Westminster Hall
(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Independent Water Commission: Final Report
(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Independent Water Commission Final Report.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and my co-sponsors across the House and the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, of which I am an officer, for their support in securing this important debate. West Dorset is home to the world-famous Jurassic coast, a UNESCO world heritage site, as well as three of Britain’s unique chalk streams. Few issues matter more to me or the people of West Dorset than the state of our water.
This debate was originally intended to take place before the publication of the Government’s water White Paper, so that Parliament could scrutinise the findings of the Independent Water Commission and assess what steps the Government intended to take in response. Instead, we find ourselves in a position where we are able to examine the commission’s final report and the White Paper together to see where they align, diverge and, most importantly, fall short of what the public expect, and to see the scale of the crisis that the response demands.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
If people in Torbay check the Surfers Against Sewage app today as I did, they will see that eight sites are monitored where there could be overflows of sewage. Six overflows have occurred so far this year at six of those sites, with two ongoing. We have also suffered a cryptosporidium outbreak in the past 18 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to stop tinkering with the system and have systemic reform to tackle such challenges?
Edward Morello
During my speech, I will outline some such recommendations. This is a good opportunity to thank Surfers Against Sewage for all its hard work. Like my hon. Friend, I use the app regularly before deciding whether to swim at my favourite beaches.
It is an understatement to say that the public’s confidence in the water sector has been damaged; it has been eroded by years of sewage pollution, repeated flooding, poor decision making, too little regulation, scattered legislation and a business model that has too often rewarded failure. This debate is more important than ever in the light of recent flooding, not just in West Dorset but across the south-west and the country as a whole.
Following Storm Chandra, communities again saw the devastating consequence of a system that has reached breaking point and that can react only after failure, rather than preventing it in the first place. Emergency services, whom I pay tribute to, have done an outstanding job, but residents were left dealing with sewage in their homes, damaged property and uncertainty about when it will happen again. In West Dorset alone, 84 homes in Yetminster experienced raw sewage flooding their properties. In Maiden Newton, one family has been flooded repeatedly since 2024, including just days after finally returning home following 15 months of repairs after the previous flood.
As the climate continues to change and extreme weather events become more frequent, that will only become a more common occurrence. Our infrastructure must become more resilient to deal with today’s problems and tomorrow’s.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am chair of the APPG for sustainable flood and drought management, and of the all-party parliamentary water group. On the White Paper, there is 25-year strategic planning, which is absolutely brilliant; regional knowledge and tactical interventions, which are absolutely brilliant; putting engineering capability at the heart of that strategic decision making; and a regulator that brings the economy and the environment together as one for the first time, which I think is important. Does he agree, however, that this is an opportunity to ensure that we do not miss out the maintenance of existing assets, as well as putting new ones in the ground with the extreme amount of investment that will go in over the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? Does he also agree that we therefore need some sort of resilience standards to provide knowledge for the people applying such investment in the future?
Edward Morello
We as the Liberal Democrats always try to be a constructive Opposition, so I absolutely will identify where the White Paper makes steps in the right direction. I hope that the hon. Member will agree with some of our recommendations for where it can be improved.
The Independent Water Commission’s final report was a major and long-awaited milestone. It reflected unprecedented public engagement with more than 30,000 submissions from a public who are angry, frustrated and rightly demanding change. The report contains important proposals embedding public health into law, improving regional planning, strengthening monitoring, and replacing Ofwat with a new, integrated regulator. Those are steps in the right direction.
I want to put on record my thanks to the commissioners and the countless campaigners and volunteers, such as the River Lim Action group, Surfers Against Sewage and River Action, who have fought for cleaner rivers and seas for years. The report exists because of their continued pressure.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions the River Lim Action group that works on the boundary between his West Dorset constituency and mine. The group has identified that the sewage treatment works at Uplyme cannot cope with the amount of sewage that occurs during high rainfall. Does he agree that South West Water needs to put in more storage for sewage during periods of heavy rain?
Edward Morello
My hon. Friend works tirelessly on River Lim issues. I agree there are essential works throughout the system that need to be done if we are to reduce sewage release, but we need to do them in a way that does not pass the cost on to residents and consumers.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He itemised those that do an excellent job, such as Surfers Against Sewage and others, and there is also Feargal Sharkey from my city of Londonderry who has campaigned on and championed these issues for many years. All these people are doing a magnificent job, but we need to see a strategic response from the Government to deliver what we all want to see.
Edward Morello
The hon. Member is right to highlight the work of Feargal Sharkey and the many campaigners around the UK who give up their free time to raise awareness of the issues in their local areas.
The central question for this House is whether the commission’s recommendations and the White Paper that followed go far enough to meet the scale of the challenge we face.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for his perseverance and dedication to the subject matter. I also pay tribute to his party’s members who always turn up and do their bit. The Independent Water Commission’s final report refers to a “fundamental reset” to address failing regulations that have negatively affected customers and the environment. Does the hon. Member agree that Government, and particularly the Minister, must be prepared to take the helm to ensure that the reset actually takes place and is not simply a change in name?
Edward Morello
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I shall come on to some of the recommendations that we believe are necessary to make it more than just a reset in name only.
Let me start with the reality in my constituency. In 2024, West Dorset recorded 4,200 sewage spills and the discharging of raw sewage for nearly 49,000 hours from 90 storm overflows. I have no doubt that other Members can cite similar, if not worse, statistics for their constituency. Only 11% of our monitored river sites reach “good” ecological status. The River Lim is categorised as ecologically dead. Rare chalk streams such as the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream are under severe pressure, as are Atlantic salmon populations.
Tourism in West Dorset, worth over £322 million a year and supporting more than 5,000 jobs, is threatened by our poor water quality. My constituents, their children, the visitors who support our communities, and families, including my own, love our beautiful world-famous waterways, but no one should have to check an app on their phone to see whether it is safe to swim that day. The final report continually underlines the lack of public trust. To change this, reforms must be visible, transparent and public facing. If people are to believe that things are changing, they need to see progress, understand the standards and know that failure has consequences.
We need blue flag-style standards for rivers and chalk streams. Clear standards, mandatory testing and visible ratings would help rebuild trust. Where standards are met, confidence grows. Where they are not, communities can hold companies and regulators to account. Recommendation 3 of the report proposes a comprehensive systems planning framework, with regional water authorities responsible for integrated planning, funding, setting objectives, monitoring and convening stakeholders. That approach recognises that water does not respect administrative boundaries and neither should planning. Housing growth, agriculture, flood risk, river health and water supply must be considered together across Government Departments. The bodies must be statutory, democratically accountable and empowered to make binding decisions. Without that authority, we would risk repeating the mistakes of the past: endless consultation without delivery.
When I have previously argued that water companies should be made statutory consultees in the planning system, the Government have resisted that change. The water White Paper now states that Ministers
“will also consider the role of water and sewerage companies in relation to planning applications”
as part of the reforms to statutory consultees. That is a welcome change, but simply considering it is no longer enough. Making water companies and national landscapes statutory consultees for major developments would be a preventive, low-cost reform that aligns planning decisions with environmental reality, reducing flood risk.
The commission is also right to highlight the importance of pre-pipe solutions. Recommendation 10 calls for legislative changes to expand pre-pipe solutions, so that we can stop pollutants and rainwater entering the system in the first place. In too many places, combined sewers are overwhelmed by rainfall that mixes with raw sewage and triggers spills. That is not sustainable in a changing climate.
We need a long-term national rainwater management strategy, with sustainable drainage systems being mandatory in all new developments, and a serious programme of retrofitting in existing communities. Rainwater harvesting should become the norm. We must bring ourselves in line with modern housing standards and our European neighbours, just as minimum solar requirements are being made mandatory, thanks to the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Those are low-carbon, cost-effective and resilient solutions. They would reduce pressure on sewers, lower flood risk and protect rivers, but the White Paper only gestures vaguely in that direction. Without clear, consistent standards and funding, progress will remain slow.
On regulation, the commission calls to replace Ofwat with a new integrated regulator, which is welcome and overdue. The Liberal Democrats have called for exactly that since 2022. Ofwat’s primary duty to ensure reasonable returns has shaped a culture that has tolerated pollution, debt loading and under-investment. A regulator with explicit duties to protect public health and the environment is a step forward.
I am glad that the White Paper has stated that the Government will commit to a new regulator by abolishing Ofwat and bringing together the relevant water system functions from existing regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England—into one new body. But again, that alone is not enough. That body must have teeth: it must be properly resourced, independent and willing to enforce the law.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Public Accounts Committee recently had a hearing on environmental regulation with the Environment Agency and Natural England. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the transition to a new regulator is a huge undertaking and that there is a risk while it is being set up? We must not take our eyes off the enforcement and regulation of water companies to ensure that we reduce the amount of their pollution in the meantime.
Edward Morello
I 100% share the hon. Lady’s concerns that water companies will exploit this moment in time. The public are calling out for firmer action, so the speed of the transition is vital.
Existing legislation already requires sewage to be treated effectively, and allows storm overflows only in exceptional circumstances, but the Government have admitted that overflows are being used far beyond their original purpose. Investigations have shown illegal discharge even on dry days. The Office for Environmental Protection has concluded that regulators have failed to comply with existing environmental law. The first task of the new regulator must be to enforce what is already on the statute book and to review permits across the system.
The commission also highlights the need for stronger customer protection. Recommendation 41 proposes strengthening the C-MeX—customer measure of experience—incentive and moving to a supervisory approach. That reflects the reality that customer experience has not improved, despite financial incentives. People paying their bills expect reliable service, timely responses and basic competence—not call centres that do not answer and complaints that disappear into the void.
That brings me to the question of accountability and ownership. The White Paper recognises the unsustainable debt levels created by the current model, and talks about attracting long-term, low-risk investors. It also introduces new performance improvement regimes. But there is a real risk of tinkering around the edges while leaving a fundamentally broken model intact. As long as water companies exist primarily to generate profit, decisions will be shaped by that motive alone.
Alternative models across Europe deliver lower bills, higher investment relative to debt, and fewer discharges. Both the commission and the White Paper fail to engage seriously with those models. In West Dorset, we are served by Wessex Water and in a small part by South West Water. My constituents see a pattern of rewarding failure across the water system that is impossible to justify during a cost of living crisis.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Last year, bosses of Wessex Water received £50,000 in extra pay—more than many people in Yeovil earn in a year—from the parent company, while constituents in Ilminster report that they cannot swim in their rivers without risking getting sick. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must now ensure that sewage dumping at bathing sites ends by 2030 and that water bosses get no extra pay until sewage spills stop?
Edward Morello
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issues in his constituency. At a time when people are paying higher and higher water bills, there is understandably a sense of frustration with the outlandish bonuses being paid to executive bosses overseeing this failure.
Between 2020 and 2021, water company executives paid themselves £51 million in remuneration, including £30.6 million in bonuses. I am glad that the Government have started to take action on this behaviour in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but it is not enough. In 2022 alone, water and sewage companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends, nearly three times as much as the year before, while household bills rose and families were forced to make difficult decisions. All the time, sewage continued to be pumped into our rivers and beaches.
We need a proactive, evidence-based assessment of alternative ownership models before the water reform Bill is finalised. Water companies should be redesigned with public benefit and environmental protection as their core purpose. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a new ownership model, with water companies mutually owned by customers and professionally managed. The special administration regime exists to protect customers and the environment when companies fail. Thames Water is the clearest example of a company that has failed financially, operationally and environmentally. We need transparent criteria for when the SAR will be triggered and a clear plan for using it to transition companies to public benefit models where necessary.
Affordability must also be central to reform. It was not mentioned enough in the final commission report. Families are already under intense pressure from the cost of living crisis. Environmental improvement cannot be paid for on the backs of those least able to afford it. It must be paid for by those who caused the problem. Bills must be fair, and investment must be efficient, long-term and low-risk. Financial penalties must be ringfenced for infrastructure upgrades and nature-based solutions, not absorbed as a cost of doing business.
The commission’s call to end operator self-monitoring is welcome, as is the move towards open monitoring and near-real-time data. The speeding ticket-style fines previously introduced by this Government should also be welcomed. However, credibility depends on independent testing, frequent inspections and proper funding for regulators. Data must be accessible, understandable and trusted by the public.
We cannot clean up our rivers by focusing on sewage alone. Agriculture accounts for pollution in about 40% of water bodies. Farmers are essential partners, but are struggling in our current system of underfunding. The system must support prevention at source by supporting our farmers and helping them to tackle water pollution through better funding and guidance.
This is a huge opportunity for cross-party consensus, legislative reform and long-term thinking and change. The support across the House for it is a testament to the scale of the problem, but also to people’s willingness to collaborate on the future. The Independent Water Commission has laid important foundations, and the White Paper moves the conversation forward, but neither goes far enough on its own. Change must be public-facing, rooted in public benefit and focused on prevention rather than clean-up. It must restore trust—trust that politics can deliver change, that regulators will enforce the law, that legislation passed in this House will make a difference and can change the sector, and that water companies will finally put people and the environment before profit.
Communities such as mine in West Dorset cannot afford another decade of half-measures. Our rivers, our coastlines, our communities, our health and our homes are at risk. I hope we can seize this moment to deliver the transformational reform that the public rightly want.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I remind all Members who wish to speak that they need to continue to bob throughout the debate, so that we know. If everyone sticks to about five minutes, we should get everybody in comfortably.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate.
My constituents in Shipley, with the lovely River Wharfe and River Aire flowing through, have been outraged at the levels of water pollution in them. They face high bills, while leaking infrastructure causes damage to roads and homes. Companies such as Yorkshire Water have been failing us for years now. We suffered last year from a failure to invest in new reservoirs, with an almost year-long drought starting in the spring.
I very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have come in with a determination to tackle those issues. I was pleased to vote for and support the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which made sure we took immediate action to clamp down on the obscene bosses’ bonuses, including those that the chief exec of Yorkshire Water was receiving. Very sadly, the Kelda holdings company, which owns Yorkshire Water, also paid her a sort of behind-the-scenes £1.3 million extra payment, which I and others have been urging her to donate or give back. I hope that in future the companies meet the spirit of the legislation.
I welcome the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe in bringing forward the Independent Water Commission. I put in a submission to the review, setting out some actions that I felt were necessary for fundamental reform of the water industry, so that it works better in the interests of customers and the public by clamping down on the illegal discharges of sewage, which are all too frequent. I am pleased to see that the Government have addressed quite a number of those issues in the water White Paper. I put on record my thanks to the People’s Water Commission, a group of campaigners, researchers and experts who came together to engage the public on their views about water. I particularly thank Becky Malby, a local resident who is involved in the Ilkley Clean River Group.
I sit on the Public Accounts Committee; I do not know whether that is part of my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Committee has recently undertaken two reports, the first on water regulation and the second, not yet published, on environmental regulation. I will briefly quote findings from the first report:
“Ofwat has failed to prevent companies taking excessive dividends, increasing levels of debt and setting up complex company structures, all of which have reduced their financial resilience. The sector’s risk profile has risen and customers must now pay investors higher returns as a result.”
To illustrate the point, my own Yorkshire Water bill shows that 23% is just to finance debt, while 17% is spent on infrastructure investment. How can that be? Unfortunately, there is no end in sight for the bill payers being made to pay that debt. I urge the Minister to say how she will change the gearing of those companies that are so indebted. Despite the figures of £104 billion in investment and, for Yorkshire Water, £8.3 billion, it does not seem as if the shareholders are actually putting their hands in their pocket. It is the customers who will have to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and for the past failure of companies to invest.
I would like to draw attention to a couple of other points on which I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance. I warmly welcome the creation of a new regulator, as the Public Accounts Committee has recommended. How will we ensure that it has the right skills and resources? The previous Government cut funding to the Environment Agency, which meant that it failed to do its job of prosecuting some incidents; I am pleased that under this Government we now have many cases in hand. The regulator needs skills to take action on the finances, given the complex structures.
How will we ensure that customers’ money is going where they want? How will the regulator take action on pollution and work with the Environment Agency on how farmers, who face many regulations, can play their part in cleaning up our rivers and seas? I urge the Minister to take all the actions in the water White Paper to make sure that companies such as Yorkshire Water are properly held to account in future.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate. He shares my passion for tackling water pollution, which is why we work together on the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, which I set up when I joined this place to represent the interests of my constituents and citizens across the country who are passionate about the issue. I did so in recognition of the fact that, unfortunately, the all-party parliamentary water group has a secretariat run by the water industry. It was therefore vital to get citizens’ voices into Parliament on this issue.
Lee Pitcher
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary water group. It is managed in-house; it was all brought in-house, so there is absolutely no external body. That is why we did it: because we wanted the APPG to be totally independent.
Dr Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, and I am delighted to hear that in this Parliament that has been changed. Historically, it was run by the water industry, which is why it was necessary to set up a new group.
I will confine my comments today to the two elephants in the room: ownership and agriculture. They are effectively missing from the Independent Water Commission. They are effectively missing from the water White Paper. That is frankly extraordinary. Why did the Government prevent the Cunliffe commission from looking at those two crucial issues? Without addressing them, we cannot tackle the problems in the water sector.
Privatisation of water has comprehensively failed. Privatised water companies have paid £85 billion in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, and they have racked up debts of £65 billion. All the while, leaks have been proliferating, infrastructure has been crumbling, there has been a failure to build reservoirs, and customers have been paying hand over fist for poorer and poorer service. It is completely unacceptable.
Nearly every river in England is polluted. England’s bathing water quality is the fifth worst in Europe. England’s surface water quality is the seventh worst in Europe. Over 1 trillion litres of water were leaked in 2024. I have already mentioned the £85 billion paid to shareholders and the £65 billion of debt. Privatisation will cost customers a further £22 billion over the next five years, because that is the return on capital that has been set by Ofwat. Around a third of customer bills now service corporate debt, and Ofwat allowed bills to go up by 26% this financial year alone—an average of £123 per household.
That is a failing water system. No other country in the democratic world has privatised its water system to the degree that we have in this country. It is clear that a market-based approach to the water sector simply does not work. Water is a natural monopoly. Customers have absolutely zero choice. Water is a public good and should be in public hands, so that it works for public benefit. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from even looking at that question?
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Rye brook in Ashtead, which runs past local schools, has suffered loads of raw sewage leaks. It feeds into the River Mole, which has seen 3,000 hours of storm overflows in January 2026. The run-off pollutes local chalk streams as well. The hon. Lady might be interested to know that, while the report also ignored reforming water companies, it mentioned chalk streams only twice. Does she agree that privatisation is not working and that we need to bring water companies into mutually owned public benefit companies and end the sewage scandal for good?
Dr Chowns
We need to bring water companies into public ownership, because only by running water for public good will we tackle the scandal that has been caused by privatisation in recent decades. Some 82% of the British public want water to be in public ownership. That is more than the percentage who want the railways to be in public ownership, so why are the Government so opposed to it? They are very fond of citing completely imaginary figures about the supposed cost of doing so, but Thames Water, for example, apparently has a market value of £4 billion, judging by the last market offer, and faces a repair bill of £23 billion, so in effect its value is nil. We could take it into public ownership at zero cost and run water for public benefit.
The second lacuna in the work of the Independent Water Commission and the water White Paper is agriculture. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from looking at agricultural pollution? We know that diffuse agricultural pollution is half the problem, so we cannot ignore it. It is another elephant in the room, and we have to focus on addressing it, together with farmers, who are crying out for support to do that.
To give the Independent Water Commission some credit, it did actually look at the issue and mentioned it in its conclusions. It says on page 20 of the final report that
“agriculture has the most significant environmental impact on water bodies in England and Wales.”
In fact, almost the very next sentence cited the River Wye in my North Herefordshire constituency, where problems relating to diffuse agricultural pollution have led to huge economic, social and environmental problems.
A few pages later, the Independent Water Commission said that the Government’s water strategy
“should be cross-sectoral, setting out in one place the requirements on all the sectors impacting on or interacting with the water environment…including agriculture”.
Yet on only one of its 50 pages did the Government’s White Paper talk about agriculture. That is not a comprehensive, joined-up strategy.
As the Independent Water Commission pointed out,
“achieving a future environmental target for water…will depend more and more upon reducing the contribution of agricultural pollution.”
We must work with our farmers—the stewards of our land—to tackle this problem. It is more than half the issue, and the Government can no longer ignore it. I beg the Minister to please give it the same attention that we rightly give to the water and sewage companies. Without a comprehensive approach, we will simply fail to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I gently remind Members that if they cannot stick to five minutes or less, those at the end of the list will get a lot less.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this important and timely debate on the Independent Water Commission’s final report and the Government’s White Paper, which will move forward with many of the commission’s recommendations. I put on the record my thanks to and respect for the Minister for setting up the commission. I also thank Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team for their forensic assessment of our water industry—many recognise its fundamentally flawed, if not completely broken, state.
Since being elected, I have heard from constituents about flooding, sewage discharges and water infrastructure failures. I have heard from families worried about river pollution, from businesses concerned about the resilience of supply, and from residents frustrated that the problems they see locally are addressed so slowly. For too long, the sector has been characterised by fragmented planning, overlapping regulation and ageing infrastructure, so the proposal to establish a single integrated regulator, alongside setting out a clearer long-term strategic vision for the sector, is an important step forward in restoring public trust and delivering the resilient water system our country desperately needs.
As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am particularly conscious that reform has to be judged not only on its intent but on delivery. As Sir Jon did, the White Paper is right to identify the historical lack of joined-up, long-term planning as a central weakness. About 60% of water mains were built before 1981, and a significant proportion are now more than a century old. I have seen the effects of that in my village of Norton Canes, and in Rugeley, where water companies have struggled even to work out who owns the broken pipes.
Public confidence in the sector continues to be shaped by the visible impact of pollution and sewage discharge. My constituency is served by Severn Trent and South Staffs Water, and performance across the sector demonstrates both areas of progress and ongoing public concern. Although Severn Trent has achieved long-term strong performance ratings in some operational areas, data shows that in 2024 there were more than 450,000 hours of discharge in its area alone. That contrast illustrates why stronger transparency, oversight and accountability are essential if reforms are to rebuild public confidence. I therefore welcome proposals to move towards open monitoring, to ensure that companies are no longer effectively marking their own homework.
As has been said, agricultural run-off contributes significantly to water pollution in some catchments. That has to be part of any long-term strategy if we are serious about improving river health and water quality, but it needs to be tackled in partnership with farmers, rather than characterising them as wilful polluters of the waterways that they rely on. The move towards integrated regional water planning could be a significant step forward in that respect. In constituencies like mine, effective co-ordination when it comes to flood prevention, agricultural practice, environmental regulation, planning and economic growth is essential. Regional planning could deliver more preventive and nature-based solutions, but it will require clarity about governance, accountability and its relationship with water company investment decisions.
On accountability, as a member of the Co-operative party I was glad that the Government make powerful customer panels a key plank of last year’s reforms. For too long, customers have felt completely disempowered, but with the incredible work of citizen scientists, and the action taken by the Government, that is starting to change. I note that the commission’s final report was lukewarm about the mutual model for water companies, because of a perceived risk to customers, but I hope the Minister will continue to look at ways we could incorporate co-operative principles into reforms to the sector, up to and including mutual ownership if that would resolve some of the issues.
Before I conclude, I cannot speak on this topic without referring to executive bonuses, given the galling payments we have seen for senior figures in failing water companies, despite the action taken by the Government in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. It is shameful that we have got to a point with the water industry where the Government cannot trust bosses to follow the spirit of the law, and instead have to take further action because bosses who would not earn performance-related bonuses would rather spend their time cooking up creative ways of re-labelling bonuses with their legal teams, or re-routing bonuses with their accountants, than spend their time cleaning up the filth that our constituents are paying through the nose for. If they will flout the spirit of the law, the letter of the law will have to change. I am glad we have a Government who are decisive about the need to do that.
The Independent Water Commission has provided a clear diagnosis of the challenges facing our water system. The Government’s White Paper sets out an ambitious pathway for reform in many areas, and I welcome its focus on long-term planning, stronger regulation and improved environmental outcomes. Clearly, the task ahead is to ensure that reforms translate into real-world improvements that our constituents can see and feel.
Lee Pitcher
It is important to put on the record that lots of the people who work for the water companies and lots of farmers out there are feeling the reputational hit from what is going on. Accountability needs to be held at the decision-making level. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to recognise the people who are out there on the frontline day in, day out, and in the offices, making sure that pollution incidents do not occur and that leaks are fixed, and that it is not their fault at all? They are working really hard, including by leaving their families late at night, to try to make things better.
Josh Newbury
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has often heard from water company bosses that the criticisms of their companies are impacting morale on the frontline, but we point out that if any bonuses are available to people on the frontline, they are certainly not of the order of those the bosses are receiving. I absolutely agree that we need to respect those people and make sure their voices are heard as we reform the sector.
As I was saying, we need to see safer waterways, more reliable infrastructure and a water system that is fit for the future. I am grateful for the opportunity to have spoken in the debate.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate. I also thank my many constituents who, quite rightly, have grave concerns about this matter and have written to me about it.
My party has made its dissatisfaction with the White Paper clear, and my colleagues are making the case strongly again today. We have been leading the charge in calling for a comprehensive approach to tackling what is nothing short of a crisis in the water sector. The Government made tackling this crisis an important pillar of their election campaign, so it is deeply disappointing that the reforms set out in the water White Paper fall far short of what the situation demands. The system is in dire straits and requires a complete overhaul, but instead the Government offer only the lightest of plans that fail to beef up regulations in a meaningful manner or provide funding provision for enforcement. Although the abolition of Ofwat is welcome, the uncertainty around its replacement is unhelpful.
Farmers need proper support to tackle agricultural run-off, which accounts for around 40% of water pollution. As stewards of the land, they are inevitably stewards of our water as well. How can it be that we have allowed corporate greed to run rampant, and allowed these companies to have presided over the routine pumping of filth into the waterways of this land? It is quite remarkable. All the while, the good people of the west country have seen their bills soar, some by as much as threefold. The Government offer only the lightest of plans: weak regulation, no meaningful enforcement and no funding to ensure compliance.
As my constituency straddles the Somerset-Devon border, we are in the unenviable position of having two water companies: Wessex Water and South West Water. I think it is fair to say that I have made my views on South West Water clear before, and I will once again direct my ire at South West Water, because its behaviour, inertia and refusal to acknowledge the gravity of situations of its own making has been pitiful. Just a week ago, I raised the matter of my poor constituents at Bawdens bakery in Bampton, who have been forced to close and sell up because their property has flooded so many times. I had a most unhelpful meeting with the director of South West Water, who showed only his complete complacence and, I have to say, arrogance, to such an extent that I had to ask him and his staff to leave.
The public health implications are grave. I have heard horror stories from constituents whose children have fallen seriously ill after swimming in local rivers. The beaches at Dunster and Blue Anchor now carry the dreaded brown flag status. It is a shameful state of affairs. Is it really too much for the British public to expect clean water as a basic right?
At the risk of being blunt and somewhat crude, suffice it to say that the Tiverton sewage works absolutely reek every time it rains—and anyone familiar with the west country will know how often that is. It is inexcusable and utterly foul. It is a stench and a situation more in character with the 12th century, certainly not the 21st. I could be more colourful with my description, but I will spare colleagues and preserve my own sanity.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
With noble exception of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), we have not been entirely successful at sticking to five minutes. I must ask those remaining to keep to below four minutes so that we can try to get everybody in.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing the debate. We inherited the most dysfunctional water system imaginable. The governance was not there and there was no accountability in the system. Labour came in to put that right. Although we have gone so far on that journey, and I congratulate the Minister on the legislation we have passed and the legislation to come, there is clearly so much to do.
My city of York is based on two rivers that flood and, with all the pollutants in the water, it is a crisis when that occurs. In 2023, there were 16,357 hours of sewage releases on the River Ouse and another 3,254 hours on the Foss. We now know that the Foss has the worst levels of pharmaceutical pollutants—which we have not heard about in this debate—of any river in Europe. I draw the Minister’s attention to the work being undertaken by the University of York in its Ecomix project, which is looking at 1,000 different chemicals—whether from agriculture, pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, personal care products or things like tyre additives—in order to raise standards. We have to know what is in our rivers so that we can address the issues.
Although we have come so far with the excellent report by Sir Jon Cunliffe, there is clearly more to do. I again draw the Minister’s attention to the work of the University of York—it is such a leader in the field—and its action for quality aquatic environments project, which is drawing citizens into the science project to detect chemical and biological pollutants in order to put things right in the future. That mass community research enables communities not only to own their rivers but to press for change. They pressed me to take part in this debate, and I am grateful for that.
We must move forward. This country had the reputation of being the “dirty man of Europe”. That changed, particularly under the last Labour Government, and yet standards have slipped back so much over the last 14 years that we are getting that reputation again. It is important that we maintain those standards, and we should be adopting the principles of European legislation—the urban wastewater treatment directive—into our legislation, ensuring that we close that gap on pollutants and move forward so our water can be safe again. We must also move to ban the dangerous forever chemicals that are finding their way into our waterways. There is too much flexibility about the chemicals that people have been using, and keeping our waterways safe is really important.
I want to raise the issue of our infrastructure and modernising our sewerage system, which is predominantly still based on the Victorian infrastructure of the past and does not segregate rainwater from sewage. That is causing so many problems. We need those investments to come at pace. We need to ensure that, locally, we are measuring and reporting the scourge of what is happening in our waterways.
As has already been mentioned, Yorkshire Water has failed. Bills have gone up and accountability has gone down, and the chief executive is taking eye-watering sums of funding. We need better governance and, with all these failing contracts, we need to move water into public ownership again.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for introducing this important debate—I have to say, it feels like the nth debate that we have had on this issue. I am getting a very strong sense of déjà vu from standing here and in the Chamber and speaking about water. Sadly, I suspect I will stand here and speak on this subject many more times over the coming years.
I know the Minister is passionate about this subject. There are some aspects of the White Paper that I welcome, but I feel that it does not go far enough. I will come on to specifics in a moment, but right now I want to share a mental image. In my constituency, at least 16 sewage outflows are spewing sewage into our rivers—just picture that. With the current stuck weather system and more rain expected, that is set to continue. I find that really distressing and I am sure that everybody here does too.
The central problem is that the water system is now built around profit. The privatised model has failed. That is a serious market failure, and it needs to be remedied. I am not here to defend Margaret Thatcher’s vision—far from it—which was that we would go from being a nation of shopkeepers to a country of shareholders. The somewhat foreseeable consequence of that was that people—individuals and private share owners—would sell their shares, and so we have ended up with big institutions owning our water companies and exploiting them as vehicles purely for profit. That profit motive does not sit well with a vital public utility.
I will point out four recurring failures in the Government’s approach, on this issue and possibly on others: they lack the courage to truly grasp the nettle on failing systems; they are overlooking nature-based solutions, despite strong evidence that they work; they are misunderstanding farming, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) referenced, and ignoring the dual role that farmers play as part of the problem and as a big part of the solution; and they are failing to unleash people power.
Nature-based solutions are still being treated as an afterthought, despite evidence that constructed wetlands can remove 60% to 90% of nitrates and phosphates. Nature can be a great ally in this, and there is no downside to using nature-based solutions. The approach on agriculture is piecemeal and inadequate. Agriculture accounts for about 40% of water pollution in English rivers, but the proposed action is seriously underpowered. We need environmental land management funding to be better targeted at water outcomes, and we need to include farmers to unleash what they know about their land. To restore faith in the water industry we need transparency and accountability. We could unleash the power of citizen science to monitor water, as residents are the people most motivated to track water quality.
Finally, I return to the fundamental issue of water company ownership. The Liberal Democrats are calling for Thames Water to be converted into a public benefit company, or possibly a mutual company owned by its customers. Changing ownership of Thames Water is the only way to solve this problem for the long term. I thank the Government for where they have gone, but I beg them to go so much further.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for giving us this opportunity to speak about water today.
My constituents have written to me pretty consistently since I came to this place about the water industry with concerns about sewage discharges, bonuses paid to water bosses, flooding and their bills. I do feel that their concerns—in emails and conversations through casework, surgeries and a specific roundtable—have been heard and fed into this this consultation. Our White Paper, published as a response to the Independent Water Commission’s final report, will tackle some of these issues head-on, by bringing forward, strengthening and streamlining regulation.
I will focus my speech on sewage discharges and flooding, and the impact they have on my constituency. Leicestershire has again had significant rainfall, and a flood warning is still in place today on the northern edge of my constituency. Coupled with that, sewage has poured into our waterways in North West Leicestershire for 15,000 hours. That is not just physically, but mentally challenging for my constituents.
I have spoken about residents in Whitwick before, but today I will speak about another set of residents who were flooded just before Christmas. The desperation that people experience when sewage water enters their property is really difficult for them to bear; indeed, it is visible on their faces. We must do better for them, and the water industry really needs to clean up its act. I visited Mary, who has a smallholding in Donington le Heath. She became so frustrated by the outflow release on her smallholding that she collected a bag of sewer debris from a recent release and popped it on the table during a meeting we had with representatives from Severn Trent Water. They were left with no doubt about her feeling that the company consistently drops sewage on to her land. Such is the frustration of local people.
Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report recommends a review into key legislation about urban waste water treatment, reducing pollutants and tackling sewage releases that went unaddressed for 15 long years under the previous Government. My constituents will be reassured that our White Paper will set out ambitions to tackle sewage misuse, prevent sewer blockages, help maximise sewer capacity, and reduce pollution incidents and therefore sewage flooding. That is a core example of constituents raising concerns, a direct report being commissioned to find solutions, and a Government listening to people.
On a separate note, it is encouraging to see water companies finally investing in ageing infrastructure. However, constituents are often frustrated by their water bills going up and about how, for example, the long-awaited improvements in Coalville, which could address the issue in Donington le Heath, are still four years away. I would welcome the Minister firmly reassuring my constituents that they will see improvements, and the necessary re-establishing of trust between consumers and water companies off the back of the final report.
Since being elected, I have engaged whenever and wherever possible with efforts to strengthen the water sector, and I was proud to sit on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. Building on our work here in Parliament, I was pleased to see the Environment Secretary confirm that the water White Paper will be followed by a transition plan and a water reform Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on that.
I also thank Sir Jon Cunliffe. I do not think anybody could be as passionate about the water sector as he is. It is quite clear from the things he has said, and from the way that he has addressed this real problem for the UK, that he has a passion and indeed a vision for change, which matches our Government’s ambition. I will just take this opportunity to thank Sir Jon for his work.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this debate, which is timely and very important. The Cunliffe report is seriously flawed, in that it did not consider public ownership of the industry or agriculture, which is a major polluter, as other colleagues have already pointed out.
Privatisation of water has been an absolute disaster from the very beginning, when many of us at the time warned against it. It has resulted in £72 billion being taken out of the industry in dividends and profits, and fantastic levels of executive pay. It has left behind pollution and flooding, with the cost of the pollution, flooding and foul water being borne by the public—our constituents—who are increasingly angry about it.
By any standard, river quality is appalling right across the country and is one of the worst anywhere in Europe. That is caused by the mixing of rainwater with sewage waste, and by agricultural run-offs that have a devastating effect. The River Wye is just one example of how awful the rivers can become, because of agricultural waste run-offs—hon. Members who drew attention to that are absolutely right. The waste of water from leaks is a huge problem, and I think I am right that the totality of leaks across the whole country would fill the whole of Loch Ness every year.
Therefore, instead of calling for new reservoirs to be built, should we not look at much better water management, rainwater retention and water distribution across the country? In England, the biggest water consumers are in London and the south-east, which is, broadly speaking, the driest part of the country. The wettest part of the country is the midlands and the north-west. Clearly, moving water from one part to the other makes a lot of sense. Can we not have some sense surrounding the organisation of water distribution?
Anna Dixon
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that under the previous Government, light-touch regulation left our infrastructure crumbling? It is right that there will be asset mapping under the new proposals, so that we can finally know the state of the infrastructure and whether these investments are actually fixing the leaks.
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. The state of the infrastructure does need to be examined. Like many Members, my constituents have endless complaints about that. Thames Water is one of the most frequent visitors to my constituency; it digs up the roads frequently. With the resulting road closures—which are absurd—Thames Water is much better at traffic management than Transport for London, actually.
I would also ask that we look much more seriously at river basin management. I remember visiting York with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) during the flooding at that time. We had a long discussion with the Environment Agency about planning for flooding, which would involve restoring peatlands, upland planting, reintroducing beavers and others into rivers—that has an effect on a small scale, with lots of rivers and streams—and restoring floodplains. Those sorts of things are some of the most important things we can do.
Water should be taken back into public ownership—not old-style public ownership, with a board of governors or directors appointed by the Government, but a popular form of public ownership that would involve the brilliant workforce in all those companies, and their knowledge. The directors would come from them, and from local communities, businesses, local authorities and unions, so we would have a locally and popular-based water industry in our society. We could do it. Why don’t we try that?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call Charlie Maynard, but the bad news is that I can only give him three minutes.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello).
I am going to move very quickly. I thank Sir Jon Cunliffe and all the campaigners in my constituency. I note that Blake primary school had to close on Friday because of sewage—the fourth time in the last two and a half months. Bills have gone up: we are paying 9.75% interest with Thames Water. I thank Alex Lipp and Jonny Dawe for putting together sewagemap.co.uk—a fantastic website that tracks what is going on and where.
The “ultimate controller” definition is mentioned 16 times in the Independent Water Commission’s final report. I welcome the proposal in paragraph 700, which would allow an enforceable undertaking against ultimate controllers. However, that will work only if Ofwat is doing its job properly and recognising companies as ultimate controllers. As the Minister knows, the equity of Thames Water is now zero, with most of the investors having written down their equity investment in full, and some having taken away their board representation nearly two years ago. That leaves the debt holders—the class A creditors—holding the majority of the company’s debt. They have now set up the London & Valley Water consortium to co-ordinate their interests.
The water sector is a regulated sector, with the ultimate controller designation being critical. To meet that definition, an entity only has to
“materially influence the policy or affairs”
of Thames Water. There is no limit on how many entities meet that criterion or whether there are equity or debt holders. Clearly, the consortium more than meets that definition as it is, in effect, the only significant party left standing across either Thames Water’s debt or equity structure.
As per the regulation, Thames Water must inform Ofwat even of potential changes in its ultimate controllers. Ofwat then requires water companies to obtain legally enforceable undertakings from each of their ultimate controllers. That has not happened in the case of the class A creditors, and I believe this is a rig-up between the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ofwat, Thames Water and the class A creditors. That is not good enough. It is in contravention of our regulations.
I have repeatedly asked Ministers to explain, in the main Chamber, in the Business and Trade Committee, in this Chamber and in the press, why they believe that the class A creditor consortium does not meet the ultimate controller test. I have received either no answer— most recently from the Minister three weeks ago, when she refused point-blank to give me an answer in the main Chamber—or obfuscation. Please, will the Minister now answer the question? Does she consider the London & Valley Water consortium to meet the ultimate controller test with regard to its material influence over Thames Water, and if not, why not?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with that of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Jeremy. I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate so far, which has been interesting and thoughtful, but especially my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing another really important debate on this broad issue.
As a party, we made this issue the centrepiece of our campaign in the 2024 general election, so all of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that we are here with a mandate to fight for change. It is a joy and a pleasure to work alongside others from all parties in trying to achieve that. It was an honour to meet and present evidence to Sir Jon Cunliffe as he put together his report, and to work with the Minister and others, whom I enjoyed spending time with on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee—I suspect a sequel to come, and we all look forward to it.
We all agree that—as the Independent Water Commission’s final report correctly identifies—the system is very badly broken, not only in the performance of water companies but in the basic, deep injustice of a water industry that seems to be self-serving, not serving the community. In 2024, 3.6 million hours of sewage dumping took place in our lakes, rivers and seas. At the same time, Ofwat failed to enforce a single fine over a four-year period.
Water companies are getting collective bonuses worth £20 million in the last full year of data, and yet those are not rewards for success, because only 14% of our rivers are meeting a healthy standard, with more than half a million sewage spills into our waterways just last year. Bills are rising and yet, as we have heard from others, in so many cases a massive chunk of those bills—11% if people live in the United Utilities area in the north-west of England, in my constituency—is going to pay off service debt. In the Thames region, people pay more than 30% of their bill just to service the debt.
While the Government have often taken action to try to ban bonuses, the water companies shamelessly shimmy their way around that. We have heard a couple of examples today already: Southern Water’s chief executive had his pay double to £1.4 million, largely through a two-year, long-term incentive plan; and we heard the outrageous story of the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, paid £1.3 million through the company’s holding company. That is breaking the ban in spirit, and surely in reality, too—certainly in the eyes of our constituents.
In my communities of Westmorland, water matters massively. We are home to Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston, Grasmere and Rydal Water, and to many rivers, but from the Eea to the Eden, from the Crake to the Kent, last year alone we had 5,000 sewage discharge incidents and 55,000 hours of raw sewage pumped into our rivers, lakes and coastal areas. The commission has mostly been on the money, so to speak, when it has assessed the problem. This is an industry that performs appallingly on the pollution of our waterways, and it behaves appallingly in response to its own failure.
We agree with much of what is in the final report. We agree with having a single regulator, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for years. We should merge Ofwat, the regulatory parts of the Environment Agency, and others to create a powerful regulator that the water companies will actually be afraid of, and that the public respect. We would call it the clean water authority. We hope that the Government will copy our homework further.
Some failures and submissions, however, we are deeply concerned about. The Government fail to grasp that while stronger regulation is really important, ownership is also important. The failure of Thames Water, a cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) champions—as do many others—is an outrage, but it is also a massive opportunity for the Government to use the special administration regime and move that company into a mutual form of ownership, so that it is owned by its customers. That could create a new model of ownership for the whole industry—one that leverages capital investment to ensure that environmental and social concerns, and clean water, are absolutely at the pinnacle of the purpose of those companies, not rapacious profiteering.
Such a model would provide the opportunity for water campaigners and environmental groups to find their way on to those boards. In my community, there is the Save Windermere campaign, the Clean River Kent campaign, the Eden Rivers Trust and the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, but citizens, societies and volunteers across all of our constituencies would have a part to play in those new, mutually-owned water companies. That would make a difference.
The Government have made no attempt, either in the White Paper or through the report, to look at the problem with volume that we are all concerned about. We often talk about the number of hours of discharge into our lakes, rivers and seas, and that is an important measurement, but the reason we mention that and not volume is because we are not allowed to know the volume. The Liberal Democrats believe passionately that volume should also be measured, but the water companies do not want that, which is a reason to ensure that we force it to happen.
On bathing waters, the Government should have a mandate to end the sewage dumping in bathing sites by 2030, and we should be testing them throughout the year and more regularly—not just the often inaccurate snapshots that we have at the moment. On bonuses, we call for the law to be strengthened further, so that water company bosses cannot carry on dodging losing their bonuses via the back door.
The commission’s final report rightly identifies many of the problems that our constituents believe are serious and need to be addressed. However, while it contains many worthwhile proposals, such as a united regulator, it does not face up to the desperate and obvious need for a transformation of the ownership model, for deeper and stronger regulations, and for a bonus ban that actually bans bonuses.
When Water UK, the industry body that represents the water companies, comes out as it did to endorse the Government’s approach to water reform, that is all the proof we need that this Government’s approach continues to be, I am afraid, a bit wet. We need a plan for a radical transformation of the water industry, but so far, I am sad to say, this is not it.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, on my first outing on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate, and I join Members who have welcomed the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe. I thank local action groups across England that are campaigning hard and cleaning up our waterways, and the employees in our water industry working hard, day in, day out, to make a difference within the framework that they operate in.
I took note of the rivers that were mentioned during the debate: the River Lim in West Dorset, plus two chalk streams that I am afraid I missed; the Rivers Wharfe and Aire in Shipley; the River Wye in North Herefordshire; and the Rivers Ouse and Foss in York. We are all agreed that they need to be cleaned up. Ensuring that we have a plentiful supply of clean water and waterways across England matters to us all, including my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire. Like many places across England, Mid Bedfordshire is having to adapt to a growing population, dry summers and increasingly wet winters, all with ageing infrastructure.
Having grown up spending many an hour playing in my local river, a tributary of the River Test in Hampshire, I enjoyed a childhood that many simply cannot enjoy today, with the latest assessments showing that no rivers in England are in good or high overall health. Nature is also in grave danger. Freshwater habitats cover less than 1% of the earth’s surface but support more than 10% of global species. Since the 1970s, freshwater species have declined by 85%, far outpacing declines in terrestrial and marine systems.
England’s globally significant chalk streams, which make up 85% of the world’s total, are among the habitats most affected by pollution and abstraction, and I was pleased to hear many passionate advocates for our chalk streams in this debate. But what did this Government do when Opposition Members tabled amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to restore and protect those habitats? The amendments were ignored, citing care for our environment and countryside as blockers against so-called progressive builders. That all illustrates, in the first 18 months in government, a level of arrogance that will do absolutely nothing to secure our future and clean up our waterways.
The problems with the water sector have been known for a long time and are well reported. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, “Water quality in rivers” dating back to January 2022 provides a clear picture of the concerns, and the previous Government went on to help to identify the scale of the problem. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; by 2023 it was 100%. That unveiled the severity of the situation facing the water industry, with water company storm overflows spilling into England’s rivers, lakes and seas for a record 3.61 million hours in 2024—although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about us needing to understand the volume, not just the hours. There is much more to do.
The previous Government’s plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. Ministers in the previous Government also took action to ban water company bosses’ bonuses for illegal action. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review was a serious undertaking, running to 460 pages and 88 recommendations, much of which His Majesty’s official Opposition have cautiously welcomed. For example, we know that, as it stands, the regulators are not working as they should, and that creating a single joined-up regulator is a sensible recommendation. However, I am concerned at both the speed at which the Government are moving and some of the proposals in their White Paper, which may see bills rise for families. Can the Minister confirm how many of Sir Jon’s 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper?
On water bills, what assessment has the Minister made of how smart metering may impact the average family’s water bills? Secondly, after the benefits of water metering, what additional hit to disposable income does the Minister expect that increasing bills will have on families, coming, as it will, on the back of record tax rises by this Government? Thirdly, can the Minister tell us how much taxpayer and bill-payer money has been allocated to their White Paper, and over what timeframe those taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in it?
To reduce the root causes of pollution, the Government have announced that they intend to implement pre-pipe solutions—which have been discussed in this debate—but have not yet provided any examples of how those will be implemented. Can the Minister provide further details on the implementation, and particularly how it will be integrated into the planning system? The Minister knows that since being elected, I have been calling for schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be enacted, first in my Adjournment debate on flooding in Bedfordshire, and also through the Environmental Audit Committee, which recently recommended doing so. The Minister at first seemed sympathetic to the arguments, but now seems to consider that there are other ways to achieve the same outcome. Could the Minister highlight what those other ways are?
Our infrastructure is ageing and needs investment. That is abundantly clear to communities in the south-east now suffering repeated and unacceptable supply disruptions. How will the Minister make sure that the infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that those catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security?
It is important that in the efforts to reform the water sector, all stakeholders are engaged in the process. That includes farmers, and I was pleased to hear hon. Members today talk about the importance of engaging with farmers. Early last year those farmers had the rug pulled from under their feet when the Government suddenly halted applications to the sustainable farming incentive scheme. The SFI scheme rewarded farmers for adapting land management practices to reduce pollution, manage water flow and improve water quality. We are almost a year on from the closure of the SFI, and the Government—despite promising details on a new scheme last summer—only announced in January this year that a new scheme would open in June. Does the Minister not appreciate that farming is an occupation that requires long-term planning and certainty, particularly when so many other aspects, such as the weather, are left to chance?
In another potential blow to farmers, the Government have confirmed that they are considering whether environmental permitting should be extended to cattle farming, when this was not included as a direct recommendation in the independent review. As National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos said:
“Such a change would have a direct impact on farm business growth”.
The beef sector is already struggling with increasing costs and higher taxes imposed on them by the Chancellor, so how does the Minister intend to ensure that it does not face another new cost pressure? Is she engaging with it to listen to its concerns?
Many of my constituents care deeply about water quality and security. They are quite simply fed up that their water bills are increasing while water companies are failing to clear up their waterways. Given the Government’s habit of missing their own deadlines in the first 18 months of this Parliament, will the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? Will she clarify how long the transition will take? As she knows, and may well repeat to me, people voted for change and expect it, especially in our water sector. They demand that the Government move faster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate, and I am grateful to everybody who has spoken in it. I welcome the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) to his place. I enjoyed listening to his first contribution from the Front Bench.
Before I get into the debate about water, I want to say a few words about flooding. There is obviously still a major incident classification in Somerset—I am going there after this debate—and that remains a concern. There are reports of flooding to about 300 properties, mostly in Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. The Environment Agency flood defences have helped to protect about 16,200 properties from flooding, but it is still a difficult situation. There is still heavy rain across England, and it has continued in the south and south-west. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Environment Agency, the emergency services and everybody else, and I give my absolute sympathy and support to anybody impacted by the flooding.
As a trade unionist, I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). The anger that the public feel towards water companies must never be directed at the people working for those companies, who are often the ones out there fixing the broken pipes and dealing with the sewer overflow. I remain concerned by reports from the unions about how they have been treated by some. Anger at the industry should never be directed at the people working for it.
I am delighted to say that we have set out our vision for water through the White Paper, which was published last month. It outlines how we will work together with water companies, communities and the environment to transform our water sector and ensure a sustainable water system for future generations. It will drive forward the transformatory change that we need.
I pay tribute to the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on this topic. She lobbies me not only publicly, but over coffee in the Tea Room and in the corridors, too. She is genuinely committed to this, and I thank her for her work. She is right to say that we have banned £4 million of bonuses, and she spoke about the Public Accounts Committee’s report, which highlighted regulatory failure. The White Paper mentions sustainable debt and what that might mean. The regulator is bringing the economic environment together. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the need for skills; we are looking at how to appoint the people we need. She is right that statutorily those organisations need to continue to do their job and hold companies to account, but we need to create a shadow organisation working at the same time. Until we actually change the law, those organisations will still have all the powers.
I look forward to meeting the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) to talk about the River Wye. I will come on to talk a little more about the environment.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for his work on the EFRA Committee. He is right that we need more of a joined-up approach. Asset health is a massive issue, as people in Tunbridge Wells know only too well. I was shocked when I came into this role and was told that companies do not even know where some of their assets are. That is absolutely basic.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase talked about environmental pollution, which is a huge issue. On 27 January, I met members of DEFRA’s Addressing Pollution from Agriculture programme, which I have mentioned in this Chamber before. They include representatives from farming, environmental groups and water companies. My idea was to bring everybody together so that they could hear from one another—the environmentalists from the farmers, and the farmers from the water companies—on the question of how we are going to address the challenge of environmental pollution.
For some farmers, I think there is a question around education and understanding the right way to do things. I do not think they go out there to cause pollution deliberately. The question is, how do we work with them to solve this issue? On 27 January, I met them side by side with the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), to talk to them about this issue. Every four weeks until the summer, they will meet to say, “What can we do about agricultural pollution as one of the main sources of pollution?” Rather than me talking to the environmentalists and the Farming Minister talking to the farmers, we prefer the collaborative approach of having everyone talking to one another about how we solve the problem. That is the approach we have taken. When there is more to say on the outcomes of the group, I will report that back to the House.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is passionate about this issue. In fact, my very first visit as Minister was to see the River Foss barrier. I am so pleased that she mentioned the issues around chemicals and the increasing awareness of PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—what is happening with chemicals and the need to look at the thresholds for levels of chemicals in the water. I will definitely ask the University of York to send me information on its Ecomix work and its AQuA project to see how it is doing that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) brought to life horrific experiences of flooding and how devastating flooding is for people’s mental health. We need to look at what can be improved. Obviously, if there are any concerns about water companies not giving her the information on what will be improved in her area and where, I am more than willing to follow up on that.
People who know me know that I get very excited about regional planning, and this Chamber is the place to be excited about regional planning. The White Paper talks a bit about what we are going to do, but I will give Members a heads up on what I am doing tomorrow: I have the first meeting of the steering group looking at regional planning. The group comprises catchment partnerships, the Environment Agency, local authorities, Ofwat, National Highways—of course, one of the concerns with water pollution is run-off from our highways—the NFU, Wildlife and Countryside Link, water companies, the Rivers Trust, Blueprint for Water and internal drainage boards. I have probably missed one.
We are bringing everybody together to determine where around the country we will have the early roll-out of out some of these measures. We want to determine how Sir Jon Cunliffe’s regional planning model will apply to different catchments, depending on whether they are coastal and whether they include rivers, and how this will work in practice. I cannot remember which Member it was, but someone said that we do not seem to be in favour of nature-based solutions. Clearly, they have never heard me talk about my passion for nature-based solutions, because that is simply not true. The idea is that we are looking at the pre-pipe stuff—the nature-based solutions—in regional areas. In different areas around the country, those boards will have slightly different compositions, depending on the type of catchment.
Anna Dixon
Will the Minister assure the House that the regional planning for water catchments will have a strong citizen voice embedded in it, as well as drawing on evidence and expertise?
Emma Hardy
Absolutely—evidence and expertise. We are yet to work this out. As I said, the composition will depend on the catchment. In the White Paper, we referred to “community voices”, which we want to represent.
Emma Hardy
With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not believe that she was in this debate from the start.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the Minister. It is of course up to the Minister to give way to whoever she wishes to, but she is perfectly right. The hon. Member was not here for the vast majority of the debate, and it is not courteous to the House, to this Chamber or to those who have participated in the entirety of the debate for her to seek to intervene at this late stage.
Emma Hardy
I turn now to regulation and the case for establishing a new single water regulator. As mentioned, that has to go alongside continuing what we have at the moment. Fundamental reform of water regulation is required, bringing together the economic and environmental planning, and looking at a singular accountable improvement body and enabling a whole-firm view of water company performance. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), called it phase 2 or round 2 —I am not sure what the right phrase is, but we will be back with further legislation. This is absolutely what we need. We are looking at a chief engineer being embedded in the new regulator, ensuring companies focus on fixing crumbling pipes, treatment works and on engineering expertise—it is shocking that we have not had engineering expertise. We are looking at greater stability, transparency and protection for customers.
Until then, existing regulators must retain their full legal powers and responsibility. However, the Government are determined to ensure that the future regulator does not inherit the problems of the past. Leadership appointments for the new regulator, including a chair designate, will therefore be made at the earliest opportunity, and they will drive the design and direction of the new regulator to support a smooth transition. Before that, early steps are now being taken to look at joining up regulatory activity, particularly between Ofwat and the Environment Agency, until the new regulator is established.
Charlie Maynard
We have four minutes to go, including a wind-up speech. I wonder whether the Minister is going to get to my point.
Emma Hardy
I will, but I would like to say— I hope this is felt by all Members across the House—that I am extremely accessible as a Minister and always willing to meet people, so I do not like having my integrity questioned. The hon. Gentleman should know that I responded to a letter from him on that very issue on 12 January. If he has not received it, he is welcome to come and see me, but to imply that I have ignored his request is false.
Emma Hardy
Thank you. Where was I? We are putting customers first. We want to end the steep, huge hikes that we have seen in bills and make sure that that never happens again. We have introduced our customer panels. We have just seen the first of those happening in South West Water, and they are being run by the Consumer Council for Water. We are listening to customer voices and making sure that they are at the heart of water companies. We need to do more. The water ombudsman will help to restore the balance, but fundamentally, we want customers to feel that they are listened to, are at the heart of this and are important. Having the customer panels and strengthening the ombudsman will make the processes around customers’ experiences much better.
On bills, we are about to respond to our consultation on WaterSure. How do we make water more affordable for people with disabilities, with large families, and for people who have a health need and therefore need to use more water? We are doubling the social tariff support and holding companies to the commitment to end water poverty by 2030.
Water meters were mentioned, and they can help huge numbers of people save money. I encourage everybody to talk to their constituents about that. I remember speaking to an elderly lady who was on her own, and she told me that she was really worried that her bill would go up with a water meter. I said, “How many bedrooms do you have?” She said, “Three. It is a family home, but the kids have moved out.” I told her that her bill would be less if she got a water meter. The great thing about water meters is that they can not only save money, but help us think about our water use, and they can support the environment.
There is a section in the White Paper on water security—it is an important issue for us—that looks at making sure we deal with the growing demands being placed on our system. How much water do we need for the homes that we want to build and for businesses and growth? How much water do we have? How do we address the gap? There are exciting things around thinking about sustainable urban drainage, water use, building regulations and how we use grey water harvesting. All these things must inform our thinking. In fact, tomorrow I am talking to the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee about drought, and water management is one thing that is related.
This Government are committed to delivering lasting change, restoring confidence and ensuring resilient, sustainable water systems that work for customers, the environment and future generations.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call Edward Morello, who has less than one minute.
Edward Morello
Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for your excellent chairing of this debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today—too many to name in the time that I have. It is clear that everybody is echoing the same thoughts: the public anger at the dividends and bonuses, anger at the lack of investment and anger at the high water bills. Everybody has raised the ownership structure, which needs reform, and additional support for farmers. I thank the Minister for her response and for going straight from here to Somerset. I again extend an offer for her to visit West Dorset at her earliest convenience.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Independent Water Commission Final Report.
Young Children’s Screen Time
(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Luke Charters to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister; they may, of course, intervene, if either is prepared to take an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for these shorter debates.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of screen time on young children.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy; thank you for your time this morning.
I have always said that I am a dad first and an MP second. My son Robin is three; he is kind, and he is happiest when he is outside playing. I am proud of him every single day. My youngest, Louis, is seven months old, and he is already curious about the world, watching and taking everything in. When this job takes me away from them, it hurts. One thing is very clear: when I am at home, I need to be a properly present dad.
I want to be honest with the House: there were weeks when my phone told me I was spending more than six hours a day on it. Even on weekends, when family time should be protected, it was four or five hours. When kids are young, we never get that time back, and every hour counts. Smartphones, though, are a feat of human engineering and have been deliberately designed to take our attention, quiet and relentlessly. I had to make a deliberate change for my two boys: cutting my screen time down, choosing to be on the floor building Brio—even making a Duplo Parliament—rather than being half present and half scrolling. Present fatherhood starts with all of us putting the phone down.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. From the persona that he presents in the Chamber, I have no doubt that he is a good dad, and very responsive to his children. What is undoubted is that, when used correctly, digital technology has positive effects, but use near bedtime or overuse is leading teachers to highlight that pupils are coming to school “wrecked” or tired, and excessive use is linked to lower academic performance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must help parents and carers find a balance in the use of screen time? I made that very request in the press today.
Mr Charters
Parents do need a bit of support when it comes to guidance and advice around what is excessive, particularly when it comes to unsupervised screen time.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend—my actual friend—is giving a brilliant speech. I pay tribute to him: he is a brilliant advocate for our generation of parents and also a wonderful dad. Does he agree that parents today are in desperate need of such guidance? I recently met Jonathan Haidt, the author of “The Anxious Generation”, and I asked him straight out, “What do we do about screens?”. He told me that watching long-form narrative content with our children is fine, but that letting them watch short-form content by themselves is a problem. We need a kind of five-a-day public health campaign from the Government. I hope that the Minister will address that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Before the hon. Gentleman replies, the hon. Lady is perfectly right that long-form content is better in some contexts, but not here.
Mr Charters
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Briefly, my hon. Friend is a fantastic mum herself and an advocate for the great parents of Britain. Parents need advice about unsupervised screen time, particularly on smartphones, which is totally different from sitting down at a laptop doing homework. I will touch on adaptive technologies later.
Every time a child looks up and finds a parent looking down at a phone, a lesson is quietly taught about what deserves their attention. That truth was reinforced when I spoke to Zack George, known to many as Steel from “Gladiators” and now an ambassador for Smartphone Free Childhood. Zack’s message to young people is stark and powerful:
“Don’t let your phone steal your power.”
He has dedicated his life to inspiring kids and talked with thousands of schoolchildren in more than 400 school visits. Through his brand, Zactiv, he is sending a clear message to children: if you want to grow up happy and healthy, stop scrolling and keep it IRL.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to Born in Bradford, an internationally recognised research cohort study. It has just launched the “In Real Life” trial with children in Bradford aged 12 to 15 to test whether reducing their social media use will reduce anxiety and improve their sleep and their relationship with their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that such research and evidence will be essential to understanding the harmful impacts of social media on our young people?
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend for citing that study. We can draw real lessons from what is happening in Australia. Hon. Members may not be aware that some bookshops in Australia are seeing a resurgence from new young readers who are putting their phones down in favour of novels.
I have recently watched content from Dr Rangan Chatterjee, who has consistently warned about the dangers of excessive screen time, and in preparation for this speech I also gathered insights from the Youth Sport Trust and BookTrust. Each of those voices highlights similar concerns. Staying with voices from the education sector, I spoke with teacher Lee Parkinson, aka Mr P—my wife, a primary school teacher herself, can often be seen scrolling through his content on Instagram. He made a really important point that I would like all hon. Members to take away: not all screen time is created equal. Used well and supervised, technology can support learning—for a child with dyslexia, speech-to-text software can remove barriers and build confidence—but unsupervised access to personal smartphones and tablets is entirely different.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
As someone who is dyslexic and has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, I used my phone quite a lot at school. I was also bullied quite badly, and my phone was a release. Unfortunately, the Conservatives cut the youth services in Somerset that saved my life by 100%. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should invest more in youth services in rural communities to help young people to thrive?
Mr Charters
I thank the hon. Member for sharing his personal experience with us. I completely agree that young people need support in their real life, whether through youth services or physical activity.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend not just for securing this debate, but for speaking powerfully as a parent about why this is so important. We must be honest: guidance is great, but it can often miss the mark when it comes to answering the questions that parents are actually asking. I am holding a forum later in February to speak to local parents about exactly what they are looking for from the guidance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the guidance, when we deliver it, is not only evidence-based, but grounded in the questions and experiences of parents right across Britain today?
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he is doing through the Labour group for men and boys. It is refreshing that this Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, are carefully considering this with a lot of deep thought. The consultation will not look just for one silver bullet; it will look at a variety of options.
Children are spending hours a day on platforms designed to maximise engagement and deliver constant dopamine hits through short-form video content and infinite scroll loops. The evidence increasingly shows that that is affecting attention, behaviour in schools, sleep and emotional regulation.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am at the other end of my parenting journey—my little girl is 24 today. She is a paediatric nurse and has drawn my attention to the “Cocomelon” channel on YouTube, which is a sensory overload. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not just the length of time, but the content—and sometimes the garish audio and colour of that content?
Mr Charters
I wish my hon. Friend’s daughter a happy birthday and thank her for the work she is doing as a paediatric nurse. “Cocomelon” has been described as “visual fentanyl” for young children. What is much more appropriate, particularly at a younger age, is more hand-drawn types of content, like “Peppa Pig”. Perhaps we all ought to go for a bit more Peppa and a bit less JJ.
You need not take my word for it, Sir Jeremy: research published by the Department for Education showed that nearly 98% of children under the age of two engage with screens every day. A University College London study in 2026 has found that toddlers now average about two hours of screen time daily—far more than my little lad is allowed. Analysis from the Centre for Social Justice estimates that, very sadly, nearly 800,000 under-fives are now using social media. Ofcom data from 2024 reveals that one third of five to seven-year-olds are using social media without any supervision. That scares the living daylights out of me as a parent.
Such data is stark, but it is just part of the story. Somewhat ironically, I turned to social media to ask my constituents about their own experiences with their young children, and they expressed concern about more than the quantity of screen time that children have. Parents responded that they were even more worried about the type of content to which children are exposed. One teacher shared with me feedback from NASUWT’s “Better Deal on Behaviour” report, with a year 1 teacher describing how children were beginning to mimic inappropriate behaviour that they had seen online, despite being far too young to understand it. Another raised the idea of digital diets. They made the point that screen time can range from something as harmless as using Google Maps to find the local library, to accessing inappropriate material. To go back to the words of Mr P, not all screen time is created equal.
On this point, it feels timely to mention that I am pleased the Government have this week launched a new campaign, “You Won’t Know until You Ask”, to address harmful content. That follows the finding from YouGov that half of British parents admit to never speaking to their children about toxic content. Encouraging parents to sit down with their children and talk about online harms helps to break down barriers. It is a healthy step in the right direction.
Lola McEvoy
As I said, my hon. Friend is giving a brilliant speech. Does he share my concern that relying solely on parental intervention in relation to this huge swathe of technological advances is not enough? We do not want children to start hiding things from their parents; we want to ensure that they are not exposed to it in the first place.
Mr Charters
I think, particularly when it comes to things like YouTube shorts, that Members of this House would never want to see a ban on YouTube, but when it comes to the user experience on those platforms, there should be things like firebreaks or rest breaks—akin to when we drive—to try to give children a pause so that they do not end up in an infinite scroll loop.
Actually, I think we should view screen time as a public health issue, not just a parenting dilemma. Health visitors meet parents at a very early stage in a child’s life. I think they should be able to talk explicitly about screen time to parents from the very start. Early guidance at that point is critical, as habits form early. As children grow older, they absorb the behaviours they see all around them, and if adults are constantly on their phones, children will almost absorb that by osmosis. The more parents are aware of that from the start, the better the outcomes can be.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving a brilliant speech, and I am so pleased that he opened his remarks with, and spoke again just now about, the role of parents and parents’ use of mobile phones. I have recently met paediatricians, GPs and headteachers, who all say that they are observing bad use of phones in parents, which then impacts the children. Does the hon. Member agree that it has a detrimental consequence for children when parents are on screens too much?
Mr Charters
I thank the hon. Member for making that eloquent point. I would say that we should learn the lessons from Australia. Back in 2015, it established the eSafety Commissioner, whose work on screen time was all about linking parents and children together as part of a collective dialogue. I think we must keep young people safe by looking at age-appropriate digital spaces. So often the debate is focused on banning social media, but we would never talk about banning young people from driving; we talk about an age-appropriate limit, so that they can start driving at the age of 17.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic speech so far. He has talked about banning social media, and I completely agree with him. Does he agree with me that we are seeing a correlation between excessive screen time and poor mental health, and that social media companies need to be more accountable for what they are allowing the next generation to see, because there are some horrific things out there on social media?
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. I have spoken openly in this House about my own mental health struggles in the past. When it comes to AI tools in particular, we must ensure that they point people to the right and proper advice that is specific to the UK and the NHS, and to charities such as Samaritans.
I also believe that schools should be transparent with parents about the nature of screen use in the classroom. It is a welcome move that, thanks to the Government, Ofsted will check schools’ mobile phone policies during every inspection, with schools expected to be phone-free by default. Many schools already have thoughtful policies on tablet and laptop use, too. Although technology can absolutely be a force for good, transparency is essential so that parents can be clear about how screens are being used in school and can reinforce consistent habits at home. We cannot have a situation where the approach to screens at school is different from at home. When schools and families are aligned, children will develop clearer boundaries and healthier habits online.
The reality is that we cannot simply say, “Less smartphone screen time” and leave it at that; we also have to create positive and fulfilling alternatives. My son Robin loves charging through what we call the swamp on his balance bike, usually straight through the muddiest bit and always at maximum speed. As a parent, those magical moments with muddy knees, fresh air and real laughter are more precious than an hour in front of the telly.
We should all make better use of the things that are set by schools and already out there. Events such as sports days and World Book Days are perfect opportunities to get kids outdoors, active and reading together. That all fits with the sentiment of Zack George, aka Steel, that I referred to earlier: the less time scrolling and more time socialising, the better. In Australia, as I touched on earlier, bookshops are welcoming more young readers, libraries are seeing a renewed interest and community sports clubs are attracting younger members in record numbers. These are the positive alternatives that we must build.
Of course, none of this is as simple or straightforward as it might seem, but I am very glad that we are having a conversation about it. I like to think of myself as one of the most pro-tech MPs in this place, given my previous career. However, as the youngest parent in Parliament and a proud dad, I believe that we owe it to families to take the more harmful types of screen time seriously. After all, childhood only happens once, and if we are honest with ourselves, too much of it is now unfolding behind a screen.
At the heart of the issue is balance, because not all screen time is created equal. There is nothing wrong with children using BBC Bitesize on an iPad, learning a language on Duolingo, or even watching an episode of “Bluey”, which, as some Members will know, has an incredibly catchy theme tune. There is, of course, a balance to be struck—and if we are honest, this epidemic is affecting not just children, but adults.
To conclude, I am deeply concerned about children becoming trapped in a system that they did not design. Children did not build this digital world—it was created by forces far beyond their control—yet they are being drawn deliberately and persistently into addictive digital environments long before they have the tools to recognise or resist them. If we fail to act, it will be children who live with the consequences, not those who designed the system.
Yesterday, I met the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to talk about the Government’s forthcoming consultation. I really welcomed her saying that many of the issues I have raised today, regarding how we prevent excessive and unsupervised screen time harming young children, will be considered. I know that she cares deeply about this matter and is considering it carefully. I thank hon. Members for joining this debate today and I hope that their points will also be considered in the consultation.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his really powerful and heartfelt speech.
So much of what my hon. Friend set out today really resonated with me as the mum of a two-year-old. It can be a struggle to stay off the phone, and I would not really like to consider my own screen time, so it was brave of him to do so. He also spoke about the need to be present, the importance of messy outdoor play and the need for children to have protected childhoods, as well as how difficult it is to navigate this whole new world and, as a parent, to find the best advice and the right thing to do for our children. That is why debates such as this are so important, and why his leadership as a parent in this place is so critical. As he said, we want to harness the benefits of technology for education, but we want to protect children from harm.
Before I go into questions on screen time, I want to reflect on what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said about opportunities in childhood—the need to have good youth services and opportunities for children to play, to be in sports activities and to perform. That is why, as the Minister for School Standards, I am focused on the enrichment opportunities around school, such as outdoor learning, music performance, the opportunity to be in a sports team—those are the things that give joy to the school experience and to young people’s childhoods.
Anna Dixon
I am sure that the Minister is aware that it is the National Year of Reading. On the wider opportunities to get our kids off their screens, would she commend the work of the National Literacy Trust in trying to restore the joy of reading, and perhaps share her favourite childhood book with us? Mine was “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”.
Georgia Gould
My next sentence was going to be about the National Year of Reading. I have been travelling around the country visiting schools and it has been wonderful to see how they are embracing it. I have been hearing about schools putting on pyjama parties for parents and children to read together, and I have been at schools when parents have come in to read with children. That brings the joy of reading to life, and I hope that we will see a similar experience to Australia with bookshops full of children embracing reading. At the moment, my son is obsessed with the “Mog” series, so all we do in my house is talk about Mog.
I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer raised about the impact of screen time on young children. Early childhood is developmentally critical and screen time can displace healthy behaviours such as physical activity and adequate sleep, which have complex interactions with mental health and wellbeing.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I recently did a survey with local schools. Perhaps the children were more willing to put on the survey how much screen time they had when they were not supervised by their parents, but I was enthused about the things that they said they would do if they were not on social media, including spending far more time outdoors and reading, as has already been mentioned. Does the Minister agree that we need evidence, so we are not doing just what is simple but what is right?
Georgia Gould
Absolutely. Evidence is so important because this is a struggle. It is not about judging parents, but about giving them the best evidence and the tools that they need to make decisions to support their children.
Adam Dance
I thank the Minister, as always, for replying to me. Only 18% of dyslexics have access to assistive technology. I know that she is passionate about getting that changed, so are we on the right road to get more assistive technology into our education system for dyslexics?
Georgia Gould
Absolutely. We are really committed to supporting assistive technology. We have introduced new lending libraries, as the hon. Member is aware, and we recently announced a £200 million investment into teacher training. As part of that training, we want to look at how we can best use assistive technology in the classroom, as well as what we are doing around edtech and how we are growing its use in the classroom. That shows that technology can be helpful when it is supporting learning, and it is important to take a nuanced approach.
From recent Government research, we know that the children with the highest screen use—of around five hours daily—at age two can say significantly fewer words than those with lower use. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer referred to research that said that 98% of two-year-olds watch a screen daily. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) set out, it is critical that parents have the right information to be able to support their children.
That is why we announced in January the first ever Government guidance for parents on screen use for under-fives, which aims to provide practical, non-judgmental advice to help parents balance screen use with activities that support children’s development such as playing, speaking and reading. Parents want that guidance. Parents in this Chamber want it, and polling from Kindred shows that 40% of parents say that reducing screen time would help ensure their child is ready for reception, underlining the demand for practical, trusted guidance in the early years.
I, therefore, recognise the significance of the issue and the responsibility to get it right. For that reason, we have set up the early years screen time advisory group, a new expert panel chaired by Professor Russell Viner—former chief scientific adviser to the Department for Education, leading paediatrician and expert in children’s health—and Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner for England.
The early years screen time advisory group will review the current evidence and existing advice on early years screen use to help inform the new guidance for parents. That group is holding its second meeting as we speak, which shows the urgency and seriousness with which the work is being taken forward. We want to hear directly from those with relevant knowledge and experience. We launched a two-week call for evidence on 2 February to ensure that the guidance is firmly grounded in evidence and expertise. I encourage hon. Members to share their evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned work being done in Bradford, which I encourage her to share.
Lola McEvoy
The Minister is giving a brilliant speech to sum up this important debate. Will the work she mentions consider the link between the need for more speech and language therapy for early years and screen time pre-school?
Georgia Gould
We want to look at the evidence, including any impact on speech and language. We are seeing a far greater need for speech and language support, which is why we are investing in new early years support around speech and language. That is surely one of the areas that the evidence will address.
Engagement sessions with parents, children, early years practitioners and stakeholders are taking place across England, allowing them to share what works in real family life, and what support they need from guidance. The guidance will be published in April and made available to parents through the Best Start in Life website, giving the clarity and support they are asking for to navigate screen time with their youngest children.
More broadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) raised the issue of protecting children from harmful content. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires providers specifically to consider, as part of their risk assessment, how algorithms could impact children’s exposure to illegal content and content that is harmful to children on their service. Services that are assessed as easily accessed by children must put in place measures to prevent algorithms from pushing harmful content to children.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, there is a wider consultation—a national conversation—that will look at some of the broader issues. The Department for Education is committed to strengthening the evidence base on the impact of screen use and screen time on child development. Our set of longitudinal studies already gathers data on children’s screen and social media use, and will interrogate their relationship with mental health and cognitive development. We are funding a programme of research to better understand the impact of digital technologies on children.
We are in strong agreement with the overwhelming message from today: we cannot wait to act in this space. We have to look to protect and enhance our children’s lives online. It is right to continue to look at further action that could be taken, so I welcome today’s important debate. We will set out guidance, but it is important to have the national conversation, without blaming parents, to make sure that they have the information they need. When they want to get out and enjoy time with their children, we should provide the right activities and support to enable them to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding
(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for local authorities in inner London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison. My constituency includes part of the London borough of Lambeth and part of the London borough of Southwark. Before I was elected to this House, I spent five years as a local ward councillor in Southwark. I just managed not to overlap with the Minister, who was also a councillor on Southwark council and stepped down in 2010 as I was being elected.
Being a councillor is deeply rewarding, with a responsibility for delivering services in a way that makes a direct difference to people’s daily lives. From recycling to street cleaning, adult services, children’s social care, roads, parks, playgrounds and council housing, our councils are responsible for important aspects of the fabric of everyday life. They affect people’s quality of life and, in doing so, play a vital role in building trust and confidence in politics, the Government and public services.
I am proud that, as a councillor, I helped turn around a local primary school in a deprived area of my ward from being one of the worst in the borough to one of the best. I am proud that we delivered road safety improvements at a number of dangerous junctions in the ward. I am proud of the work that we did through tenants and residents associations and local community organisations to bring people together and build community. I am also proud that, despite more than a decade of Conservative and Lib Dem austerity, Southwark continued to keep the borough clean and open new libraries. It was one of the first councils to fund universal free school meals for primary-age children and it is a borough of sanctuary that supports the refugees and asylum seekers who are part of our diverse community.
I remember very clearly the Labour group meeting in 2010 in which we were briefed on the coalition Government’s local government funding settlement for Southwark. There was a stony silence in the room as the newly elected cabinet member for finance told us how big the cuts were and the services and investment that the council would no longer be able to deliver as a result.
We had no idea how much worse the cuts would get over the coming years such that, a decade on from the 2010 election, our councils were receiving 60% less in grant funding from central Government, and the capital grant for new council homes had been decimated. That marked a huge shift in local authority funding away from the certainty of grant funding and towards retained business rates, the new homes bonus and endless small, short-term pots of funding, often requiring resourcing for a bidding process.
At the same time, our councils saw rising need. Our ageing population has meant an increasing need for adult social care, and the erosion of support for families has resulted in more children being taken into care and the cost of expensive placements increasing. The rising numbers of children with special educational needs and disabilities has increased the costs of school placements and home-to-school transport.
That is all before we get to housing. Inner-London boroughs are at the epicentre of our national housing crisis. Spiralling rents and a lack of security in the private rented sector mean that more and more families have turned to their council for support with housing, while the lack of investment in new social housing and the loss of council homes under the right to buy has meant that they have had to be housed in temporary accommodation, which is very expensive and often the worst-quality accommodation. London councils are currently spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation—that is £5 million a day into the pockets of some of the worst landlords, and at times paying for damp, mouldy, overcrowded homes, often far from a family’s home, neighbourhood, community and their children’s school.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I always try to be helpful to the hon. Lady and all hon. Members. We have many brownfield sites in my constituency and there are many in London where the hon. Lady refers to there being a housing crisis. Does she feel that there should be a focus on trying to use those sites for social housing and improve the housing problems that London clearly has?
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come on to talk about those sites in my constituency that have planning permission but currently are not funded to build the social homes that could be on those sites. I think that is an important part of how we solve these challenges.
The Conservatives’ interventions to reduce social housing rents have also been disastrous for the ability of our councils to fund the maintenance of social housing and to fund new social homes. Southwark council calculated that Conservative-imposed rent cuts and freezes will cost the council’s housing revenue account £1 billion over 30 years. What is a very small saving for tenants has had a really big impact on the ability of councils to keep up with the maintenance needs of their social housing stock.
The Conservatives were happy to cut our councils’ budgets to the core and did not worry about the erosion of services that inevitably followed. Reform imagined that our councils were full of waste and profligacy, only to find that they are lean organisations that have constantly innovated in the face of austerity but that, over time, have become stretched, sometimes to breaking point.
A budget settlement based on a definition of deprivation that did not include housing costs, as was originally proposed, would have had absolutely dire consequences for inner-London councils. The reality is this: if rent eats up so much of someone’s income every month that they cannot afford the bare essentials, or if the only property they can afford to rent is so bad that it causes them and their family to become ill, then they are deprived and they face exactly the same consequences of that deprivation as anyone else anywhere in the country who simply does not have enough money to get by.
Helen Hayes
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for making such an impassioned and powerful speech. I declare an interest in that my constituency also covers both Lambeth and Southwark. She is talking about housing costs, which we know are so expensive in London. We have seen housing costs rise over 15 years, pushing more people into homelessness and temporary accommodation. Does she agree that the Government should look at the subsidy paid for temporary accommodation, which has been frozen since 2011? In real terms, rents have continued to go up in our constituencies.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The maths on temporary accommodation costs simply does not add up at the moment. I have more to say on that a bit later in my speech.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for her important speech today. Brent council, which covers my constituency, spends £100,000 a day on temporary housing. We have around 40,000 people on the housing waiting list. It is impossible to match that need, but it is also important to understand that councils, as my hon. Friend has said, are trying to innovate. Housing costs in inner London need to be taken into consideration with any calculations.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend makes the point very well. It is the reality of people’s lives. People come to all of us who represent constituencies at the heart of the housing crisis in the most desperate of circumstances—in circumstances that everybody would agree are completely unacceptable—and there is no relief for them, because the options that are on the table are simply unaffordable, and what is affordable is unacceptable.
I am grateful to the Government for listening and for changing the deprivation criteria to include housing costs. I also completely recognise the very deep poverty and deprivation that affect other parts of the country. I grew up in the north-west and before I was elected to Parliament, I worked with communities all over the country. This should be about not pitting different areas of our country against each other, but resourcing and empowering local authorities right across our country to meet the needs of their communities. Some of those needs are universal, and some are specific.
While I welcome the changes made to the formulae in recent weeks, inner-London councils will still remain in a very difficult financial situation as a consequence of the settlement that was finalised yesterday.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I welcome the tone of the hon. Member’s comment at the end there. I will use the examples of Lambeth and Southwark. When we pull out the contributions from council tax and look only at the money that is coming from central Government, over the next three years, Lambeth residents will have £75 per capita removed from their support from central Government, and Southwark residents will have £75 per resident removed. Does she agree that that is not good enough from a Labour Government?
Helen Hayes
There are different ways of looking at the analysis and I am sure that the Minister will speak in detail on the way that the Government have apportioned funding based on the formula. The reality of the settlement as finalised yesterday is undoubtedly that our councils are in a very stretching situation indeed, and that could lead to difficult situations ahead. One of the areas where the Government could really help our councils is by looking at the costs that they have to bear as well as the resources that they have to meet those costs. I will come on to make some of those points in a moment.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Lambeth is making an excellent speech. The arbitrary cap, which I believe was initially created in the fair funding review, created the unintended consequence of leaving Lambeth missing out on the funding that it would have otherwise received. That means that Lambeth has lost out on £47.5 million over three years. As she knows, that money is urgently needed to protect our local services. Although, like me, I am sure that she welcomes the uplift to the recovery grant that was announced yesterday, does she agree that it is not enough to meet the needs of our constituents and our local authority with its ever-growing costs?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend makes the point about the recovery grant very well. I will come on to some practical suggestions for what the Government could do to alleviate that situation in the short term.
Council tax equalisation, such that the grant is now based on each area’s share of the national tax base and not actual local tax levels, penalises low tax base, high-needs areas like Lambeth and Southwark. The business rates reset will wipe out historical strong growth in some inner-London boroughs, and falling numbers of children will also have an impact through the children’s formula, even though need is growing and increasingly complex.
The risk is that our councils are left in an increasingly precarious situation and are forced to make impossibly hard choices about local services in the face of increasing need. Having agreed the final funding settlement—it is welcome that it is for three years, which gives our councils more certainty—there is more for the Government to do to help councils bring down their costs and reduce need, so that service delivery is manageable within the resources that are available.
On behalf of my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, I have a number of asks of the Minister. Our councils desperately need help with the costs of temporary accommodation. The average cost of temporary accommodation in London has risen by 75% over the last five years, and the number of people seeking help with their housing has also increased dramatically, yet the amount that the Government pay councils to subsidise temporary accommodation has been frozen since 2011. Will the Government work towards increasing the subsidy so that it is closer to the actual housing costs that our councils face?
Temporary accommodation is the least stable form of housing and it has terrible consequences for residents. I have known many constituents to get up at 5 am to travel long distances by bus to keep their children in the same school and give them some stability. Those costs could be saved if more residents could afford to rent privately, yet the freezing of the local housing allowance has made that increasingly impossible. Will the Minister work with her counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to increase the rate of local housing allowance to stop private renters from needing temporary accommodation? Some of the £5 million that is spent every day by London local authorities on temporary accommodation would be much better deployed keeping residents in stable homes through the local housing allowance than propping up the most awful situations in temporary accommodation.
With the application of the £35 million cap, councils in receipt of the recovery grant currently face a cliff edge. For Lambeth council that will mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, a loss of £47.5 million over the next three years. If the cap was removed for just next year, it would give the council an additional £11 million to reduce the savings that it is currently having to plan for. Will the Minister consider that?
Councils have expressed concern to me about the Government’s assumptions about the level of council tax receipts. Will the Minister work with councils to ensure that the assumed level of council tax receipts closely matches actual council tax collections? The social housing crisis requires that new social homes are delivered at pace. In my constituency, we have council and housing association-owned sites with planning permission that are not currently being delivered because the soaring inflation caused by the Liz Truss mini-budget priced them out of viability.
The Government’s commitment to invest £39 billion in social housing is very welcome, but will the Minister ensure some of that funding is urgently made available to London boroughs that have sites that are ready to build? We urgently need that.
The overnight accommodation levy is very good news for London but it must be apportioned to where it is most needed. Will the Government mandate that at least 50% of the funds raised by the levy are retained locally by London boroughs to cover the costs incurred by services affected by tourism and to support local growth?
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Government are looking at how the overnight stay levy might be used, and there is some really welcome potential, for example where major events in London happen in one local authority but impact many. I completely agree with my hon. Friend on the 50:50 split. Does she agree that that could help to smooth out some of the longer-term funding issues coming out of the settlement, by providing additional capital that councils could use, for example, on public realm and public safety works?
Helen Hayes
I agree completely. The levy is a really important source of additional revenue into London, and it is so important that it is spent where it is needed. That does mean allowing councils to retain some of the receipts—I would say 50%, as London Councils is calling for—in order for them to do exactly that.
Exceptional financial support was designed to be a temporary intervention to support councils with acute financial pressures, but the consequence has been a growing number of councils running structural deficits. Will the Minister set out in greater detail how the Government intend to support councils to exit EFS so they are not held back by growing deficits?
Finally, the announcement yesterday on SEND deficits is very welcome. It is a clear recognition that the current costs of SEND provision are totally unsustainable. Writing off 90% of SEND deficits will only help if the forthcoming SEND reforms are properly funded and designed such that they are financially sustainable. What is the Minister doing with the Department for Education and the Treasury to make sure that councils’ statutory SEND responsibilities are properly funded when the schools White Paper is published?
Our councils and councillors are a crucial part of the bond of trust between local residents and the politicians and governments that serve them. We cannot leave our councils in the position in which the Conservatives were happy to leave them, with no answer to the needs of their local populations because they do not have the resources to deliver. Our local residents need and deserve clean streets, well-kept parks and open spaces, good-quality road services, good adult social care and effective children’s services, good-quality homes in the social rented sector, and proper support for children with SEND. They deserve nothing less, so that they can trust that government is there to deliver for them. We owe it to our dedicated, hard-working colleagues in local government to support them.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate.
Let me start by expressing my agreement with colleagues from outer London. Local authorities are in a perilous position, and have been for some time, due to Governments of all stripes. As a former council deputy leader and cabinet member for children’s services, I really do understand. I also believe that Members from inner London will benefit from an enhanced appreciation of the specific struggles those of us in outer London face.
I want especially to raise the devastating impact of unfair funding on my borough of Bromley. Bromley has the third lowest settlement funding per head among London boroughs. As a result of the Government’s provisional settlement, Bromley will see funding reductions of £6.5 million in 2026-27, rising to £22.2 million per annum by 2028-29. That equates to over £30 million per year in real-terms funding reductions by 2028-29. If the Government’s funding were fair, Bromley would instead be receiving a funding increase. Indeed, if Bromley received the average London core grant funding in 2026-27, it would gain about £112 million extra—an enormous figure.
Any cuts to our funding are felt more keenly than by other councils, too. Bromley maintains the lowest net expenditure per head in London while delivering efficient services for its residents, limiting our ability to realise significant savings compared with other, high-cost authorities. Effectively, the Government are punishing Bromley for being an efficient, well-run council, while Government after Government bail out failing councils. Bromley deserves better.
Bromley is no stranger to being targeted. The mayor’s precept currently stands at just over £490 for a band D property—a more than 77% increase since Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Before anybody highlights inflation, a rise in line with inflation would have brought the precept to just over £380, an increase of 39% rather than the 77% that has been inflicted on us.
What do people in the inner-London boroughs get? A regular and extensive bus service and a tube network to their doorstep. What do the people of Bromley get? Poor transport infrastructure and a mayor who keeps coming back to siphon more and more money from our borough, close our 24-hour police desk and fleece motorists with increased congestion charges and an expanded ultra low emission zone charge. Outer London is subsidising inner London’s transport network, while Bromley is served by only two direct bus routes into central London, both of which only run after midnight.
If we are going to have to continue to pay into the mayor’s coffers, will he or she at least ensure that the Superloop is extended a mere 2 miles to run from Bromley North via Plaistow Green, and can we please keep our 24-hour police desk? The situation in which Bromley and the rest of outer London is simply ignored by the Government and this mayor cannot continue. We deserve fairer funding. Bromley council wants to work with the Government, but the Government need to listen so that we see a truly fair and sustainable settlement that does not punish boroughs like Bromley.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this important debate at an opportune time.
“The streets of London are paved with gold”—or so the saying from the tale of Dick Whittington goes. But of course the point of that saying was to remind us that he did not, in fact, encounter riches and utopia when he got to London. That has been inner London’s story for centuries: portrayed as pampered by the rest of the nation while its people grapple with some of the biggest challenges imaginable.
I am a proud Londoner, I am an MP and a still councillor in London, I am my party’s spokesperson for London, and I know vividly how drastic the challenge is across London. I have knocked on doors across the city and heard directly from residents about their challenges, their fury at the last Conservative Government and now their disappointment with the Labour Government. London is a city where 2.3 million people—that is twice the population of Birmingham, and one in four people in the city—live in poverty. According to data from the Trust for London, that figure rises to 38% for non-white households and 53% for single-parent households. It is a city where SEND deficits and adult social care deficits have thrown council finances into uncertainty for more than a decade. It is a city where, perhaps most shockingly of all, a teacher in every school can walk into their classroom in the morning knowing that, on average, at least one of their pupils at any given time is likely to be living in temporary accommodation.
Year after year councils in London have been asked to do more with less. Reform of the system is long overdue, with the current formula not having been properly updated in more than a decade—not to mention the fundamental unfairness of the council tax system to raise money for local services. We were told by the Government that there would not be a return to austerity on their watch. It was a claim that most of us could believe, not just because they are a Labour Government with a social democratic tradition, but because they are a Government full of former councillors and council leaders who have seen at first hand that the reality of austerity is often most severe in local government. It is therefore outrageous that they have presented a funding review that simply doubles down on the disastrous cuts.
Over the next three years, per capita funding, when council tax contributions are removed, will reduce by £109 in Camden, by £79 in Lambeth, by £75 in Southwark, by £37 in Lewisham, by £180 in Wandsworth, by £54 in Greenwich, by £220 in Hammersmith and Fulham, by £86 in Islington, and by £247 in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea. What is that if not Labour austerity?
The current formula makes use of the index of multiple deprivation as the central measure of poverty but, as has been said many times, the IMD as currently designed does not properly reflect housing costs, housing poverty and what it means to be poor in a city where rent alone can swallow well over a half of a working person’s income. If we build a funding formula that ignores housing costs, we build one that blatantly ignores inner London.
I am an engineer and know bad maths when I see it, and the proof that the Government’s latest announcements, published just this week, are smoke and mirrors is right there in the forecasted effects. Two thirds of the purported increase in total funding in London comes from the assumed council tax increases. When we account for that fact, we see that over the three-year settlement period, only two of the 12 inner-London boroughs—Hackney and Tower Hamlets—receive a real-terms funding increase per capita from the Government. Government Members like to talk about the austerity during the coalition period, but perhaps they would like to reflect on those figures for per-capita funding when council tax contributions are removed, which are a result of this Labour Government, and the effect on their inner-London residents.
I have lots of data, which I am sure the Government know to be true, but a person does not have to be expert to know that the Government’s numbers do not add up—they just have to walk a few miles away from this place. I thought Labour Members were supposed to be in tune with and sensitive to inequality, yet here we are in a palace that is increasingly a boundary to their views while just a few minutes away, in Lambeth, Southwark, north Kensington and Chelsea Riverside, people are suffering because their councils are choked of the funds that they need to protect them. The support that this Government promised to deliver never materialised. Those working people have already been hit by inflation, the cost of living and rising transport fares. They now face not just lesser services but the prospect of huge council tax hikes because of this mess, which Labour might not have made but is doubling down on.
Londoners are sick of being utterly let down while being told that they have never had it so good, or that they have a Government and a mayor who are on their side. I do not doubt that Labour Members’ intentions are good, that they got into politics for the right reasons, or that they have had incredible achievements as councillors—I am proud to have done that myself—but I sincerely ask them to please get their house in order and provide what London needs. With the devil in the detail of their unfair funding review, they are proposing the exact opposite. They have just a couple of months to get their act together before the local elections, but I suspect that for most Londoners the die is already cast against Labour because of its lack of care.
This is not a sustainable foundation for any public service system. It is not fair funding; it is the accelerated starvation of a vital part of the public realm, masked by cosmetic changes. The Minister has heard it from around the Chamber; it is not just me ploughing a single furrow. If the Government are casting about trying to understand why people are not warming to their efforts—perhaps more so this week than ever before—they should remember that although they can mask an unfair funding formula under snappy headlines and public relations gloss, they cannot make it function as a good policy just by wishing it so. That is government by magical thinking.
I am racking my brain trying to imagine why Members on the Government Benches cannot see the wood for the trees on this topic. I can only guess that they simply do not grasp the true value of well-funded, well-functioning and truly independent local government. I know that that is not true for some of the Members in this Chamber, who have come from local councils in inner and outer London. However, they are unwilling to challenge the dangerous idea that local government is a derivative of central Government, and the fact that the mayor’s powers are being used as a convenient shield by a Labour Government who are quietly keeping London in their back pocket for whenever they need someone else to carry the pain—because that is what the fairer funding review amounts to. It is hard to see it as anything other than a plan for managed decline of our cities, with inner-London boroughs first in the firing line.
This can only be justified by misunderstanding the aphorism that I began with and not grasping that London’s streets are considered to be paved with gold only when it suits those who wish to ignore its many challenges. I invite the Minister to explain more clearly how a reduction in per-capita funding over the next three years for residents in 10 of the 12 inner-London boroughs that are the subject of this debate will result in better services for those residents.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a parliamentary vice-president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I would like to thank those organisations for the excellent research that they have supplied to Members to help us prepare for today’s debate.
While I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate, listening to her story of being a councillor—one that is reflected, I think, by a good number of Members who were present this afternoon—made me think about where it sits in the context of what is happening with the local government funding formula overall and the particular impact that it is having on our inner-London boroughs.
We know that London’s funding formula has always, to an extent, created a city of two halves. There are the inner-London boroughs, with a relatively generous settlement from that funding formula and, historically, generally lower council taxes. Then there is a doughnut of outer-London boroughs, in which my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) are found, with a funding level broadly in line with the surrounding county and district authorities.
For a long time, it has been a source of concern among London authorities that there needs to be some levelling out to ensure consistency across council tax and funding. To address the longer-term funding issues, however, the Government clearly need to address the nature, scope and purpose of many of the statutory duties that exist across all those authorities, in order to enable us all to live within our means and to set levels of taxation that are reasonable for our constituents to pay.
Sadly, we are not seeing that happening. Instead, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) described, we have a Government who came to office saying that they were the cavalry coming over the hill, and that they could be trusted to inject additional resources into inner London, outer London and other parts of the country that were concerned about funding. In their first Budget, however, local government was left £1.5 billion net worse off through the jobs tax—the national insurance rise—alone.
The consistent feedback from councillors across London is that they feel a sense of shock and surprise at just how fast things have got so much worse. There are also particular significant dynamics in inner London. As several hon. Members have said, in the local government finance settlement, more than two thirds of the additional resources announced by the Government would come from the maximum possible council tax rise being imposed across the board. That is not additional Government funding, it is simply councils being required, as a minimum, to use their maximum possible tax-raising powers on the household budgets of all their local residents.
We also see the impacts of exceptional financial support, a policy that has existed under Governments of all stripes under different names for a long time. It is essentially a measure to allow a council to borrow to get it through temporary financial difficulties. It is a way of avoiding the issuance of a section 114 notice, which is the equivalent of a bankruptcy notice, by the statutory finance officers in that local authority. On an almost weekly basis, this Government make written ministerial statements on local government best value interventions, and on agreeing exceptional financial support to the extent that it is no longer exceptional. It is clearly simply a method of sustaining local authorities to avoid bad headlines, rather than addressing the nature, scope and purpose of statutory duties, which need to be addressed to get budgets back into balance.
Acute pressure has been created by an explosion in rough sleeping and homelessness in inner London since this Government took office. We need to be clear: London has always had a challenge around rough sleeping. Although my constituency does not cover Heathrow, it is a significant factor in my local authority’s activities. The number of people who find their way to an airport that is open 24/7, with showers, toilets and security, means that there are a disproportionately large number of rough sleepers in my local authority’s area.
As we heard, there has been a 27% increase in street homelessness since this Government took office. That contributes to the sharply rising pressure on temporary accommodation that London Councils, on behalf of the capital’s local authorities, has highlighted as the biggest single factor driving inner-London councils to seek exceptional financial support and to look at significant reductions across the capital in the services that our constituents expect local authorities to provide, such as libraries, parks and clean streets. At the same time, according to a recent report by Savills, two thirds of London boroughs report reaching net zero: not net zero in the traditional sense of an environmental target, but net zero new housing starts. In two thirds of our capital’s boroughs, no new homes are being added to the housing stock at a time when the Government have an increasingly unattainable target of 1.5 million new homes. To hear hon. Members from throughout the Chamber talk about the acute pressure from housing need, at a time when housing delivery in the capital has absolutely collapsed, demonstrates that things are not going in the right direction.
We are due to consider the local government finance settlement in the main Chamber tomorrow. More two thirds of local authorities have reported, having crunched the numbers on that funding formula, that they will be left worse off under it. Two thirds of councils in the country are worse off under the funding settlement being introduced by this Labour Government.
There is another significant factor. This week we heard that the SEND White Paper is to be delayed further. It will address the significant long-term structural and demographic concern driven by the increasing numbers of children with more acute needs for whom local authorities have a statutory duty—another duty over which they have no discretion. Although the statutory accounting override—to which Ministers have referred in the past—goes some way to avoiding that becoming an acute problem, we see acute pressure building up across the country, not just in inner London.
All that amounts to a situation where residents in inner London face extraordinarily significant increases in their taxes. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has reported potential increases of council tax of up to £500 a year. Earlier, I met with one of the Conservative councillors from the London borough of Barnet, traditionally one of the less affected outer London boroughs, who reported that a £200 million funding gap is opening up as a result of the changes that this Government are making. Even for those of us in outer London boroughs, where council tax rates are broadly similar to those in the surrounding county and district areas, the combination of the rises in the mayoral precept, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and those acute pressures, mean that in many cases council tax will already be at or well in excess of the £2,000 benchmark that Ministers have set out for council tax across the country.
In conclusion, we see a consistent message from across the sector. The leaders of inner-London boroughs—Labour and Conservative—talk of acute pressures getting much worse much faster than they had expected, and shortfalls in this funding settlement so excessive that no level of cuts could lead to boroughs achieving them and meeting their statutory duties. When she speaks on the local government finance settlement tomorrow, will the Minister announce a more fundamental rethink? Local authorities have a huge range of statutory duties, with more than 800 different services delivered by a typical local authority. The rise in national insurance alone has significantly driven up the cost of those activities.
We do not simply need more sticking plasters. Our residents, hearing a message from the Labour Government that there is more money in the system, find that money is coming straight out of their pockets and wallets, through massive increases in council tax. We need a fundamental rethink about how we deliver local government in the capital, so that it is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the future.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate, in which hon. Members have raised some important issues. She posed some questions that I will come to in my response. She mentioned that I served on the London borough of Southwark just before she was first elected to the best borough in London. She is right that a bit of my heart will be forever in Camberwell.
I learned a lot during those years, but local government has changed in the 20 years since I was first elected. Poverty in London has also changed, along with the services that boroughs try to provide. In a moment of shock and surprise, I find myself in agreement with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). He rightly characterises a situation faced by councils where costs are spiking, often because of policy failure not of their making, whether those are the costs of homelessness, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, or the costs associated with SEND mentioned by many hon. Members, to which I would add adult and children’s care.
We have fundamental issues to tackle and many of the policy levers lie in this place, not in town halls. We all need to own our responsibilities on that front. We continually need to rethink how we approach this issue. It is a shame in many ways that I could not introduce some of my colleagues in other parts of the country to this discussion. Hon. Members will have seen in the press that I have been variously accused of robbing the north to send money to the south, and now robbing London to send money somewhere else—the north or the midlands, I do not know.
In fact, the consistent theme in the funding settlement is the Government’s attempt to reconnect council funding with deprivation. I will come to the detail of that, because we are committed to making long-overdue changes to council funding. This is the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which, as Members have mentioned, will make a huge difference.
Alison McGovern
I will make some progress. Yesterday’s announcement keeps our promise of a multi-year settlement, because local communities in London and elsewhere deserved better than the out-of-date funding allocations not aligned with need, which meant poorer public services and slower growth, particularly for those dealing with the consequences of poverty.
We are making changes to how councils are funded. Many of these are changes that the public, local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We consulted four times on these changes, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners, including from hon. Members in this debate. The engagement has informed our approach at every stage. The settlement confirms multi-year funding, our pledge to realign funding with need, and our commitment to end wasteful competitive bidding and to simplify funding.
The Government have an important role as an equaliser for local government income, and we are directing funding towards the places that are less able to meet their needs through locally raised income, which will enable all local authorities to provide similar levels of services to their residents. However, that is true notwithstanding the major differences in spiking demands around the country.
Following the provisional settlement consultation, the Government have announced an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement, including a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, bringing total investment over the multi-year settlement to £2.6 billion. Of that £2.6 billion, £400 million is supporting places in London that suffered the most from historical funding cuts, and there is an additional £272 million to bring the total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years to £3.5 billion—including over £800 million in London as part of our national plan to end homelessness.
That is a significant investment in the capital’s homelessness services, which is much needed, as has been mentioned by Members from across the House. It takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion. Since coming to power, we have pledged a 24.2% increase in core spending power by 2028-29 when compared with 2024-25, worth over £16.6 billion. It is a significant uplift in the spending power of councils.
According to analysis by the Department, as a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up from around one third before our reforms. In 2028-29, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived.
Alison McGovern
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) first.
Joe Powell
As the Minister knows, where we have pockets of high deprivation in London, one concern is protecting those communities. When the settlement was announced, it was very clear that the Government’s expectation was that things like council tax support should not be the first thing that councils looked to. Does the Minister agree that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea cutting £441,000 of council tax support to our lowest income families as its first decision is not the right way to go about building a sustainable budget for the future?
Alison McGovern
I agree, and my hon. Friend makes that case very well. I imagine that his local authority could have made other choices than that one.
Peter Fortune
I thank the Minister for the objective way that she is tackling this debate, but the reality for the London borough of Bromley is a £22 million cut over the next three-year period. Thinking about the deprivation and the challenges that we have, including the second-highest number of education, health and care plans in London, the cut will have a significant impact on our residents, despite pushing council tax as high as we can.
Alison McGovern
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our challenge is to understand how we can best use our resources to support all our children. We could try to increase funding again and again, without any changes to the system, but we would not necessarily get better outcomes, and costs would keep going up, not least because councils have issues with how they are able to provide some of the support that children need. We need to get to a more stable financial position and take responsibility in this place to change the policy failures that caused the cost spikes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Compared with 2024-25, by 2028-29 London will see an increase in core spending power of more than £3 billion. The vast majority of councils in London will see a real-terms increase between 2024-25 and 2028-29 and a fairer system that addresses issues that matter in London—and across England—including recognising the additional strain that commuters and tourists can place on service provision, taking into account need in specific high-demand service areas such as temporary accommodation and crucially, using the most up-to-date data, including the 2025 indices of multiple deprivation. That has been the subject of some feedback to the Department. It is a statement of the obvious that we would use the most up-to-date data, and it so happens that that data can better account for the impact of housing costs on poverty. That was always the intention, and we would always have done that, whatever noise I have picked up on this topic.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will allow Munira Wilson to intervene—at a stretch, because she arrived late to the debate.
Munira Wilson
I apologise, Dr Murrison. The debate moved more quickly than I had anticipated. I thank the Minister for giving way despite my late arrival. I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s aims; we all want to tackle deprivation and poverty. In my borough, the London borough of Richmond, we are going to see £29 million of cuts over the next three years, which will stretch to £46 million by year 4. That means a huge cliff edge, and at the moment the Government are refusing to provide any transitional protection. I recognise that Richmond is largely a wealthy borough, but we have significant pockets of deprivation and very needy residents, particularly young and older vulnerable residents. Despite a maximum council tax hike and efficiency savings, we will see cuts to the most vulnerable.
Will the Minister finally agree to meet with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the leader of our council to talk about how we can put transitional provisions in place? She has refused to do that so far. [Interruption.] She seems perplexed, but her latest letter refused a meeting with us, so I am asking her again, in the spirit of cross-party working, if she will meet us to discuss this.
Alison McGovern
The reason for my perplexed state is that during the period of consultation with Members of this House, I met 140 Members of Parliament on the settlement. I am sorry if the hon. Member has had the message that I will not meet her, because my office door has literally been open to Members over the recent period. We can discuss this at any point. The fact is that the London borough of Richmond is in the least deprived decile. While she rightly stands up for her borough, when I look at some parts of the country that have been forgotten for far too long, I feel that it is right that we have taken the decision through the settlement to reconnect funding with deprivation. But I can discuss that with her in detail in the future.
I want to make some points about cost. Local governments are still under pressure, and despite the increase of nearly 25% that I mentioned, that pressure will remain because of the costs that they are facing. That is why we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards a reformed special educational needs and disabilities system. The first phase of support will address historic deficits accrued, as was mentioned by the shadow Minister. All local authorities will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs dedicated schools grant deficit, subject to the approval of a local change plan.
We are also fixing social care services, on which many people, including in London, rely. We are changing children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme, backed by more than £2.4 billion of investment across this multi-year settlement. We are providing about £4.6 billion of additional funding, available for adult social care, by 2028-29, compared with ’25-26. When it comes to children’s care, the issue is not only that the costs are unsustainable, but that we are failing in our duty to so many children, and that is why we must change.
It is important to recognise that some places, including some inner-London boroughs, benefited disproportionately from the old system. However, we are supporting those places to plan for changes with transitional arrangements, including by protecting their income and providing additional flexibilities. For London, we are providing more than £550 million for income protection over the multi-year settlement.
Luke Taylor
The Minister mentions additional flexibility. Within that does she include allowing what I think are five inner-London boroughs, including Wandsworth, to increase their council tax by up to 10% without a referendum? Is that the additional flexibility that she mentions?
Alison McGovern
We set out that flexibility when we made the provisional statement, and there will be more details of that in the Chamber tomorrow. I am at the slight disadvantage of speaking between the publication of the settlement and the full debate in the House of Commons tomorrow. There will be more detail tomorrow for the hon. Gentleman.
The council tax bill for a house worth £5 million in central London can be less than the bill for an ordinary family home in places such as Blackpool and Darlington. It is not fair that properties worth so much more pay less council tax and receive comparatively better services than elsewhere, because of Government subsidy. Removing referendum principles for the six councils, as we have said, will allocate more than £250 million more funding for places with higher need, instead of subsidising very low bills for 500,000 households under those councils.
I want to turn to the direct questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who led the debate. She raised the issue of the costs of temporary accommodation, and she was absolutely correct to do so. I refer her to the homelessness strategy, which I published just before Christmas. The problems in temporary accommodation are very geographically concentrated. I am anxious to work with London councils, including her councils, to get children and families out of poor-quality, expensive temporary accommodation and into better-quality temporary accommodation that will be more reasonably priced for local authorities—even if it is still temporary, because some of what we are paying for is very poor value.
My hon. Friend mentioned LHA rates and asked whether I will work with the DWP and Treasury. I can tell her that I am doing so. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), also raised that with me in another setting. I will happily update the House as we go. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned a stalled site in her borough, which sounds like a dreadful waste. I will alert the Housing Minister and the Secretary of State to that. They were anxious to bring forward their plan for London with the Mayor of London for this very reason, but I will refer them to this debate. She asked about a visitor levy, which other Members mentioned too. I will take those comments as input to the consultation on a visitor levy.
My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister mentioned EFS. Again, shockingly, I found myself agreeing with the shadow Minister: that system should have been used sparingly and for exceptional circumstances. It is becoming less exceptional, and we have to get to the heart of why councils are in this position. Some of that is about costs, as we have said, but there are also other things, like reintroducing local audit, that I believe will help to defend the system and make it more sustainable as we go. My hon. Friend also asked about SEND deficits, which I have mentioned.
We are making changes that we believe are necessary to change public services and get local government back on its feet. By realigning funding with need and reforming services that put pressure on local government, we will empower local leaders to deliver for communities in London and across the country. Unlike many people, I firmly believe that it does not matter whether someone lives in a northern town or city, in the midlands, the south-west, Scotland, Wales or London—poverty is poverty, and we should respond to it all.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today, particularly the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is a great champion for his constituents and his borough of Bromley, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for their interventions and for speaking up for their boroughs. I am grateful to the Minister for her response.
I believe I am 10 years older than the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), so I would say very gently to him that perhaps my memory goes back a bit further. When I was elected to Southwark council, it coincided with the arrival of the coalition Government and the beginning, presided over by the Liberal Democrats in government, of some of the deepest cuts to local government funding that we have ever seen.
Helen Hayes
I am not going to give way during this very short summing-up. [Interruption.] I would say to him that listening to his impassioned pleas on behalf of inner-London boroughs does sound a little bit like the arsonist complaining that the fire brigade is not putting out the fire quickly enough. [Interruption.]
Helen Hayes
I urge the hon. Member to reflect with a bit of humility on what his party did to local government funding when it was in power.
Helen Hayes
I am not taking an intervention; I have been really clear about that.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I fully appreciate the challenging situation that she is in, the complexity of her brief and the pressures that she is facing from colleagues and from councils all across the country. I appreciate deeply her commitment to local government, and her deep understanding of its workings and the challenges that our council colleagues face. I am encouraged by her assurances on local housing allowance in particular, and on the costs of temporary accommodation. I look forward to seeing progress on those points and will certainly remain engaged on those issues. I would be hugely grateful for anything that the Minister can do to unlock the stalled sites. We have three in my constituency—two of them are council-owned and one is owned by a housing association. Between them, they have the capacity to deliver quite a good number of council and social homes. We would really like to see those come forward quickly.
I believe that the Minister has good intentions in the settlement that has been announced today. I support her in her aim of reconnecting local government funding with deprivation and ensuring that funding is fairly distributed, but the challenges that our councils face will remain. There is further work to do, and I hope to be able to engage with her further on behalf of my boroughs as we seek to repair the damage that has been done over a long period of time, and get things back on a better footing so that our councils can deliver for our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for local authorities in inner London.
Sherwood Forest: Tourism
(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tourism in Sherwood Forest.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. It is an absolute honour to represent the constituency of Sherwood Forest, the home of beautiful countryside, communities, villages, towns and farms. No matter where in the world we go, people know about the wonder of Sherwood Forest. It is one of the most recognisable places in the world. Sherwood Forest has often been associated with Robin Hood, a legendary heroic outlaw known for his highly skilled archery.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
On Robin Hood, would my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the legacy of former Mansfield Woodhouse resident Major Hayman Rooke, who discovered and is associated with the Major Oak tree in Sherwood Forest? I am sure my hon. Friend is also aware that the tree, which was named in Major Hayman Rooke’s honour, is believed to have been the legendary hiding place of Robin Hood and his merry men.
Michelle Welsh
I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. I know he will be involved in Sherwood Forest Day on 20 February, which, actually, is on that day exactly because of that. Without showing my age too much, I remember a time when we could climb on the Major Oak—now you cannot get within 20 feet of it.
The magic of Sherwood Forest is not lost on Hollywood. From Disney to Kevin Costner, many blockbuster films have been made about the legendary figure of Robin Hood and the historic forest he lives in. Yet this magic has been lost somehow in Nottinghamshire, or at least partly forgotten.
Children growing up in Nottinghamshire are surrounded by the magic, the tales and the powerful stories of courage, fairness and community that have been growing there for centuries. I remember distinctively going as a family, on school trips and with youth clubs to areas across Nottinghamshire, including Sherwood Forest. From Robin Hood to today’s volunteers, Sherwood Forest has always stood up for what is right, yet I fear we are beginning to lose exactly what it is we stand for. Over the last 14 years, communities in Sherwood Forest have been left behind. Communities that once served their country and contributed to the industrial strength of the UK have been left with deteriorating health and economic outcomes. It is time to say: no more.
In just over a week’s time, on 20 February, we will celebrate the second truly special Sherwood Forest Day. This is a day to honour our world-famous historic forest, its ancient oaks and the legacy of courage, fairness and community. Across Nottinghamshire, a number of events will take place to celebrate the day, including a business breakfast in the heart of Sherwood Forest to bring together the fantastic businesses across Sherwood Forest, numerous plaque unveilings to mark key areas, and tree planting to continue the legacy of the ancient forest.
This is an opportunity to celebrate our great history and local culture. It is about taking pride in our communities and working together to build a better future. I have heard that some of the trees being planted are even descended from ancient oaks themselves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am probably the oldest person in this Chamber; I can well remember seeing “The Adventures of Robin Hood” on TV in black and white—that was not yesterday. I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s discussion of her beautiful constituency; I hail from Strangford, which I think has unparalleled beauty. Does the hon. Lady agree that for tourism to take off, funding is needed for promotion? The Minister—who is a very sympathetic Minister, by the way—and the Government can and must do more to put money into getting visitors across the threshold of the United Kingdom, knowing that if they come once, they will come back again. Surely that has to be a good policy to follow.
Michelle Welsh
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution.
Sherwood Forest Day is an opportunity for communities across Nottinghamshire to reflect on our heritage and celebrate what brings us together. I want to give a huge thank you to the Sherwood Forest Trust and Richard Townsley, the medieval sheriff of Nottingham, for all the work they are doing for Sherwood Forest Day and for our community as a whole. At the heart of all we are doing for Sherwood Forest Day are communities such as Ollerton, Edwinstowe, Blidworth, Rainworth and Clipstone—putting them back on the map and encouraging those from all over the world to visit and marvel at what we have to offer. We cannot do it alone, however. Celebrating our culture and history should not be left to only one day of the year; they should be honoured every single day.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As she knows, the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, has put the visitor economy at the heart of her vision for the east midlands region. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Centre of it All marketing campaign was launched last week. Does she agree that Sherwood Forest and the Trent sports quarter, which would be based in my constituency of Rushcliffe, have the opportunity to grow our visitor economy to the £1 billion target that Claire Ward has set?
Michelle Welsh
My hon. Friend is right: the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, is forever supportive of our tourism. Like us, she knows that there is still a lot more work to be done.
Many factors contribute to supporting a thriving tourism economy. Most notable for rural areas such as Sherwood Forest are adequate transport, support for business and community investment. Transport in rural areas such as parts of Sherwood Forest, including the more historic parts, is inadequate. Often, public transport is inconsistent: buses do not run in the evening or sometimes not at all. There is even a railway line named after Robin Hood that does not serve the majority of historic Sherwood Forest. How can we expect people to visit that historic land if they cannot access it—not only people coming from far and wide, but those who have it on their doorstep?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Our green space is vital, not just for our environment and mental health but for the economic benefits that it brings to our communities. Having rail access to our communities is very important.
My constituency of North West Leicestershire is not far away from Sherwood Forest. It is home to the national forest. It is easily accessible, like Sherwood, to about 10 million people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the east midlands must capitalise on the tourism potential of all its forests, including in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire?
Michelle Welsh
Yes, exactly. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. That is, of course, very important, and it is important that as MPs across the east midlands, we continue to work together on that. I am interested in hearing from the Minister what work has been done in partnership with the Department for Transport and the East Midlands combined authority to ensure that places of heritage and importance are connected and accessible.
When talking about the community of Sherwood Forest, it is important to mention the bond of coalmining that for so long was the lifeblood of our economy. From Hucknall colliery in the south to Ollerton colliery in the north, the roots of mining are deep in Sherwood Forest. That is why I am so proud that this Government stuck to their promise to release funds from the mineworkers’ pension scheme to its members, and that they went further and did the same for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. That rightful release of funds means a combined additional £11 million a year that is being spent in our towns and villages, in our local shops and pubs.
The current magic of Sherwood Forest is being wielded by local businesses such as Robin’s Den in Edwinstowe, which fight day in, day out to keep the stories alive while facing the challenges of being a small business. I believe that if we can shine a light on the history of Sherwood Forest and encourage more young people to learn about the stories, they will be inspired to add their own twists. If we invest in our local businesses for tourism, young people across Sherwood Forest will benefit by believing in the magic and having access to more work opportunities in their own communities.
Finally, with regard to community investment, I am proud that the Government are investing in communities that were neglected by the previous Conservative Government. We are making real changes to people’s lives by funding more breakfast clubs and new schools, and expanding healthcare into communities. The Government, in partnership with the Labour mayor, Claire Ward, have provided more than £31 million to fund the A614 improvements project, to create a corridor of hope where our past meets our future. That is as well as £30 million for the regeneration of Ollerton town centre, which has been achieved through working with Labour councillors and the Labour-run Newark and Sherwood district council.
Pride in where people live is not always guaranteed; it comes when everyone is investing their time and money into improving their community. I hope that what we do on Sherwood Forest Day will be an opportunity for people in Nottinghamshire to be really proud. I would also like to see more investment into the parts of communities that are often seen as a nice to have, and not as key infrastructure or central to people living happy lives. Sherwood Forest would not be what it is today if it were not for our local small businesses—the village pubs and farms that are a key part of our rural economy, providing opportunities and enjoyment to our people.
Sherwood Forest is the home not only of Robin Hood but of numerous historic sites such as Whyburn farm, which once inspired Lord Byron’s work; Thoresby park, a beautiful country estate; and Rufford abbey country park, which recently reopened following a conservation project. I was honoured to visit the site on Saturday and learn more about the work to preserve that park, which was so important to me growing up in Nottinghamshire.
Investment into landmarks such as those is an investment into the whole community, as it creates more job opportunities, supports local shops and restaurants, and helps us to conserve our heritage assets. With cultural heritage sites such as Newstead abbey and Clumber park, and modern attractions such as Center Parcs, Sherwood Pines and—who could forget my son’s favourite place to go—Wheelgate and White Post farm, Sherwood Forest really is the place to visit.
I know that I do not have to tell the Minister about the importance of culture and heritage to communities, but could she expand on what the Government are doing to protect and invest in our cultural assets, particularly in Sherwood Forest? As we approach Sherwood Forest Day, I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone, whether they live locally or are visiting for the first time, to join us in Nottinghamshire—a jewel in our nation’s crown—to celebrate our history, help us to protect our future and be part of Sherwood Forest Day or every day after. The people of Sherwood Forest have a proud history of standing up for what is right and for each other. Despite the attempts of some to divide us, it is truer now than it has ever been: we have more in common than what divides us.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate and the phenomenal leadership that she has shown in establishing Sherwood Forest Day. It is a brilliant initiative that celebrates not just a place but a shared history that continues to shape our communities.
Sherwood Forest is rightly famous around the world but it is sometimes forgotten how many of our towns and villages once formed part of the great forest. In Gedling, communities such as Arnold and Carlton, and those beyond, were historically within the bounds of Sherwood Forest. They are places with deep roots in that story, and places where history is not locked in the past but woven into everyday life. From medieval woodland rights to the enduring legend of Robin Hood, such communities help to shape the folklore and identity of our great county of Nottinghamshire.
The tales of Robin Hood and his band are not just stories for tourists; they speak to ideas of fairness, justice and standing up for the common good. Those are values that still resonate strongly with the people who I represent in Gedling. That is why I am delighted that on Sherwood Forest Day I will join the Mayor of Gedling—my husband, Councillor Kyle Robinson-Payne—to unveil plaques to recognise the communities that were once part of the historic forest.
I am especially pleased that two such plaques will be erected on excellent local pubs owned by the Lincoln Green brewery: the Brickyard in Carlton and one of my own locals, the much loved and aptly named Robin Hood and Little John, which is in Arnold. I place on record my thanks to Anthony Hughes, the founder and owner of Lincoln Green brewery—which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest—for his generous support of the Sherwood Forest Day initiative, and his commitment to celebrating local heritage.
Remembering and preserving our local history and heritage is vital. In Gedling, we are blessed to have brilliant local history groups that do just that. My thanks go to the Lambley historical society, the Burton Joyce and Bulcote local history society, the Gedling Village local history and preservation society, and the Arnold local history group for their outstanding work in preserving our rich and interesting local history. I give a special thanks to my good friend Bob Massey for all he does to champion and celebrate our proud history in and around Arnold.
Tourism rooted in history and heritage strengthens local pride, supports local businesses and tells the world that Gedling’s story is inseparable from the story of Sherwood Forest. I look forward to seeing Sherwood Forest Day go from strength to strength and to playing my part in ensuring that Gedling’s place in that story is rightly recognised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this debate and on the powerful way in which she spoke about her constituency, its history and its people.
The fact that this debate has been so well attended by local Members shows what strong representation the area is blessed with. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) mentioned the well-known Major Oak, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) mentioned to me on the way to the debate. We have also had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), who mentioned so many of his outstanding local groups. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, made a good point about attracting more international visitors, a subject that I will touch on.
Before I come to the substance of the debate, I want to acknowledge the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest about the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. As the MP for Barnsley East and then for Barnsley South, I was proud to lead that campaign in Parliament over a number of years. It means that our constituents are between £30 and £100 a week better off, thanks to this Labour Government. It is not just a transformational figure for local areas; it is absolutely the right thing to do. It means that many of our constituents can spend money in the local economy, taking part in day trips and so on.
The debate has underlined a point that the Government are very clear about: tourism is not a peripheral issue. It is a major economic sector, a significant employer and a powerful driver of growth across every nation and region of the UK. Nationally, tourism supports 1.3 million jobs and contributes more than £64 billion in gross value added to the economy. Beyond the numbers, the visitor economy plays a vital role in shaping how the UK is seen around the world, through our landscapes, our heritage, our creativity and our culture. It supports town centres, sustains rural economies, creates opportunities for young people and builds pride in place.
My hon. Friend asked what the Government are doing to protect cultural assets. The Government have announced a £1.5 billion package to restore national pride, investing in cultural organisations over a five-year period and turning the corner on a decade of underfunding. That long-term commitment recognises that culture and heritage are not simply nice to have; they are essential infrastructure for thriving communities and a strong visitor economy. That is why the Government are committed to providing long-term strategic support for the visitor economy.
Our ambition is for the UK to remain a world-class destination, attracting 50 million international visitors annually by 2030. Crucially, we are encouraging those visitors to travel more widely, stay longer and contribute to local economies across the country. That ambition will be set out in our forthcoming visitor economy growth strategy, which will focus on unlocking investment, supporting jobs and ensuring that tourism growth is competitive, sustainable and inclusive.
I turn to the regional picture. The east midlands is a strong example of how tourism is being placed at the heart of growth and regeneration. The visitor economy is recognised as a core growth sector within the east midlands local growth plan. This reflects robust regional evidence showing that the visitor economy has the potential to generate at least £1 billion in additional economic growth. To drive delivery, partners across the region have established Visit East Midlands, providing strategic leadership and co-ordination across the local visitor economy partnerships and destination management organisations.
I recognise the leadership of Mayor Claire Ward, who is championing the visitor economy as a central pillar of the region’s growth ambitions and ensuring that it receives the focus and visibility it deserves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly outlined. That regional leadership is already translating into action. The East Midlands combined county authority recently launched the Centre of it All campaign, showcasing the region’s diverse visitor offer and reinforcing its position at the heart of the country. The campaign is being delivered in close co-operation with local visitor economy partnerships and destination organisations, ensuring a coherent and compelling offer to both domestic and international audiences. Those regional connections and that work, which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire spoke about, are so important.
The region is also strengthening its position through major events and sports tourism. Nottingham will host the European archery championships in 2028, an event that will not only bring significant economic benefits but connect powerfully to the Robin Hood story that defines Sherwood Forest. Through that work, the region is realising the full potential of the Robin Hood brand, developing regional and pan-regional itineraries and targeting key international markets, particularly the United States.
Against that backdrop, Sherwood Forest stands out as a place of extraordinary national and international significance. Centuries in the making, the legend of Sherwood Forest continues to grow, with every generation adding to its legacy. Today, it is a remarkable destination, home to ancient woodland, rich biodiversity and one of the most enduring cultural narratives in the world.
Some 350,000 people visit Sherwood Forest each year, drawn by its natural beauty, heritage and cultural power. Within the national nature reserve, 375 hectares of ancient woodland support hundreds of species—birds, insects, mammals and plants. Protecting this precious environment while ensuring it is accessible is exactly the balance that this Government want to support.
I pay tribute to the Sherwood Forest Trust for its stewardship of this unique landscape, demonstrating how conservation, community engagement and tourism can reinforce one another. Its work closely aligns with VisitEngland’s regenerative tourism framework, which focuses on protecting natural assets while delivering lasting benefits for local communities.
I am also very pleased to recognise Sherwood Forest Day on 20 February, which celebrates this world-famous historic forest and its global cultural significance. Moments like this strengthen local pride while shining a light on places of international importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest outlined, particularly with the business breakfast and the events on 20 February. I wish those involved the very best of luck.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, Sherwood’s story also contributes to the UK’s soft power. The legend of Robin Hood remains one of our most recognisable cultural exports, resonating through literature, film and television. Through VisitBritain’s “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign, we are using screen tourism to encourage visitors to explore more of the UK, and Sherwood Forest is a natural fit for that approach.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the practical challenges facing the area and made a particular point about connectivity. Access matters for visitors, local residents and businesses. On her point about transport, the Government are introducing our integrated national transport strategy, which will place strong emphasis on connecting people to places of opportunity, heritage and culture, ensuring that transport investment supports regional growth, rural access and the visitor economy alongside commuting needs.
We are working closely with the Department for Transport, the East Midlands combined authority and local partners to improve connectivity so that destinations such as Sherwood Forest are accessible both for those travelling further afield and for the communities on its doorstep. Supporting local businesses is equally critical. Tourism works best when it creates opportunities for people to live, work and build futures in their own communities. That is why we are addressing skills shortages, promoting apprenticeships and improving recruitment and retention across the sector, ensuring that young people can see tourism as a viable and rewarding career.
Sherwood Forest is not just a place of extraordinary heritage. It is a living, evolving destination that contributes to regional growth, national identity and Britain’s global story. With continued partnership, investment and strategic support, it can continue to thrive for generations to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Place-based Employment Support Programmes
(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered place-based employment support programmes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am very pleased to have secured this debate. Discussions of employment policy can sometimes feel very abstract in this place; we talk about things like rates, targets and programmes, but for the people we represent, employment can be intensely personal. It is about confidence, dignity, routine and feeling that they have something to contribute.
I know all that from personal experience. The depression that I fell into in the mid-’90s, at the end of the Tories’ previous disastrous spell in government when I could not get a job, had a long-lasting effect on my life. Growing up in what was then and by many measures still is one of the poorest boroughs in the country, the pressure to find a job—any job, to be honest—was immense, but the availability of jobs did not match that pressure. The local factory had closed down in 1991. My home town had barely any industry left to speak of, and most of the low-paid, temporary jobs I could find were in the next town along. It was almost a two-hour walk away for a lad who wanted to work but could not afford the bus fare to get to the factory. That is why I want to make the case today for place-based employment support—support that is rooted in communities, shaped by local need and delivered by people who understand the realities of the lives that they are working with.
In my Southport constituency, I see it time and again: the people furthest from the labour market are not those who do not want to work, but people with caring responsibilities, health issues or gaps in their work history, or people who, for whatever reason, just cannot get a break. In my local authority area alone, that equates to over 26,000 people. What they need is not another box-ticking exercise, but someone who knows their area and knows what the local jobs are, and has the time to treat them as a person.
I want to put on the record my thanks for the work of several place-based employment support programmes across the north of England. The Big Onion in Southport does things differently, and that is precisely why it is effective. Its work is rooted in trust. It helps people to rebuild confidence, develop skills and, in many cases, explore things such as self-employment or community enterprise as a route back into work. It does not rush people. Its approach recognises that, for many people, the first step towards employment is simply believing that they have something to offer. That kind of progress does not always show up immediately in headline figures, but it is essential if we want to make sustainable outcomes for the long term.
Zink is a charity based in Buxton that started out as a food bank but, once it investigated the drivers of local food bank demand, soon branched out into offering employment support and debt advice. Its most innovative programme, microjobs, offers small, paid roles tailored to people who are far from the jobs market—often people who have been affected by homelessness or past substance abuse. Three quarters of those with a microjob subsequently move into part-time or full-time work within six months.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that place-based employment schemes are a vital way of converting local strengths into local jobs, and that sector-specific initiatives can and should be tailored to the circumstances of individual constituencies? In North Down, there is particular potential in tourism, hospitality and the wider marine and coastal economy.
Patrick Hurley
That is one in a long line of things that place-based employment initiatives can do well, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
The Recruitment Junction, which works up in the north-east, mainly in Newcastle, places people with criminal convictions into paid work. It works with local employers to identify skills shortages and then identifies suitable candidates, meets them and helps them to renew their qualifications, write their CVs and prepare for interviews. So far, it has placed almost 900 people with criminal convictions into paid work, with a 66% retention rate. Fewer than 5% of those that it places reoffend, compared with around 24% nationally.
I also want to commend the work of Transform Lives Company. Its model deliberately breaks away from what many people expect employment support to look like. It is welcoming, informal and feels safe, and for many participants in its schemes, that alone is transformative. People who go to Transform Lives Company are supported not just with job search, but with things like confidence, wellbeing and life skills. They are listened to, rather than lectured at. As a result, people who would never normally engage with employment services do so willingly. I think that should make us stop and think about how our national system is experienced on the ground.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I am reminded of the JobsPlus scheme that is being run on one of our council estates in Leyton, where L&Q has been going out and actively knocking on doors. We have seen not only the young people who were the target of the scheme coming back into the work environment, but their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that that type of scheme needs to continue to be funded, and to be extended, so that other people can be brought back into the working environment?
Patrick Hurley
Indeed. I promise Members that I did not give my hon. Friend advance sight of my speech, but I will be talking about JobsPlus in due course. It is an amazing system and an amazing scheme.
I have touched on some of my own experiences as a young man, but it is worth going back to them, because I want to put Members in the shoes of someone who would have really benefited from one of these schemes, had they been running back when I was in my late teens and early 20s. Many families have funny anecdotes about things that children have said, and mine is no different. Perhaps unwisely, I am going to share the funny anecdote that my family tell about something that they say I said back in around 1982, when I was four or five years old—of course, they teased me about it for years afterwards.
Apparently, I asked my parents one day why they watched the news on the telly. In my childhood brain, this made no sense at all. My mum was a dinner lady and my dad worked nights in the local car factory 6 or 7 miles away. I had got it into my head as a little kid that the TV news was only for people who did not have jobs, but my mum and dad had jobs, so what were they doing watching the TV news? It was only about 20 years later that it dawned on me that it was not that TV news in the early 1980s was not for people who did not have jobs, but that it felt like it was only about people who did not have jobs.
Every night on the 6 o’clock news, the headlines were about the unemployment figures—the latest round of lay-offs in some critical industry or other, the factory closures, the countless thousands being put on the sick as a way of keeping the official number of jobseekers off the balance sheet. I grew up in that context in Knowsley, a local authority area that had been drawn up a decade earlier in such a way as to exclude all sixth-form provision. This was an area that was being written off. I was a poorly qualified, unskilled lad in his late teens, living in a town with few opportunities, and suffering with my mental health because I could not see a way out.
By way of contrast, these days my city region is benefiting from the award-winning Cradle to Career scheme, which provides holistic mental health and wellbeing support and focuses on the underlying causes of youth crime and antisocial behaviour. Just as important as the metrics of success that make the headlines in the press are the testimonies of the people whose lives have been turned around.
To return to my broader point, many of the approaches that I have described echo the work done in recent years on fundamentally rethinking employment support. That work has made a compelling case for a more wraparound employment service that links employment with skills, health, housing and local economic conditions, and gives frontline staff the flexibility to respond to individual circumstances.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, we have seen that in things such as JobsPlus, which has demonstrated that embedding employment support directly in social housing communities can reach people who have been economically inactive for years. Early evidence shows people do not just move into work, but gain improvements in their confidence, wellbeing, readiness and resilience—the things that actually make employment sustainable for people.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very sincere speech, and I am listening to it with great interest. He talks about youngsters’ confidence. One of the great industries that was run down during the Conservatives’ years of rule was the nuclear industry, but I believe it will be great again one day. Dounreay in my constituency still has an apprenticeship scheme, which gives youngsters great confidence. I hope it will be carbon copied by many industries as we revive the fortunes of what we are good at in this country.
Patrick Hurley
That pinpoints exactly why place-based schemes are so important. What is useful and necessary for my part of the country will not be useful elsewhere. That difference can have a positive impact on local people’s lives.
I have talked about the good things that JobsPlus can do, but despite that evidence, too many of the programmes that I have mentioned today exist in a state of uncertainty. Short-term funding and delayed decisions are forcing providers to plan for winding down even when their outcomes are improving. That is not a sensible way to run employment policy, and we risk losing exactly the sort of expertise and relationships that we should be encouraging and building on.
If we are serious about increasing employment and tackling inactivity, we also need to be serious about how the support that is needed is delivered. Central systems have their place, but they cannot do everything; we also need long-term backing for place-based approaches and proper partnership with community organisations. Collectively, we need the confidence to move away from one-size-fits-all solutions.
More than 9 million working-age people in the UK are economically inactive, and long-term sickness is the single largest driver of inactivity among 16 to 64-year-olds. In Southport and across the country, organisations such as The Big Onion and Transform Lives Company, and schemes such as Cradle to Career, are already doing the work that we say we want to see. The question is whether national policy is willing to learn from them and support them properly.
Mr Calvin Bailey
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about place-based intervention. Last week, I welcomed the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), to Build Academy in Wanstead, an incredible scheme that is providing accessible training in construction skills to local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) was making the point that we need to focus on these fantastic young learners to ensure that they are site ready and capable of going directly into full-time local employment or apprenticeships. Does he agree that such learning programmes need to be shared, so that they can permanently address the issues that he raises and be scaled up and rolled out around the country?
Patrick Hurley
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Not only can we scale and roll out those programmes, but we can do peer-to-peer learning, so that the best of what works in one part of the country might be applied elsewhere.
I hope the Minister will reflect on some of what I have mentioned this afternoon and on how future employment policy can better embed place-based delivery of these schemes, giving local providers the certainty they need and ensuring that employment support is something people feel genuinely helped by, not just processed through.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm—do the maths.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency, the scale of youth unemployment is stark and deeply concerning. We are among the worst-affected areas in the country, with one in every six eligible adults—16.1%—currently not working. Those are not just statistics; they represent thousands of young people whose talents are being wasted and whose futures are being put on hold. Across the west midlands, around 29,000 young people are classed as unemployed, with youth unemployment rates in parts of Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Walsall running at double the national average. The sheer scale of the challenge facing our region underlines the urgent need for growth and genuine job creation.
Young people are not short of ambition or willingness to work; what they are short of is real opportunities, secure jobs, quality training, and pathways into employment that offer dignity and progression. Too many are stuck in a cycle of rejection or short-term work, or being shut out altogether. I hope the Minister will detail how young people are being actively supported into large infrastructure projects such as HS2 and the large housing programmes. As the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), said:
“To get Britain growing, we need to get Britain working again.”
I wholly agree with that sentiment, but I cannot agree with the Government’s approach of removing universal credit from young people if they do not take up a job—there could be a whole host of reasons why they cannot do so. Punitive policies do not create jobs or address the structural barriers that young people face, and they risk pushing already vulnerable people into further hardship.
Young people are struggling to get jobs, a struggle intensified by wider changes in the economy. New research suggests that the UK is now losing more jobs than it is creating because of artificial intelligence, and that Britain is being hit harder than any other major economy. According to a recent study by Morgan Stanley, British companies reported that AI had resulted in net job losses over the past 12 months, with employment down by 8%—the worst performance among comparable economies, including the United States, Japan, Germany and Australia. That performance matters, because it means that young people are entering a labour market that is shrinking, not expanding. Getting Britain working again does not require sanctions; we need investment, collaboration with local employers, properly funded skills programmes and an economy that works for every region, not just a few.
I commend the excellent work of the West Midlands combined authority under Mayor Richard Parker, which is building up skills and training our young people in areas such as construction, the arts, tech, life sciences and clean energy. However, I urge more support from central Government to ensure this is happening across the midlands and the wider economy. If we are truly serious about growth, we must be serious about our young people. That means backing them, not blaming them; it means opportunity, not punishment; and it means ensuring that places such as Birmingham Perry Barr are not left behind, but are at the heart of our national recovery.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for bringing forward what I consider to be a truly vital discussion. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear me talk about towns today—I am the proud product of one, and I proudly represent two towns, Stafford and Eccleshall. It is important to be in this Chamber today discussing them, because I want to use this debate to make a simple but important point about place.
Far too often, towns such as Stafford are described in relation to somewhere else. We are labelled a commuter town because we have excellent rail connections—and we do: a person can get to London, Birmingham or Manchester really quickly from Stafford, but Stafford should not be defined by its neighbouring cities, and a child growing up in Stafford should not be told, “Just go to a city to access better employment opportunities.” If our policy only sees us as part of someone else’s labour market, it will misunderstand us and the brilliant talent that we have in my constituency.
Our young people deserve to build happy, successful lives in the town they call home, and there is so much potential for that. We are home to GE Vernova, whose Stafford site produces the only high-voltage direct current transformers manufactured in this country, which are absolutely key to our national energy security. We have Bostik’s UK headquarters, where world-leading adhesives are made. We have Arco Professional Safety Services keeping those working in risky roles safe, including on Big Ben—or the Elizabeth Tower, I should say—and we have so many wonderful small and medium enterprises. We are supported by Stafford college, widely acknowledged to be the best college in the country, with back-to-back outstanding Ofsted ratings, which works closely with local employers to build the technical and vocational skills that our industries require.
Stafford is a county town where people are proud to live, but people feel its potential is not yet being fulfilled. Research from the University of Southampton shows that that is a pattern repeated across the country, and a pattern that we must address as a Government. We must provide the tools for every community to ensure that their town flourishes. Let us be frank: there is no one-size-fits-all approach to this. When we talk about designing employment programmes around place, we are talking about a massive opportunity for promoting our towns, and building secure jobs and futures for residents that cater to our national diversity.
The economy of places including Stafford should not be trickle-down cities. We must recognise the strengths of towns such as Stafford, particularly in manufacturing and energy infrastructure. We must directly align skills provision with local employer demand, rather than assume that opportunity sits elsewhere. It is also time that we stop telling our talented young people to move away to London or Manchester, and start recognising the potential that our towns have as economic engines in their own right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. In Northern Ireland, we are doing a collaborative, localised model through the Ards community network. We have done there what the hon. Lady is referring to in Stafford: identifying job opportunities. HGV training is one—it costs about £3,500 to do that—and there is also security training. The local Ards community network, the Government in the Northern Ireland Assembly and others have come together to ensure that those job opportunities are available for people in my constituency. Many of those people are now driving HGV lorries, and lots of them are in security jobs and training. That inspires people from deprived areas, and I think that is what she was talking about in Stafford.
Leigh Ingham
I completely agree with the hon. Member. Recognising the talent that we have in our towns, and making sure that all our Government programmes are working to support that, is integral. I welcome the Government’s investment in growth and opportunity, and we are seeing a revised investment in towns. Pride in Place and town of culture are really good examples; those are not necessarily employment programmes, but they lay the foundations of our commitment to regeneration across the country. The upcoming high street strategy also has a lot of potential to help with that investment.
Although investment into UK cities is undoubtedly important, it is vital to remember that most of our population live in towns, and many of those people are feeling left behind, frustrated by the decline on their high streets under the Conservative Government and sceptical that politicians in Westminster understand them or the places that they call home. This is a chance to show that we do, and that is exactly what Labour Governments do better than anyone else. Time and again, we see that working with communities and using their local knowledge and experience is how we can best regenerate our areas.
I ask the Minister what conversations she is having with colleagues to ensure that towns have a voice in designing their local employment strategies, and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that young people who grow up in towns including Stafford can secure well paid jobs in the towns they call home. Towns such as Stafford are central to our Government’s plan for growth, and I welcome employment programmes that recognise that reality.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for giving us the opportunity to speak in this debate. In my career before being elected, I was involved in a number of successful place-based employment schemes, including having direct responsibility for delivering some of this work within a housing association. I am therefore a strong advocate for the approach, and I will come on to that later in my speech.
As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I visited Durham last week to speak to participants and employers on the Connect to Work programme run by DurhamEnable and Triage. It offers voluntary supported employment initiatives designed to help people with learning disabilities, autism, health conditions and complex barriers to employment to find and sustain meaningful work. Such programmes offer a great example of why and how place-based employment really works.
Durham uses the supported employment model, “place, train, maintain”, which focuses on finding the right job first, and then offering training and ongoing support, and I will break that down a little further. Stage one is place: finding the right job for an individual and emphasising that employers are key to delivery and engaging with future employees. Working with the person, as well as the local job market, to discover who they are is a key principle.
Stage two is training. DurhamEnable ensures that future employees are benefiting from the right support. It was also clear that that support inspired confidence. One person we spoke to had recently been made redundant from a long-term job. DurhamEnable had helped them to navigate the more complicated process nowadays of job applications that they had never needed to do before. Stage three is maintain, which includes offering ongoing support to participants and employers to navigate reasonable adjustments in the workplace while applying for such things as Access to Work.
I will briefly mention JobsPlus, which has already been mentioned, and information from the Learning and Work Institute. The latter found that in 2003, social housing tenants were nearly twice as likely to be out of work and more than twice as likely to be disabled. When in work, social housing tenants are twice as likely to be in lower skilled work on average and are paid a third less than people who live in other housing tenures.
JobsPlus, which is being piloted in 10 sites across England, is a key initiative. It brings together tenants, landlords and key agencies to provide targeted support to those who need it. It works because of that joint commitment and the targeted support that is provided. In fact, it is the simplicity of the scheme that works overall. The non-reliance on system-based referrals sets JobsPlus apart from most other employment programmes. All the programme needs to know is where somebody lives, and then it simply helps them.
It will be no surprise to Members that as a long-standing housing professional, I advocate the work done by housing associations. East Midlands Housing, based in North West Leicestershire, is not only a great local employer, but part of the Placeshapers initiative, which is about creating place. That is another important part of employer-based support, because it means putting support right at the centre of the community. Above all, it is the community that knows how best to boost engagement and to support one another.
I conclude by emphasising that the key point to take away from today is that we do not need to reinvent the wheel to be successful; we just need to look at what is being done already. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport about limited contracting. My experience over two decades is that we have great schemes, but they are often reinvented, which means we then lack consistency. Consistency develops our communities and the long-term commitment from employers that we need to see real change in place-based support. When schemes come and go, momentum is lost. Can the Minister tell us how we will breed that consistency to ensure that place-based schemes have a seat at the employment support table for the long term, and not just the short term?
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this important debate on place-based employment schemes. Local jobs, local skills and local employment support, rooted in communities, will change individuals’ lives as well as boosting local economies. My residents in Wolverhampton North East will understand that deeply.
In previous debates on young people not in education, employment or training, I have said that the challenge cannot be solved by a single national programme or by one-size-fits-all policies from Whitehall. Instead, we need local solutions, rooted in local labour markets and built around developing and building people, skills and aspirations. That is the approach that I am calling for and I welcome the Labour Government to continue to work closely with our Mayor, Richard Parker, and also with local councils. In Wolverhampton, through the Wolves at Work employment hub at the i10, residents are not handed generic advice; instead, time is invested in individuals to support them as needed. More than 1,800 residents have had employment advice and successful job matching, with more than 40% of those supported aged under 25. That is place-based employment support that is rooted in local partnerships and focused on real outcomes.
The open door programme does literally that. It opens up opportunities by giving paid work experience to those who might otherwise never get that first chance. Labour’s support for sector-based work academy programmes, a practical route into work, and for the youth guarantee trailblazer, part of the Get Britain Working plan, shows how this Government are focused on tailored, targeted support that will meet local needs. The major funding package for youth employment, benefiting about a million young people, is a sign of Labour’s commitment to tackling the long-term issue of young people not in education, employment or training.
Behind every statistic on NEETs is a young person who needs a guided pathway, with support for their specific needs. In Wolverhampton, we know that 2.6% of young people aged 16 to 17 were NEET in 2025. Although I appreciate that is lower than the national average, it is still hundreds of young people who deserve the opportunity to see themselves in a good quality job and a career suited to them.
For too long under previous Governments, employment support, skills funding and local growth strategies have operated in silos and we have seen inconsistencies, but this Labour Government are doing things differently. We are aligning skills with jobs, investing in local employment hubs for the long term, and backing councils and mayoral combined authorities to shape programmes that work for their places.
How will the Minister address the challenge of scaling up that success, so that where someone grows up no longer determines whether they can get on in life? I call on the Minister to fully back place-based employment schemes to connect people to jobs for hope, ambition and action.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I also thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for shining a light on this important issue.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support the principles of devolution and localism so we welcome the Government’s stated ambition to expand place-based employment support. Employment conditions vary so much across the country that a purely national strategy could never work. However, local delivery is only half the story. A succession of Governments have been adept at passing on new responsibilities to local government but not necessarily the budget to match. The Liberal Democrats will not support reforms that simply shift costs and risks on to councils without the funding systems and accountability to make them work. What extra powers or funding flexibility will the Government give local and combined authorities so that they can design and deliver place-based employment strategies that genuinely reflect their local labour markets?
Improving employment prospects is also about removing barriers. Estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of people are economically inactive due to long-term sickness linked to NHS waiting lists. More than 600,000 people have reduced their working hours while waiting for treatment. Too much existing work support consists of generic help with CV writing and basic qualifications such as maths and English. Although important, that does not go far enough to answer individual needs, especially for people with specific health conditions. The current system seems to work best when providing adjustments for people already in work, who then become disabled, but fails those who are trying to get a job in the first place. The practical adjustments through Access to Work are frequently agreed only after the job offer and that is too late in the process.
The case of one of my constituents from Horsham, Amanda, illustrates what can go wrong when systems do not join up. Amanda is deaf; she got a job and needed an interpreter funded through Access to Work, but a basic administrative breakdown between her employer and the Department for Work and Pensions resulted in her support being refused. Long delays in making awards are causing real trouble; I believe the waiting list has increased by four times in just a few years. The current system seems unable to respond to individual circumstances.
The Liberal Democrats argue that devolution must be matched with stable funding and enough resources to support implementation. There is a journey to go on and, as we embark on it, we need to be honest about a legacy of negative culture in the system. According to a 2025 survey by Turn2Us, 64% of claimants say that the system is trying to “catch them out.” Only 15% said support from work coaches is useful, while 55% of universal credit claimants say that claiming benefits has “worsened their health.” That sounds less like an employment system and more like a deterrence system.
That tactic has backfired. Job hunting is a tough process; morale matters. Totally undermining unemployed jobseekers by treating them like benefit scroungers has only ended up making sure that is exactly how they remain: stuck on benefits. The pressure on jobseekers to demonstrate industrial quantities of applications every week has destroyed trust on both sides. I have seen how local employers in my constituency have disengaged with the jobcentre. They feel that the applicants they are being sent are not interested and are just trying to meet their weekly quota of applications. The Liberal Democrats welcome the trial of place-based approaches, such as JobsPlus. It is too soon to judge, but the early signs suggest higher engagement and improved confidence and wellbeing. We need to get both jobseekers and employers believing and trusting in the system again.
We need clarity on funding. Council budgets are already under severe strain and rural areas, such as mine in west Sussex, face some of the greatest barriers to employment support, yet also face some of the stiffest demands and the tighter settlement under the new local government finance settlement. Councils are concerned that JobsPlus funding ends in March 2026, yet the full evaluation has not yet been completed. What long-term funding certainty will be provided to ensure that community-based employment support is not cut off just as it starts to deliver results?
Finally, on national oversight, it is vital that we ensure that place-based employment support is properly integrated with jobcentres and national programmes such as restart to avoid duplication and confusion. Will the Government commit to clear outcome measurement and regular, public reporting so that Parliament can hold the DWP to account for what those programmes actually deliver? Alongside that, what are the Government doing to properly integrate local employment schemes with national programmes, such as restart and jobcentre services, to make everything work together effectively?
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that place-based employment support can reduce inequality, improve outcomes and help people into sustainable work, but it must be backed by long-term funding, a competent Administration and clear, national accountability. Otherwise, localism will end up as a slogan, not a solution.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) and congratulate him on securing this important debate.
Getting people into work should be a core priority for any Government and I know Members across the House share that view. I, and the Conservative party, wholly believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Work brings independence, dignity, opportunity and the ability for people across the country to provide for themselves and their families. It gives meaning and purpose, and has real, proven mental health benefits. That is why successive Conservative Governments have put in place a lot of employment support schemes. The restart scheme was one example. Launched in 2020, it gave tailored, intensive support to jobseekers who were often in need of more support.
I appreciate that the current Government recognise the challenges of joblessness and that there is a genuine desire to tackle the problem. Whether through local authorities or the private sector, there are many ways of attempting to improve employment outcomes and get people into work. There is a clear difference between broader national schemes and localised place-based approaches. It is clear that employment challenges in Carlisle, for example, are very different from those in Cardiff and that tailored, localised support can be a more effective way of helping people in those areas to gain meaningful, lasting employment.
The JobsPlus scheme—started by the previous Conservative Government—is an example of that, and has been mentioned a few times already this afternoon. The scheme was inspired by the response to problems in the United States, and has been carried out in the UK through social landlords, and convened and organised by Communities that Work. These pilots were carried out in a diverse range of areas, such as Swale in Kent and Toxteth in Liverpool, as a useful road test for a scheme that would show how it would work in different parts of the country. The evaluation last autumn, written by the Institute for Employment Studies and Learning to Work, said that there had been
“positive early indications that the JobsPlus model could be implemented effectively in the UK”.
There is, of course, a long way to go. We hope for the success of place-based employment schemes and for each area to see an uptick in employment. There are hard-working and committed people in communities across the country who are doing their utmost to improve the life chances of others. Effective wraparound support is essential in tackling those complex barriers to work that so many of our constituents are facing in their own communities.
We certainly know that a one-size-fits-all approach from Whitehall is often not the answer, and that devolving power down to local people and local decision makers can be the best way to achieve real, tangible progress and outcomes. However, we recognise that core principles apply to helping people throughout the country when they are trying to get a job. We must also guard against a postcode lottery, where some areas have a good level of support and others are, quite frankly, left behind. There is a clear balance to be struck, and I would like the Minister to explain how she will make sure that it happens.
I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s view on private sector involvement. From my perspective, relying on state interventions alone does not work, and we will need to unleash private enterprise, particularly small and medium sized enterprises. One of the current problems in the British economy, and, indeed, in our jobs market, is that businesses of all sizes and in all communities do not have the confidence to hire in the current economic and regulatory environment. The Minister does not need me to repeat the impact on jobs of the Government’s decisions on things such as hiking national insurance or the Employment Rights Act 2025. I hear the impact from my constituents, and I do not believe that the Minister and others on the Government benches do not hear the same things too.
A thriving economy and business confidence really is the best way to boost employment across the UK. That simply is not the case at the moment, with job vacancies down and unemployment up from 4.2% when the Government came to power in July 2024 to 5.1% today. There are 700,000 university graduates who are out of work and on benefits, and nearly 1 million NEET young people. These are sobering numbers and will impact on the constituencies and constituents of every Member in this room, across the length and breadth of the country. They impact people now, but also into their futures. Those numbers put a huge pressure on employment support programmes, and often overwhelm them. We want employers to feel comfortable in hiring people, not to impose hiring freezes because they are concerned about the state of the economy.
I will briefly focus on my constituency, as others have today. I often talk in this place about the oil and gas sector and the impact that policies are having on jobs. Employment, particularly locally in north-east Scotland, is wholly reliant on the oil and gas sector. Every other sector and industry is related to it: hospitality, taxis, shops, and the housing market. Regardless of whether people support oil and gas or whether people believe in the energy transition, policies in this sector are having an impact on jobs.
No other constituency in the country is seeing as many job losses in a single sector as we are across north-east Scotland. If this were happening in any other Member’s constituency, they would not be sitting silent; they would be fighting for the employment and future of their constituents. That is what I am doing, and it is what must be done if we are to ensure that place-based employment support is not needed in Aberdeenshire to the extent that it would be if the oil and gas sector were allowed to collapse.
I certainly welcome robust place-based employment support, but I call on the Government to link it with broader economic changes that allow businesses to flourish and encourage them to take a chance on younger people and those currently out of work. I thank the Minister in advance for her response and the hon. Member for Southport again for securing this debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Murrison.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on securing this debate. As he rightly pointed out, employment can often get bound up in numbers, targets and rates. What we all know is that this is fundamentally about people, families, communities and the world of work. Work is a huge part of people’s lives, and we should never underestimate how much it matters that we support people into work and help them succeed in their careers. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, in what I think has been an excellent debate, about the support that their constituents are already receiving in many cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) talked about her local employers, as well as the vital role of towns in economic growth and regeneration. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), who brings great knowledge to her role on the Work and Pensions Committee, as well as her experience prior to entering Parliament. She spoke about the Connect to Work programme, which I will say a little more about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) spoke about NEETs and about the excellent work, rooted in partnerships, that is already going on in her area to support individuals. At the end of her contribution, she talked about hope, ambition and action, which I thought was a very powerful message. I would gently remind the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) that over 500,000 people entered employment over the last year.
I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southport said, and to his commitment to helping his constituents into good work. It was great to hear him champion some of the excellent work of The Big Onion in Southport, the Cradle to Career scheme in the Liverpool city region more widely, and the various place-based employment support providers across the north of England. I was particularly interested in Zink and its microjobs, and in how it helps people move into part-time and then full-time work.
My hon. Friend also spoke with great eloquence about the challenges he faced growing up in an area where the local factory had closed and work was really hard to come by. It underlines the fact that where someone lives is often a significant factor in the challenges they face and the chances before them in life. Those who live in communities like the ones that he represents, or that I represent in Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, will always know best what the barriers and opportunities are in their local area. That is why I am committed to working closely with mayoral strategic authorities, local government, the voluntary and community sector, and others to ensure that employment support works for people, no matter where they live.
I regularly meet with mayors and leaders in local government, as do my officials, to ensure that we are designing employment support that meets the needs of those local communities. In December, I met the mayoral council. Last week, the Minister for Skills, Baroness Smith of Malvern, and I met the Local Government Association’s inclusive growth committee to hear from local leaders working across England, including those representing towns, on youth employment and the jobs and careers service. Earlier today, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. We will continue to listen to and engage with local leaders as we reform employment support.
A core strength of the Department is our network of jobcentres and work coaches on high streets all around the country, with staff who are knowledgeable and passionate about the communities they serve. We have to make the most of that, which is why we are building a new jobs and careers service that moves away from the one-size-fits-all approach that has been mentioned several times this afternoon. We are instead building a locally responsive service designed to meet the different needs of local labour markets, local people and local employers. We are already testing new elements of this service through our pathfinder in Wakefield, which I went to see before Christmas. We have also matched up Jobcentre Plus boundaries with mayoral strategic authorities to strengthen partnerships between jobcentres, local government and other local stakeholders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport mentioned the efforts to make jobcentres more human. I have to say, this is not the first time that effort has been put into that. I read that, in the 1940s, as part of his drive to humanise the employment exchanges that existed then, Ernest Bevin felt it necessary to issue an instruction that staff should say “good morning” to members of the public when they came into the employment exchange looking for help.
Fortunately, I think we are starting from a better position than that today, but we want to make sure that jobcentres are places that people want to go to for support, not places that they shy away from. We are making sure that the new jobs and careers service is less about benefit administration and box ticking, and that it better uses technology so we can free up our work coaches’ time to focus on giving people support that is tailored to their needs. In the English devolution White Paper, we again set out the important role of mayors in driving local growth and supporting labour market and skills needs.
I will turn to some of the locally led employment support that we are investing in already, including £1 billion through our Connect to Work programme. I recently saw that support in action in Lewisham, where a neurodiverse young man told me how the personalised support that he was receiving from the team was helping him in his work as a swimming teacher. Across England and Wales, he is one of 300,000 disabled people, or people with health conditions and other complex barriers, who we will be supporting through Connect to Work by the end of the decade.
Mayors and local authorities are being funded via grants to enable delivery of local Connect to Work programmes. Over two fifths of delivery areas are now up and running, and we have given areas considerable flexibility in how they deliver the service to reflect the local priorities and other support available in the area.
We are also expanding WorkWell across the whole of England over the next three years to support up to 250,000 people. I visited WorkWell in Cambridge a few months ago and saw the brilliant way that it is working together with local authorities, integrated care boards and Jobcentre Plus to provide a single route to personalised, integrated work and health support. This recognises that local areas are well placed to knit together local services. For that reason, we have also commissioned local Get Britain Working plans in all areas of England.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), raised the issue of Access to Work, and I heard what he said. He will know that a National Audit Office report was produced at the end of last week. Demand has soared for Access to Work; we are already putting in additional staff and we are looking at what more can be done because we recognise how important it is.
I want to mention the voluntary and community sector, which was raised by a number of Members this afternoon, and how important its role is in employment support. With the mayoral strategic authorities, we are working closely with the sector to deliver 17 economic inactivity and youth guarantee trailblazers to test new, innovative ways of delivering that support, delivered by local partners. The partnership is about engaging with communities at that grassroots level to help them access holistic support to move towards work. I heard the calls this afternoon for the funding to be made available to that sector on a sustainable basis with multi year settlements.
There was mention of local authority funding. The local government finance settlement is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable. The Government are making good on long overdue promises to fundamentally update the way we fund local authorities. We are delivering fairer funding and targeting money where it is needed most through the first multi-year settlement in decades.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport spoke about the long-lasting effect on his life when he could not get a job as a young man. For so many, the consequences of what happens at the start of their working life can cascade down the years. That is why we are putting a real focus on supporting young people, not least through our youth guarantee.
At the Budget, we announced the expansion of the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of investment, which answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) about supporting young people into infrastructure projects. That investment will create around 300,000 more opportunities to gain workplace experience and training for young people. I take issue with his comments, however, because he failed to acknowledge that if support and help are offered to a young person, as they will be through the youth guarantee, there is a responsibility on them to take up that offer of assistance and support. That is part of the social contract in this country.
I have already mentioned the locally led trailblazers, but we are also expanding youth hub provision to more than 360 areas across Great Britain. That is important because those hubs are helping us to reach young people where they are—in places such as football clubs and other sports facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport mentioned the importance of delivering support in familiar settings, and I am glad that he and several other Members highlighted JobsPlus as an example of that. It delivers community-based employment support through the social housing sector and is being piloted in 10 sites across England.
I want to mention the Milburn review, which is looking at why nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. It is due to report in the summer. We cannot allow the talents of nearly 1 million young people to be wasted. It is not good for those young people, and it is not good for our economy or the taxpayer either.
Whether it is our trailblazers, youth hubs, Jobcentre reform or programmes such as Connect to Work and WorkWell, we are determined that people should get the support that suits them, regardless of where they live or what their circumstances are. People’s lives are complex and people can face all sorts of barriers to work, whether it is health, skills, transport, housing or any other factor. That is why we must take a joined-up approach to deliver a locally tailored ecosystem of support to ensure that no one is left behind.
We must ensure that people can access offers of support from sources that they trust and that treat them as an individual and as a whole person. That is why the Government have committed to learn from place-based support, such as the economic inactivity and youth guarantee trailblazers and Connect to Work, and it is why we are committed to truly embedding and tailoring our new jobs and careers service to meet the needs of local people and employers.
As we develop our jobs and careers service, our youth guarantee and Pathways to Work, we will be working closely with local government, including mayoral strategic authorities, to ensure that they reflect the communities that they serve. Ensuring that employment support is integrated in, and meets the needs of, local communities will help people to benefit from the purpose, pride and independence of good work and to fulfil their potential.
Patrick Hurley
I thank you, Dr Murrison, for your exemplary chairing of the debate. I also thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. What has come through really clearly is that employment policy works when it starts with the reality of people’s lives and that, for people furthest from the labour market, progress works best when the support that they are given is human and rooted in place.
The message that I hope the Minister will take away is simple: the systems that we have in place centrally matter, but they cannot do all of this alone. Place-based delivery, person-centred support and genuine partnership are all essential if we are serious about tackling the scourge of inactivity. Crucially, funding, and the certainty of funding, is also massively important. I know that the Government will reflect on how future policy can embed the approaches we have talked about this afternoon. I thank everybody for their contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered place-based employment support programmes.