Mr Hall’s death.
There is current guidance available from the National Tree Safety Group, the membership of which is made up of organisations with an interest in tree risk management, including the Forestry Commission. Its publication, “Common sense risk management of trees”, was updated last year, and provides guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. It recommends that tree owners follow a plan for zoning their tree stock, based on frequency of access, and implementing tree management according to risk. Where trees pose a higher level of risk—for example, a tree with faults that likely make it unstable, such as the oak described by the right hon. Lady, that is in an area frequently visited by the public, such as a park—they will require a higher level of assessment and monitoring.
I have visited parks where veteran trees have been cordoned off. Cordoning off very large trees with known defects from public access during periods of very hot weather, when branches may be more likely to fall, and similarly advising the public not to sit under or next to such trees when wind speeds are higher than normal, is a sensible, common-sense response to changing conditions.
Trees are important to our society and to us intrinsically —we come from the forests—and they are particularly important in this changing climate. However, that does not absolve tree owners from their legal duty of care and the need to prevent reasonably foreseeable risks of injury to people or property. For the breach of its responsibilities leading to Mr Hall’s death, the council was handed a significant fine.
I agree with the right hon. Lady that maintenance and prevention are cost effective. This Government have given more money to councils. There has been a long period of reduction in council budgets, but we have made more than £69 billion available to local government, and Cheshire East, the council in question, has had a 6.6% cash terms increase in its core spending power on the previous year. The majority of the funding is un-ringfenced—we removed central Government controls on that—and can be used to address a range of pressures facing local government. I hope that some of it will have been spent on long-overdue tree maintenance work.
As mentioned, National Tree Safety Group guidance provides a nationally recognised, evidence-based framework for managing tree safety, balancing public safety with the environmental and social benefits of trees. It is grounded in legal precedent and supported by the Health and Safety Executive. Local tree strategies, such as the one in Bromley, play an important role. I encourage councils to use the existing Government-endorsed trees and woodlands strategy toolkit, which has been developed to support local authorities and stakeholders to create and deliver a local tree strategy. These strategies can help to safeguard people from harm. However, it is also important to remember that trees are living organisms and that things can change depending on the weather. They undergo natural processes of growth and development, and eventually fall.
As the right hon. Lady says, we are spending a record £816 million on tree planting. Many of those trees will be in forests, so that involves a different set of risks and limited public access. However, we need to think about street or park trees. I live in Islington, which was planting street trees back in the ’90s. I can think of two street trees, one in my street and one in the neighbouring street, that have fallen over in the past three years. Thankfully, they landed on walls and not on cars or people, but of course from one day to the next, they simply go—often in very hot weather.
As we increase canopy cover, we need to understand what we are doing. We are giving grants to local authorities, but what is the accountability mechanism? As with flood defence assets, it is no good building the asset if we are not going to look after it. Flood defence assets were not in good shape when we came in, so we have spent a lot of extra money—tens of millions—to make sure that fail-safe mechanisms are put in place and that assets are kept up to date.
Sarah Dyke
On tree canopy cover, I was lead member for environment and climate change at Somerset council when it was developing the tree strategy. The county is 8% tree canopy—way below the national average, which is about 13%. Obviously, increased canopy cover helps to reduce storm water run-off, prevent flooding, and improve biodiversity and habitats for local wildlife. Will the Minister commit to setting targets for neighbourhood tree cover to help to ensure equal resilience to flooding and stronger biodiversity in areas with below-average tree canopy cover?
Mary Creagh
Of course, the hon. Member’s area is benefiting, under this Government, from the first national forest to be planted for 30 years. The Western forest will stretch from the Mendip hills up to Bristol, Gloucester—for the flood prevention—and the Forest of Dean, so there will be a huge increase. [Interruption.] She has quite a bit in her area, I hear her say—good. The canopy cover will increase there, with 20 million trees planted over the next 25 years. Some of that will be agroforestry and some restoration of ancient woodland.
Esther McVey
I know that the Minister cares passionately and knows a lot about this issue. Would she meet me and my constituent so that we can discuss Chris’s law?
Mary Creagh
The right hon. Lady is correct to bring me back to my conclusion. We have got five minutes, so I had a little tour via the Western Forest. On the point about 13% coverage, we are trying to get to 16% over the country by 2050. That has been a cross-party agreement under the Climate Change Act 2008 on the number of trees we need to plant to tackle climate change. It is important to look at tree access and tree equity as part of that. That is certainly in my processes as I think about where the next two national forests are going to be.
Let me bring this debate to an end. I thank the right hon. Lady for the debate and for bringing this tragic incident to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage local authorities to follow our guidance on tree risk management, issued by the National Tree Safety Group, and to develop tree and woodland strategies, taking advantage of the toolkit that has been developed specifically for them. We know that better management of trees can deliver improved outcomes, particularly for public health and safety.
I welcome the attention that Fiona and Sam Hall’s tireless campaigning has brought to this issue. I again express my heartfelt sympathies on their devastating loss. I am, of course, happy to meet the right hon. Member for Tatton and her constituent to discuss those issues further. I would be happy to meet Mrs Hall and Sam Hall. I invite the right hon. Lady to contact my private office to get a meeting in the diary.
Question put and agreed to.
Healthcare: Bolton
(1 day, 11 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
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered healthcare in Bolton.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare an interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee. Improving the quality of healthcare is a cause close to my heart, and I am pleased to be joined by my fellow Boltonian, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). I would also like to highlight the work of my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who is unfortunately unable to join us today, but who I know has been strongly campaigning for a new neighbourhood health centre in Westhoughton, and I pay tribute to that work.
For too long, healthcare in Bolton has been treated as a technocratic policy area rather than a vital lifeline. My constituents are not concerned with acronyms or distant targets; they want answers to real, human questions: “Can I get a GP appointment when my child is ill?”, “Will my mum be seen in A&E within hours, not half a day?” and “Will my toothache be treated before it turns into an infection?” This is about fairness; it is about whether towns like mine get our fair share. My message is simple, and I will repeat it: Bolton must not be left behind—not in GP access, not in A&E rates and not in dentistry.
Everything I say today is drawn from the lived experiences of people in Bolton. Earlier this year, I held a local consultation on the NHS 10-year plan. The response was overwhelming. Boltonians care deeply about our NHS and, as a result, they brought ideas, energy and hope, as well as far too many stories of delays, confusion and dignity under pressure. I promised I would bring their voices here today and speak plainly about the state of healthcare in our town.
Let us be honest: by the time Labour came in last year, Bolton’s NHS was stretched to breaking point, with patients waiting, staff exhausted and services fraying. At Royal Bolton hospital, our A&E was among the worst performing in England-, at one point in the bottom 5%. Local residents were waiting 12 or 13 hours to be seen, with elderly patients on trolleys overnight and small children with high fevers stuck in crowded corridors. That was unbearable, and evidence of more than a decade of neglect. By the time of last year’s election, waiting lists were in crisis, with more than 600 people in Bolton waiting over 65 weeks for treatment—well over a year. Behind every wait was a life on pause: a knee that would not bend, a lump not yet diagnosed, a life put at risk.
That crisis did not happen overnight; it came from choices—14 years of underfunding, frozen capital budgets and ignored warnings about staff shortages. Public health budgets were cut by more than a quarter. That neglect hit towns like Bolton hardest, because when you start with older buildings, higher rates of illness and fewer GPs, cuts hit twice as hard.
Yet, despite it all, one constant kept us standing: our NHS staff. More than 6,000 people in and around Bolton hospital keep this town going. Nurses, doctors, porters, cleaners, therapists and paramedics turn up throughout winter crises and put up with buildings that are literally crumbling. I want to put on record my thanks to the many fantastic people I have met and particularly to Fiona Noden at Bolton hospital, Amy Rothwell at Bolton Maternity and Neonatal Voices Partnership, Leigh Vallance at Bolton Hospice, Carol Fielding and Steve Milward at Bolton Pulmonary Fibrosis Support Group and all the teams who care so deeply for their patients. They deserve more than our gratitude; they deserve a system that backs them.
Thankfully, because our staff and communities refused to give up, and because we now have a Labour Government repairing those years of neglect, there has been a real shift. Over the past year, Bolton hospital has become one of the most improved trusts in England for urgent care, the second most improved on the 12-hour A&E measure, and among the top 10 for the four-hour standard. Gone are the days of the regular 65-week waits. Cancer services are improving too. Bolton NHS foundation trust is leading the country on the 28-day diagnosis standard—a real credit to our cancer teams.
Of course, those gains were not luck; they came from investment, co-ordination and teamwork, and from Government backing alongside A&E staff, social care and our Greater Manchester partners. We have improved because we funded triage clinicians—expanding urgent care so that paramedics are not stuck in corridors—unblocked beds through better discharge planning and used modern data to keep patient flow moving. Improvements such as those show what happens when we have a Government who provide the support and resources we need. When Bolton is backed, Bolton delivers.
Of course, we cannot pretend that everything has been fixed within a year. Bolton hospital’s chief executive told me last week that winter illnesses have already begun, and my constituents are still living with the consequences of underinvestment. If we do not keep investing in beds, staff and modern systems, we will slide back. Even in recent weeks, I have heard from constituents about long waiting lists and poor communication. One constituent wrote to me after waiting nearly 10 months for an operation. Week after week brought new calls, promises and deferrals, with no clear explanation and no timeline held. Another constituent, who had received podiatry care for 20 years, found her care plan cancelled without notice after what was later described as “computer error”, leaving her housebound and in pain. That is not good enough. People deserve timely care and straight answers.
People also tell me about poor co-ordination across hospital, community and social care, delayed wheelchairs, patchy discharge planning and post-hospital support that does not arrive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for securing the debate. Whether it be Bolton or Ballywalter, healthcare problems are the same for every one of us. The result of these issues is a lack of confidence in the system, which is harmful in itself. If someone says there is no point phoning the GP, because they cannot get an appointment, they cannot get early detection and intervention, and they will lose out. Does the hon. Lady agree that accessibility is the key to confidence and that that is where we need to start?
Kirith Entwistle
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to GP surgeries in more detail.
None of this is from a lack of effort. Our GPs and practice teams are working flat out. What is needed is joined-up care with real accountability. When a discharge is planned, the equipment and care package must already be in place. Families should not have to chase switchboards for what was promised on paper. Neighbourhood teams bringing physiotherapists, pharmacists and mental health practitioners into GP surgeries are part of the answer, and I want to see them fully rolled out in Bolton. It is common sense: if we help people sooner, we prevent hospital crises later.
Before I move on, I want to speak about the experience of Leah, a Bolton mum who took her 10-year-old son to the GP twice last summer. Her son was suffering from severe headaches, and Leah rightly asked their GP for blood tests. No tests were done. On the first visit, she was told it was most likely a virus. On the second, she asked again for bloods, but was told the GP needed to refer her son to paediatrics. Then, having taken him to A&E, she was told a referral had been received but that there would be a 28-week wait. Leah tried again and again. Later, while on holiday in Cyprus, Leah’s son collapsed. Doctors there diagnosed acute leukaemia, a life-threatening condition. This 10-year-old had to be treated in a foreign country he did not know, away from home and support, and the family were told he could return only by air ambulance, at a cost of more than £50,000.
Leah asked me a question no parent should have to ask: “If basic bloods had been done when I asked, would my son have been spared this ordeal?” I hope the Minister will agree that what Leah and her son have endured is utterly unacceptable, and I look forward to hearing what will be done to ensure that what happened to Leah’s son never happens again. As a mother to a three-year-old boy, I cannot accept a system that makes it easier for GPs to tell a worried mother to wait than to get a same-day full blood count when there are obvious red flags. Parents need to be heard and believed. Leah and her son are far from alone in their experience, which is exactly why we must recognise the critical role and responsibilities of GP surgeries when it comes to preventive care.
After speaking with the Bolton Pulmonary Fibrosis Support Group, I fully back its call for more robust regular medication reviews in GP surgeries as well, and I will keep pressing for GP surgeries in Bolton to meet their responsibility to our communities. We must get this right, because families must be able to rely on their GPs.
Nowhere is the need for better healthcare in Bolton more visible or urgent than in maternity care and women’s health. In 2023, the crumbling reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete we have all read about was found in the roof of the maternity unit at Bolton hospital. Services had to be decanted, temporary structures went up and mothers and midwives made do. Although I am pleased that significant progress has recently been made in removing RACC, I will continue to push until the work is completed quickly and safely. Mothers and babies deserve a modern, safe environment, and I am determined to ensure that Bolton’s midwives have facilities that match their professionalism. The £4.7 million allocated to Bolton hospital by the Government this year for these repairs is welcome, but it is also a sticking-plaster. We simply cannot deliver 21st-century care in 20th-century buildings.
The experiences of mothers in Bolton underline why this matters. Healthwatch Bolton has reported accounts from women who were left alone for hours during labour, while another mother described giving birth in a hospital corridor. Beyond maternity, the gynaecology backlog has been in crisis for decades. Across the UK, more than half a million women are on gynaecology waiting lists, and in Greater Manchester alone around 40,000 women are stuck on a list for over 18 weeks. The average time for an endometriosis diagnosis is nearly nine years, with waits worse in the north than in the south.
That is why I strongly support the women’s health strategy, and the roll-out of women’s health hubs. The North Liverpool hub shows what works—menopause, cervical screening and gynaecology triage brought under one local roof, cutting waits, improving access and working for and around women, not the other way around. Bolton should benefit in the same way. I will continue to fight for a fully established and equipped women’s health hub in Bolton, with funding for specialist nurses, imaging and theatre time to match demand. I look forward to the Minister setting out what steps the Government are taking to improve maternity services and women’s health in my town.
If we want to see the future of a community, we should look at its children’s health. In Bolton the picture is stark. One in five children starts school overweight or obese, and by year 6 that is 38%, which is well above the England average. Worse still, our infant mortality and child death rates are higher than the national rate, and the wealth gap in healthy life expectancy means that someone born in Breightmet is likely to spend about a decade less of their life in good health than someone born in Bromley Cross. That is an utterly unacceptable level of inequality. Close to 30% of Bolton’s children live in poverty. Poverty drives stress, poor nutrition and overcrowding, and those drive ill health.
Bolton also has the highest rate of deaths of despair among young people—particularly young men—in Greater Manchester. We must change that reality. Last week, to mark World Mental Health Day, I had the privilege of training as Bolton’s 100th manbassador. Bolton Manbassadors creates safe spaces for men to talk, connect and seek support, and I am proud that its impact was recognised at this year’s Bolton News business awards, where it won a Heart of the Community award. I commend it and everyone in our community for coming together to support Bolton’s men and boys.
For years, dentistry in Bolton has been a crisis hidden in plain sight. Before the election, fewer than half of adults had seen an NHS dentist in two years. Families tried dozens of practices, only to be turned away, and although waiting lists have fallen under the Labour Government, there is still much more to do. One constituent, a full-time NHS worker, wrote to me in April after suffering 18 months of recurring infections and abscesses, all because she could not register with a dentist after moving to Bolton. She pays taxes and national insurance, but cannot get a basic extraction under the NHS. It is indefensible.
In Bolton our dentistry problem is structural. We are reliant on the Greater Manchester dental budget, but that fund covers only around 60% of our population’s needs. Dentistry is basic healthcare, not a luxury, and Bolton families should not go without because a funding formula short-changes our town.
That structural unfairness is not limited to dentistry. It is pervasive across how our healthcare resources are budgeted. The market forces factor, a key determinant for local healthcare funding, uplifts budgets for high-cost areas such as London, but does little to recognise the higher burden of illnesses in towns such as mine. Public health grants are skewed south. London boroughs receive roughly £105 per head, but the north-west receives only £85. That is the wrong way round when the need is greater there. Bolton families should not be penalised for living outside the M25.
Within that national picture, Greater Manchester devolution has brought real benefits to Bolton, such as shared elective hub capacity to cut backlogs, region-wide diagnostics collaboration and practical schemes such as the Greater Manchester dental access programme. When our region works together, it saves lives. But we must also be honest: Bolton can disappear into Greater Manchester averages that mask local pressures, and deficit controls and top-slicing can threaten to stall Bolton-specific plans. Yesterday’s meeting of the Bolton locality board warned that the biggest risk facing the system is the financial challenge facing health, and that a region-wide deficit could derail development plans, with an £800,000 shortfall for Bolton itself. My ask is simple: give Bolton its fair share, and do not leave us behind.
When I talk to people in Bolton, they do not ask for miracles; they ask for fairness. They want to know that if their child is sick, someone will answer the phone and give them an appointment, that if their mum needs a scan, it will not take months and that if they work hard and pay their taxes, their town will not be forgotten. For too long, those basic expectations were treated as too much—but not any more. We are now seeing meaningful progress in urgent care, waiting lists and a renewed focus on women’s and children’s health—but progress must be made within Bolton and not around it.
We are a proud town with brilliant NHS staff and a community who show up for each other. Bolton must never be left behind again—not in women’s health, diagnosis or the budget lines that can decide our fate. With the determination of our community, and a Labour Government that back us, we will not be left behind. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for securing this important debate. As she said, our other hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has a prior commitment, so he is not able to attend this debate. I mention that because the three of us work well together in campaigning on many issues of concern to our constituents. One of the things we do is have a regular meeting with the chief executive of our hospital, as we did only last week, to raise those issues.
Healthcare in Bolton is really important for us and one of the most serious concerns raised by our constituents. When people in Bolton talk about the NHS, they are full of respect for the doctors, nurses and frontline staff. Their frustration is directed not at individuals, but at a system that leaves them waiting for months without answers or support. One constituent with a serious heart condition told me that she had waited more than a year to see her cardiologist at the Royal Bolton hospital. At one point she was informed that the waiting list had actually been closed. She paid to be seen privately, but then her appointment finally arrived, one year after she had last inquired about it. She said:
“I do not expect luxury. I just do not want to be forgotten.”
Ahead of this debate, I invited constituents to share their own experiences of healthcare in Bolton. What I received were not statistics, but stories of worry, delay and a sense of being left behind. Parents spoke about their children waiting for assessment. Women described living in pain while waiting for treatment. Older residents asked whether their names still even existed on any list at all. People said that it was almost impossible to get a GP appointment unless they were online at 8 am. Others described the long phone queue, with no certainty of being able to secure an appointment, and being told that they would need to call back the following day or try again. Many spoke about digital systems that shut people out, especially those who are elderly, disabled or unwell.
I received accounts of hospital letters arriving late, or of appointments missed because no update had been received. Parents of children with mental health needs said that they were given information sheets instead of meaningful support. I hear their concerns, and they must be addressed. I recognise that secondary care is outside of the Minister’s direct brief, but obviously we cannot separate primary and secondary care when patients are stuck between them.
When referrals disappear and no update follows, it is the GPs who are left to manage their patients’ anxiety, without any information to reassure or support them. Communication must be treated as part of care, not an afterthought. In general practice there are concerns about not only access, but continuity. Constituents tell me that they never see the same doctor twice; they repeat their story at every appointment with no sense of follow-up or a clear plan. When ongoing conditions rely on repeated re-telling rather than joined-up care, confidence in the system is lost. Primary care needs support to provide consistency, not just capacity.
Mental health is another deeply worrying area. In Greater Manchester, the number of adults waiting for ADHD assessments has risen sharply; some of my constituents have been waiting eight months or more without being allocated a clinician. Parents spoke to me about their experience with child and adolescent mental health services, where children in real distress are waiting months and months for assessment and intervention. Without early support, families are being left alone to cope.
Another area is women’s health, where the disparities are clear. Girls born in the north-west can expect fewer healthy years than those born in other regions. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, which serves parts of Bolton, has the highest gynaecology waiting list in England. Women describe missing work, living in pain and caring for families while waiting for basic investigations. I therefore welcome the Government’s women’s health strategy and the development of women’s health hubs. Liverpool has hubs that bring together contraception, screening and menopause care in one place, and Bolton should receive the same opportunity to deliver accessible women’s care in community settings.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health, I know that NHS dentistry faces an existential threat. Almost 14 million people were unable to access dental care in the early part of 2025. From 2010 to 2024, expenditure on dentistry went down from 3% of the NHS budget to 1.5%. Although we welcome the 700,000 new appointments, we actually need 2.2 million of them, as the Government have accepted. Morale among NHS dentistry practitioners is at an all-time low, and many are leaving. The Health and Social Care Committee said in 2023 that the current dental contract is “not fit for purpose”. It needs reform.
Another issue is that, while there are qualified dentists, the process by which they have to register to practise seems to be taking a very long time. It is an administrative process, not a process for assessing professional, clinical requirements. That needs to be addressed. Many residents tell me that they cannot get dental appointments and are living in pain, with untreated problems. I have personally had to ring dentists to get appointments for a number of constituents. I know that the Government have a 10-year plan for the NHS, but dentistry cannot wait 10 years for the situation to be resolved.
Finally, we cannot discuss healthcare in Bolton without confronting inequality. One in four children in the north-west grow up in poverty. Delayed treatment, poor health and limited support are not separate issues; they are experienced by the same families. The 10-year health plan must deliver not only nationally, but locally, in towns such as Bolton where the need is greatest.
My constituents are not asking for perfection; they are asking not to be forgotten. They want to know that if they seek help, the system will acknowledge them, guide them and not let them fall between services. If we are to restore confidence, we must ensure that patients are not lost between primary and secondary care, and that dignity and fairness remain at the heart of healthcare delivery. With focus, co-ordination and commitment, we can deliver the timely, compassionate care that the people of Bolton deserve.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate her and the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on being such powerful advocates for health in their region. I was interested that both Members focused on poverty levels and inequality in health outcomes—a hugely important subject. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and I both served on the Mental Health Bill Committee, where we discussed repeatedly the fact that people who live in poverty are three times more likely to have mental health issues than those on an average income.
I also served on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, and I remember Professor Chris Whitty saying that it was not only the biggest piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but one of the biggest interventions to address inequality, because one of the significant factors in differences in life expectancy between more deprived communities and wealthier communities was smoking levels. Despite our economic troubles at the moment, we are still one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, and we can still be one of the healthiest nations on Earth if those resources are deployed in the right way. Everyone should have the right to see a doctor or dentist and to get mental health care as and when they need it.
We have touched on public health. At the moment, two thirds of adults are overweight and 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes and diabetes-related illnesses. That is one reason that the Liberal Democrats are so keen on closing the loopholes in the sugar levy and extending it to sugary milk and juice-based drinks, on restricting the marketing of products high in fat, salt and sugar, on reversing cuts to the public health grant and on legislating for a right to clean air.
It is also why, like the Government, we are so keen on good-quality school meals. The hon. Member for Bolton North East talked about the levels of childhood obesity in primary school and their impact on not only the individual’s health, but the NHS in terms of cost. Having good-quality nutrition in all public organisations, whether schools, prisons or care homes, is an impactful way of not only helping people to have a healthier life, but reducing the burden on NHS services.
I will finish by saying that health is the No. 1 issue that comes up on the doorstep. There is a lot of concern and worry that people may not get healthcare when they need it. Whether in Bolton or Winchester, people need to know that they will be able to access healthcare, free at the point of use, as and when they need it. I commend the hon. Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden on securing this debate and speaking so powerfully on behalf of their constituents.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). She covered a huge amount within her allotted time. The only sadness is that we have only an hour, and I have only a couple of minutes to try to address many of her points.
The biggest message that we take home today is that Bolton must not be left behind. The hon. Member has been exemplary in stepping forward and making that case. I would slightly and gently push back and say that I do not think that Bolton was left behind by the previous Government. The trajectory she is working towards is already there, if we look at examples of the investment that was made by the previous Government, most notably the £20 million, which made up part of the £40 million in levelling-up funding, for the medical college at the Royal Bolton Hospital, and listen to Professor Holmes, who said:
“It is incredibly rewarding for us at the University to witness our flagship facility reach this important milestone of practical completion.
It is a privilege to be home to one of the nation’s leading clinical skills facilities here in Greater Manchester and this is a key step in our aim to become a national centre of excellence for health.”
On top of that, there was a £20 million investment in the elective care centre, which has opened with four theatres dealing with about 5,000 patients. The hon. Member for Bolton North East was right to pick up on the maternity and women’s health unit, which is really important. In 2023, we saw a £38 million investment to help the unit, and it will hopefully be done by 2027. I have no doubt that she will be there to wag the stick to make sure that it is. I hope that she and the Government will be successful in that.
I want to tease out a couple of questions for the Government. The hon. Member stressed maternity, which is really important. At the general election, the Labour party made firm commitments on maternity services, so I ask the Minister: when will the national maternity safety ambitions be published, and will targets be set around the maternity mortality gap? What will be done to address it?
The hon. Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) both rightly raised the integration of system and service, which is also a concern on the Opposition side. We have seen top-down reorganisation, especially around integrated care boards, and I am sure the Greater Manchester integrated care partnership will have been asked to make reductions in its headcount.
The problem is that the Government have not set out how they will pay for those redundancies, or what that shape will look like, so they are trying to make transformative change and looking internally. There is real concern about that among the Opposition, so I hope the Minister will be able to set out how much that will cost and whether the redundancy package will be coming forward, because we hear it could be up to £1 billion. As the chief executive of NHS England has said, if we do not hear something in the next few weeks, the NHS will have to turn to plan B—if there is a plan B. I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out.
Finally, on GPs, we also know that the Government have stated in the 10-year plan that GP leaders will be pivotal in shaping and delivering these new services and will be supported to do so with two new contracts from 2026. Of course, we have learned in the past couple of weeks that GPs have entered a formal dispute with the Government because of the contractual changes, so I would be grateful to understand what the Minister is doing—although it is not in her brief—and what her team are doing to try to pull it back from the brink and hopefully resolve some of the contractual issues, particularly when it comes to access.
To close on a personal note, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East on her work as a manbassador. As someone who, since stepping into this House, has campaigned on mental and physical health for men and boys, I know it often gets left behind. I made that point on the Floor of the House only a couple of weeks ago, so it is fantastic that she is championing men and boys. We need advocates for both sexes, both ways round, when it comes to men’s and women’s health. It is not a competition; it is not one or the other—it is “and”, and she typifies that. No man or boy should be left behind, but nor should Bolton.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Lewell.
It was a valiant effort from the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) to raise things such as top-down reorganisation and the state in which the Conservatives left the health service after their 14 years in government. It is as a result of that record that I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) here, alongside such strong representation from Labour, following the electorate’s verdict on the last 14 years only 14 months ago. She has been an excellent campaigner since joining Parliament, and securing this important debate is part of that. I am grateful to other hon. Members for taking part.
As a result of the action taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East in securing this debate, I met the chief executive, Fiona Noden, and the local ICB to understand, in a more granular fashion, some of the issues I expected my hon. Friend to raise. She was right to thank the staff—both at a leadership level and across the board in Bolton—for their great work. I commend that leadership for meeting regularly, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for meeting regularly with those leaders. That happens in my own patch, but it does not happen everywhere. As I often say, it is a really valuable local relationship, because it makes hon. Members more informed and NHS managers better leaders as well.
As we have heard so eloquently, the NHS faces pressures all over the country, including in Bolton and north-west England. Our 10-year health plan is designed to fix that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East for holding one of those important consultation events. They were very powerful. As a result of the work that she and others have done to bring the patient voice directly to Government and make it a fundamental part of the plan, I think our plan has widespread support. I hope her constituents can hear their voices reflected in the plan that we have developed: it is about access to healthcare for everyone, no matter where they live or how much they earn. We must make sure that our health service is based on that need.
The three shifts—hospital to community, treatment to prevention, and analogue to digital—will ensure that community and neighbourhood health services get the investment they need and that patient communication is more joined up. We are also working with the NHS to make the tough choices that are needed to get it back on its feet.
We will create an NHS where patients have more control, staff have more time to care, bureaucracy is reduced, power is devolved and the health inequalities that we have so sadly heard about again this afternoon are narrowed. That includes creating a new operating model with fewer, larger ICBs, enabling them to harness a shared budget of sufficient size to improve efficiency and reduce running costs. It is a 10-year plan, but of course we are already seeing some improvements and we have set key targets and milestones along that trajectory. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden said, we cannot all wait 10 years. We have to see that improvement along the way.
Child health is crucial. We have heard about the inequalities and poverty that many children in Bolton experience. That is why the Government have committed to raising the healthiest generation of children ever, and will soon publish an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty, tackle the root causes, and give every child the best start in life.
A huge part of realising our ambitions for the NHS is about improving access to dentistry services. The Government understand that, which is why extra urgent dental appointments are being made available across the country, including in Greater Manchester. That is expected to deliver an extra 17,897 urgent dental appointments across 2025-26. Additional dentists have also been recruited in areas that need them most, and we are committed to delivering fundamental contract reform before the end of this Parliament.
All of that will deliver better dental care for everyone in England, including those in Bolton. We also recognise that we need to go further to improve the oral health of children, which is why we are providing funding to local authorities to roll out the targeted, supervised toothbrushing programme for three to five-year-olds. As a result of the programme, Bolton has received over 32,000 donated products to implement supervised toothbrushing alongside an additional £127,000 this financial year.
Hon. Members rightly raised the issue of RAAC at Royal Bolton hospital, which is obviously deeply concerning for staff and patients. Let us be very clear: the safety of patients and staff has to come first. Each trust with RAAC issues has invested significant levels of NHS capital to mitigate safety risks. Locally, the Bolton NHS foundation trust has received over £9.5 million to mitigate the RAAC risk and for eradication works at Royal Bolton hospital. The trust will continue to have access to further necessary funding for RAAC removal, enabling the hospital to complete development and modernisation upgrades.
Hon. Members also raised the important subject of women’s health. As part of our work in this area, we are tackling waiting lists, of which gynaecology is a substantial part. We will see those waiting lists come down and we will soon make emergency hormonal contraception free in pharmacies, but we know that there is much more to do for women. That is why we will look at where we can go further and reflect that in an updated women’s health strategy to better meet the needs of women in Bolton and across the country.
This year the Secretary of State announced a rapid national independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services. He will also chair a maternity and neonatal taskforce to develop the action plan based on the investigation’s recommendations. I am happy to report encouraging local initiatives such as Bolton’s new maternity and women’s health unit, which is set to open in early 2027, as well as a focus on paternal support and investment in strong community-based care and specialist parental mental health support, which we know is so important.
Issues around mental health were raised this afternoon. Mental health support in maternity is made possible only by strong mental health services across the board. That is why we are transforming mental health services. We have heard about Opposition Members serving on the Public Bill Committee and we thank them for their work. We need to build new dedicated mental health emergency departments, improve outreach, and increase overall funding to benefit Bolton and the rest of the country. That includes transforming mental health services in 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, building on the existing pilots, and investing up to £120 million to bring the number of mental health emergency departments up to 85.
We also heard about urgent and emergency care this afternoon. We will be publishing an urgent and emergency care plan. The plan will reduce A&E wait times, provide almost £450 million of capital investment for same-day emergency care and mental health crisis assessment centres, and get more ambulances back on the road. The local picture is promising. In Bolton, 12-hour wait times are down compared with a similar time last year, and meaningful infrastructure improvements are being delivered. We are not complacent, however, and we know the situation is not acceptable for people.
A large part of the contributions was about improving general practice and recognising the need for people to feel they have access to it, because that is where most people have contact with the health service. That improvement is a crucial part of our agenda. It is heartbreaking to hear about patients not getting the testing or treatment they need, and of course Leah and her son should not have had to endure that shocking ordeal. I hope that they are getting the support they need, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East will be supporting them.
On access, my hon. Friend will be aware that part of our negotiations with doctors has been about increasing online access, which was rolled out on 1 October. That is helpful to know if that is available in her patch. New funding for the advice and guidance scheme is helping GPs to work more closely with hospital specialists to access expert advice quickly and speed their patients through the system, so they get care in the right place as soon as possible.
Dr Luke Evans
Hearing Leah’s story was very concerning and upsetting. When it comes to further online access, one of GPs’ biggest concerns is about what to do with the emergencies that may come in through a computer at 6.20 pm as a result of that access, having to make that assessment when the system is supposed to be closing, and the ability to move GPs to take them away from face-to-face consultations to deal with online access. How will the Government square the circle of access versus patient safety? That is at the crux of the dispute.
Karin Smyth
The shadow Minister opens up a discussion that could take some time. Clearly, practices regularly manage emergency situations. The system that we have put in place aims to make sure that patients have access during the day. Different practices will obviously have different opening times—that is a matter for the local system—but I know that if an emergency comes forward, practices all over the country do all they can to make sure that patients are safe. There are also disclaimers on their websites about the times of operation and so on. If there are any individual cases that he wants to raise, we will look at them, but that urgent emergency interface is a matter of negotiation locally and I think most practices understand how to manage it.
I am pleased to report that we are investing more than £1 billion extra in GP services and £82 million in the primary care workforce to ensure that places such as Bolton get the resources and GPs they need. On infrastructure, a new £102 million fund will create additional clinical space across more than 1,000 practices in England. As a result of those efforts, 8 million more appointments have been delivered this year compared with last year. Our shift to a neighbourhood health service is exactly about the joined-up, accessible and locally accountable care that we all want to see, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East rightly highlighted. That is also what staff in the system want to see.
On waiting lists, we published our elective reform plan to deliver the change that we promised at the last election. Between July 2024 and June 2025, we delivered more than 5 million additional appointments compared with the previous year. There has also been a reduction in the number of people on the waiting list of over 200,000. I think patients and members of the public are seeing and feeling that progress, and although there is a long way to go, staff are starting to feel it too.
Since June 2024, the number of people on the waiting list at Bolton NHS foundation trust has reduced by more than 7,000, and the number of patients waiting over a year has more than halved. Those are tangible improvements in a very short time, and we thank the staff for their hard work to achieve that. Patients deserve better, but they are seeing progress. We know there is more to be done.
I thank hon. Members for bringing their knowledge and experience of Bolton’s health services to this debate. I know that they and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) will continue to advocate strongly on behalf of the people of Bolton, continue to work closely with local leaders, and continue to hold the Government to account for the promises we are making. That conversation between local Members of Parliament about what is actually happening on the ground, which we all hear about in our inboxes, in our surgeries and when we talk to local people, is an important part of what they are doing to raise these issues. I hope that my response shows how much the Government are committed to addressing these issues and working to improve healthcare for the people of Bolton.
Kirith Entwistle
I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for her response, in which she touched on a broad range of subjects.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for highlighting the regional inequalities, which are particularly important, and for touching on the impact of child poverty and the importance of good-quality nutrition. I will not reiterate the impact that the last Conservative Government had on Bolton, but I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for his work on mental health, and specifically men’s mental health, which is such an important area.
Finally, I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for her tireless support—the three Bolton MPs have a strong partnership. I was struck by her statement that primary care needs consistency to provide support, not just capacity. That is a strong message.
I am grateful to hear that the Minister has met the CEO of Bolton hospital, and I am pleased to hear that we are making progress, which is being felt. However, I will continue to work with my fellow Bolton MPs to ensure that Bolton is not left behind, and to ensure that we continue to make progress in the right direction.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered healthcare in Bolton.