Commons Chamber

Monday 23rd February 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
None Portrait Q4. What plans he has for the delivery of the Local Growth Fund in Northern Ireland. (907903)
-

>> Robin Swann. >> Mr. speaker, I thank the Minister for having met me previously in regards to the
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Q6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Pride in Place funding on neighbourhoods in Glasgow South constituency. (907905)
-

Place strategy, will put his community in the driving seat so that they can deliver the priorities they want to see in their area. >> Thank you.
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
None Portrait Q11. What assessment his Department has made of the level of need for additional social and affordable housing in Bradford. (907911)
-

Sir, I thank the Minister and he
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
None Portrait Q14. What steps he is taking to help increase the proportion of social and affordable housing in new developments. (907914)
-

>> Central, will create 12,500 new jobs and 3000 new homes in phase one before the planning committee
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
None Portrait Q15. What steps he plans to take to ensure that new housing developments have adequate access to infrastructure. (907915)
-

Sarah Green Mr. speaker, I'm
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office review into Labour Together and APCO Worldwide
-

protecting that freedom. Journalists must be able to do their job without fear or favour, including holding politicians of
15:43
15:44
15:44
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
conduct of the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of state between the Cabinet Office and the Department for science, Innovation and Technology. The hon. Member for Makerfield, who was previously the Director of Labour Together as the Prime Minister, confirmed last week, he asked civil servants in the Cabinet Office proprietary and ethics team to establish the facts as members across the House will know, all civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Code, which dictates that they act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The exercise to establish the facts around these allegations was bound by those principles.

That work has now concluded and the facts have been reported to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been advised that the matter should be referred now to the Independent adviser on Ministerial standards, which the Prime Minister has done today. Mr. speaker, this is not a new process but a continuation of the process the Prime Minister has started and the Prime Minister will make a judgement when he has received the advice from the independent adviser. This will happen very soon and his advice to the Prime Minister will be made public in the normal way.

The independent adviser is appointed to provide impartial, independent advice to the Prime Minister in line with his published terms of reference. The current independent adviser was appointed under the last administration by the Prime Minister's predecessor, and is independent of the government. He will provide his independent advice directly to the Prime Minister. Mr. speaker, I would like to reiterate again that a free and independent press is an absolutely essential part of a free, open and democratic society and is one of the things that makes our country great.

Representing the public as a Minister is a privilege and a duty, and public scrutiny is rightly part of that. The government is committed to protecting freedom of the press, and no journalist should ever be intimidated for trying to hold

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those in power to account. Alex Burghart GEF. Thank you for granting this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for granting this urgent question, sir, and the details of this story are quite extraordinary, even by the standards of this government. standards of this government. Whilst director of the think tank Labour Together, the now Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Member for the Cabinet Office, the Member for Makerfield paid a PR agency to investigate the backgrounds and motivations of British journalists who had written about Labour Together's breaches of electoral law, of which there were many more than 20, the most famous being a failure to declare £730,000 worth of
15:46
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
donations. The agency produced a report which included an allegation that those journalists in question that those journalists in question had relied on Russian hacking. Needless to say, those reports were Needless to say, those reports were entirely spurious. The Minister has claimed that the agency acted beyond its brief. But in the past few days, an email from the agency to the Minister has been published showing that he was shown that a, quote, human intelligence investigation into these journalists would take place. That investigation included details of one journalist's Jewish faith, and made claims about his ideological upbringing and personal relationships.

The report was then circulated to key members of the Labour Party and to GCHQ, who swiftly said there was no case to answer. Mr. speaker, this looks, to all intents and purposes, like a deliberate attempt to smear and intimidate journalists whose only crime had been to report that Labour together had broken electoral law. As of today, it is very difficult to see how the minister's position is tenable. The referral to the independent adviser, which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has just announced, is the right thing to do, but it should have been done immediately.

It should not have been the case that this was dealt with internally in the Cabinet Office, where the Minister in question is a Minister. He is a Minister with responsibility for inquiries and whistleblowing. He couldn't make this stuff up. And so I must ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, why has the Minister not been suspended whilst this investigation is going on? We must also ask because he refers to the work of the proprietary and ethics team, must also ask about the membership of that team.

Currently, because it is known that a political appointment was made to a civil service role of a woman who was previously an employee of Labour Together. Does he now accept that that that appointment was wrong? It must also be the case, Mr. Speaker, that very many people took money from Labour together. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the deputy Prime Minister, the list goes on. An organisation set up to conceal the source of its donations from the public and from the Labour Party.

Is it not time for an investigation into Labour together?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take the questions in reverse order. take the questions in reverse order. The Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accused me of taking money from Labour together. That is money from Labour together. That is not true. Mr. speaker, I had a number of seconded staff into my office as a shadow member of the office as a shadow member of the Shadow Cabinet, which is, I'm sure members opposite will know as an important contribution that is made to political parties when you do to political parties when you do not have access.

When the opposition doesn't have access to the civil service. But no money was
15:49
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
taken. Not £1, not one penny and seconded staff were reported in the proper way. So I hope that the Shadow Chancellor might be able to Shadow Chancellor might be able to revoke those comments when he gets the opportunity to do so. His second question was about the investigation being led by the investigation being led by the proprietary and ethics team. I can confirm that that was led by a senior member of staff, which is not the member of staff he was referring to, who reported directly to the Prime Minister.

And his first question was why the Minister in question is not suspended while this investigation is taking place. It's because the establishment of the independent Adviser on Ethics can only investigate Ministers whilst they are in office. If the Minister had been suspended or removed from office, the independent adviser would not be able to undertake his work. And the Prime Minister thinks it is important that the independent adviser is given the opportunity to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do just that. Jon Trickett very much indeed, Mr. Speaker. And can I put it to Mr. Speaker. And can I put it to the Minister that a significant number of Ministers in this government did receive large sums government did receive large sums of money, including himself, from Labour together? And I wonder whether he's I think he received whether he's I think he received almost £60,000. He's shaking his head. If that's if that's untrue, then I'll withdraw it. But still a then I'll withdraw it.

But still a number of Ministers did. And my point is this did it not leave a
15:50
15:51
15:51
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
on our free press. So can the government clarify what steps they are taking to uphold the independence of journalism in this country? Successive governments have eroded the public's trust in politics. So will this government now implement the Liberal Democrat suggestion of putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing? And I've heard what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said about keeping Minister Simons in his job while the investigation takes place. But would he not agree with me? This is yet one more example of the government insisting that process has to take precedence over political judgement, and can a way not be found for the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

step aside while a full investigation is undertaken? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The best route for independent investigations of these types is the independent ethics types is the independent ethics adviser, and as I've informed the House, he can only investigate sitting Ministers. That process is sitting Ministers. That process is important, and whilst it's not for me to make the case one way or the other for the Minister in question, other for the Minister in question, he refutes the allegations and needs to be given the chance to go through that process.

The independent adviser will then independently give a view to the Prime Minister in relation to the ministerial code and other issues, and then ultimately, it is a question for the Prime Minister as to what should happen next. I would also just slightly correct her, if I may. I think the accusations I may. I think the accusations being made are not against the Labour Party or the government, but against the think tank Labour Together.
15:53
15:53
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
reporting the truth. So that's why I've written on five occasions to the general secretary of the Labour Party and to the Prime Minister asking for an independent inquiry. asking for an independent inquiry. I was told in the end that there was an inquiry going on by the Communications and Public Relations Association. That's not a regulatory body. I was told the Cabinet Office was then assembling Cabinet Office was then assembling the facts, not an investigation, but assembling the facts. And we now know actually the Labour to Ex-labour together staffer within that team itself.

And we do know that Ministers have received donations often to their office or their campaign. And the scale of those donations from Labour together is shocking. To be frank, it's almost as though an organisation has bought a political party. That's some of our worries. And now we're told this will be referred to the independent adviser. Is it true that the independent adviser will investigate the whole sequence of events around this with regard to Labour together, not just the role of this individual MP, now a junior Minister within government during that period whilst he was an MP or a Minister.

But we get the full truth of what went on because this at the moment does not pass the smell test as far as I'm concerned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Mr. Gentleman. Mr. speaker, as the House will know, the independent adviser on know, the independent adviser on ethics has the remit to investigate Ministers on behalf of the Prime Ministers on behalf of the Prime Minister in relation to concerns that the government has standing to ask those questions. Any questions about what happened or did not happen within Labour, together as a private organisation is a matter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

private organisation is a matter for the Board of Labour together. There you are, sir. Alec Shelbrooke. Thank you very much,
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
former chief of staff in Downing Street was quite content with not declaring £730,000 of monies coming declaring £730,000 of monies coming into the system, safe in the knowledge the Electoral Commission's powers were very Commission's powers were very limited and a fine of £16,000 limited and a fine of £16,000 opposite 730 was simply the cost of doing business. So can the Minister assure me that Sir Laurie Magnus, when he looks at this matter, will look at the funding structure and consider whether we need to revisit the ways in which people can be penalised for such egregious transgressions and flagrant disregard for doing business properly.

Because to my mind, these individuals should bear responsibility personally, like we ask for directors to be individually responsible, so should they. In these circumstances.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary Jones, I thank my hon. Friend for his his his question. The independent adviser on Ethics will be looking at the ministerial code and its application to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in Parliamentary Under-Secretary in relation to the statements that have been made and the fact that have been made available through the propriety and ethics team fact finding process. He he asked me wider questions around regulation wider questions around regulation of think tanks and donations and and those types of things, which I'm sure will be debated as part of the forthcoming elections bill.

But of course, I agree with my hon. Friend, that these things should be done in the proper and ethical way.
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
Danny Kruger Portrait Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Reform UK)
-
-
Dispatch Box that in terms of the independent inquiry, it is necessary for the Ministers to stay in his role so that the inquiry can in his role so that the inquiry can be carried out. It's absolutely extraordinary suggestion and could he please explain it? And secondly, he please explain it? And secondly, could he simply confirm to the House that it is for the Prime Minister to appoint and dismiss Ministers without reference to Ministers without reference to independent inquiries? He is perfectly capable of making the right decision right now.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ruth Jones. The Prime Minister, made the ethics adviser independent coming into government because of the misuse of that process by former prime Ministers who were trying to cover up for their friends. As a consequence of that, the independent ethics adviser has not only illustrated his independence, but has proven that the independent process works because where Ministers have been in breach of the code, the Prime Minister has sacked him as a consequence. And he made a statement that the leader of the team was a former Labour Together staffer.

That is not true and that should be acknowledged. And he's also asked me a question, Mr. Speaker, about why Ministers Mr. Speaker, about why Ministers have to remain in post whilst they're being investigated by the independent ethics adviser. Those are the rules for the system that are the rules for the system that we've inherited. But he raises an interesting question and we should consider that in the future. But for the time being, the rules are for the time being, the rules are as established and that requires the Minister to stay in post whilst they're being investigated.
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:27
16:27
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
fast but pet? That's the propriety and ethics team did find I had not broken. Not broken the code. Well, broken. Not broken the code. Well, the pet team cannot cannot determine whether or not a Minister has broken the code or not. And it's quite clear. Government spokesperson has said this was an accidental post, clearly meant for accidental post, clearly meant for a more private conversation. And it's right that the independent adviser takes this away. Now, could adviser takes this away. Now, could I ask your assurance, Mr.

Speaker, that whatever has been provided to this member from the Propriety and Ethics team is published immediately, and that there is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

openness and transparency on this matter? Sarah Jones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Chief Whip spoke to the Minister this morning to inform him that the Prime to inform him that the Prime Minister had decided to refer the matter to the independent adviser, but I can confirm that the propriety and ethics team will not propriety and ethics team will not have made a judgement one way or another about whether the Minister has been cleared or not in relation has been cleared or not in relation to the ministerial code.

Proprietary ethics team advise the Prime Minister to refer it to the independent adviser. It's for the independent adviser to come to a judgement on that, and then to report to the Prime Minister.
16:28
16:29
16:29
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Update on the Government response to the Humble Address motion
-

confirm that work is ongoing across departments to search for and identify the material relevant to the Humble Address, and departments
16:29
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
have been instructed to retain material which may be relevant to this motion, given the breadth of this motion, given the breadth of the motion as drafted. This is clearly a process which will take some time. However, I want to reassure colleagues that officials reassure colleagues that officials have been working throughout the recess period and are expecting to compile information relating to the compile information relating to the House's request very shortly. As the motion envisages, we are carefully assessing the material for whether any of it may be for whether any of it may be prejudicial to national security or international relations.

The House will appreciate that this remains a sensitive matter, and the government is committed to referring this material to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Cabinet Office is leading this work in close cooperation with the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in a process agreed by the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, as delegated by the new Cabinet Secretary. Following her appointment by the Prime Minister last Thursday, the government intends to publish documents in tranches instead of one publication at the end of the process.

Given that we are unable to confirm how long that process will take. On that basis, the government expects to be able to publish the first tranche of documents very shortly in early March. I should, however, inform the House that it remains the case that a subset of this first tranche of documents is currently subject to the ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation. This includes correspondence between number ten and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow up questions were asked because of the Metropolitan Police interest in this document, we are unable to publish it in early March in the first tranche, but will release it as soon as we're able to do so in consultation with the Metropolitan Police.

There is also a small portion of that material which engages matters of national security or international relations, and thus the role this House has envisaged for the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are working with the Committee to establish processes for making this material available to them, and we are very grateful to the Committee in advance for their important contribution to reviewing these documents. Mr. speaker, I recognise the House will want to know about the next steps around the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the motion that is not included in the first tranche.

I would like to make it clear that anything we publish will be in line with our normal approach to publishing material in the House, such as redactions of junior officials names and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. Further work is needed to compile the information in scope and conduct to conduct the necessary assessments. However, I can commit to the House that we will release this further material subject to the ongoing process with the Met Police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and will continue to keep members updated as we make progress.

I welcome the House's patience as the government works swiftly to comply with the Humble Address. Mr. speaker, with your permission, on a separate matter, before I conclude, I understand there has been a high level of public interest in the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, his arrest last Thursday, and what may follow. The government is clear that we are not ruling out action in respect of the line of succession at this stage, and we will consider whether any further steps are required in due course. It is vital, however, that we first allow the police to carry out their investigations.

I know they will have the full support of the government and I am sure this House as they do so, I will return to the House with further updates as I have committed to do so. Mr. speaker, not just on this issue, but in relation to wider reforms to standards, lobbying, transparency and the removal of peerages in due course. And I commend this statement to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Chief Secretary for the thank the Chief Secretary for the statement which we received at 3:38 p.m. and gently suggest to him that the 45 minutes referred to in the ministerial code is a minimum rather than a target. On 4th February, this House voted across parties for a Humble Address to be presented. That is not a polite presented. That is not a polite suggestion. It is a formal command from Parliament to the executive.

Yet three weeks later, the
16:33
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
government's progress moves with the urgency of a tired sloth on a bank holiday Monday before the bank holiday Monday before the recess, my hon. Friend from Brentwood and Ongar sent a comprehensive list of questions to comprehensive list of questions to the Cabinet Office. He received nothing back. Not a letter, not a nothing back. Not a letter, not a postcard, not even an out of office reply. So let's try for some verbal clarity today. The Prime Minister previously state the integrity of this process on the personal oversight of the Cabinet Secretary, and then he sacked him.

Has the change in Cabinet Secretary caused a scoping delay, or is the government simply using the handover as a convenient long grass to kick this into? Reports suggest a secret investigation into Lord Mandelson's conduct took place last September. My hon. Friend asked about this on the floor of the house, and he asked again in writing. But silence. So can the Chief Secretary tell us, does this report exist? If so, who wrote it? And will the government stop playing hide and seek and publish it? The government calls this an urgent review, yet the terms of reference remain as elusive as the coherent Treasury forecast.

The Parliament Secretary to the Cabinet Office promised my hon. Friend in the debate on the 4th of February that he would write with answers. Yet there is still nothing. So can the Chief Secretary tell us, does the scope include the £241 million Ministry of Defence contract awarded to Palantir following Lord Mandelson's off diary meetings? Does he cover Global Council, or are we only looking at the bits of the noble Lords Rolodex that aren't politically explosive? The Intelligence and Security Committee is being asked to help, yet his secretariat consists of Cabinet Office civil servants.

Mr. speaker, as the ISC itself warned last May, an oversight body should not be beholden to the very organisation it is supposed to be overseeing. So if this is a genuine audit, what steps are being taken to ensure that the committee can operate without conflicts of interest? When Cabinet Office staff are considering material that relates directly to decisions taken by the Cabinet Office itself. Mr. speaker, you could not have been clearer. The police cannot dictate to this House, yet the government remains coy about the legal basis for withholding documents.

So we need an unequivocal commitment today. Once the police are finished, every withheld page must be published. No excuses, no redactions by stealth. And in the meantime, any documents that are withheld from publication at the request of the police are handed to the ISC immediately. As you indicated after the debate. Finally, will the Chief Secretary commit to a Keeley style register for all withheld documents? If the government has nothing to hide, they should have no problem listing exactly what they are keeping from us and why.

Mr. speaker, the opposition has acted in good faith. We have been patient, but careful work must not become a euphemism for managed delay. This House gave a constitutional instruction on 4th of February. It is time the government stopped treating Parliament like an inconvenient interruption to their schedule, stopped giving every impression that they have priorities working out whose back to cover, and started providing some actual answers. That so that we can start to get to the bottom of this murky matter.
16:37
16:38
16:39
16:39
Tom Morrison Portrait Tom Morrison MP (Cheadle, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have always been a must remain at the forefront of our minds. The decades forefront of our minds. The decades of abuse and suffering they endured can never be undone. And while nothing can erase that pain, we believe the recent decisions taken by the police and the government represent a step in the right direction. We welcome. The government has begun working to release the files relating to the role of Peter Mandelson.

Parliament asked for transparency and the public deserves it. Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton called for a full statutory public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein and his influence on the British political establishment. Only through an independent inquiry can we uncover the truth and deliver justice for the victims. So will the government support this call? And once again, allegations of sleaze and scandal cast a shadow over our politics. After a decade of misconduct and rule breaking under successive governments, it is clear the current system is not fit for purpose.

So can I ask the Minister, will the government finally commit to putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing, ensuring that breaches carry real consequence? And finally, will the Minister commit to protecting those who speak out by establishing a new office of the whistleblower, strengthening legal protections and increasing public awareness of whistleblowers rights, transparency, accountability and integrity in public life are not optional. They are essential.
16:41
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
Secretary Jones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his statement in relation to investigations and inquiries. The House will know that the criminal House will know that the criminal investigation being led by the Metropolitan Police, I'm afraid at the moment, takes primacy because the moment, takes primacy because the House would not want to and nor would the government inadvertently, to interfere with that process. But the government agrees with the hon. the government agrees with the hon. Member that it is important that people are held to account for their actions, and the victims their actions, and the victims receive justice.

And he invites me to comment on some suggested reforms. As I've said to the House before, I'm very happy to consider them. In particular the proposals from the Liberal Democrat benches on whistleblowing. I think either the hon. Member or his colleagues are due to write to me about that in due course. I would just say on the ministerial code, the ministerial code, as far as I can tell, is is working because there is an independent adviser who is very effective, advises the Prime Minister.

And when there's a breach. Ministers are removed from office. So I'm not entirely sure what a statutory footing would add in terms of additional value given we've given the independence to the ethics adviser and the code itself seems to be being applied very Janet Daby.
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:44
16:45
16:46
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:50
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:56
16:56
16:57
16:58
16:59
17:00
17:00
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Every Child Achieving and Thriving
-

change them. The Secretary of State.
17:00
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, please allow me to begin by saying that the unauthorised leaking of the unauthorised leaking of elements of today's announcement is deeply regrettable. I have already asked officials to launch a full investigation into the source to ensure that such breaches do not happen again. With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement to update the House on this government's work to transform education in this country. Because childhood is changing. Our children are growing up in a world of ever increasing connectivity and communication.

But uncertainty and mistrust are on the rise to our children. Have the curiosity, the resilience and the enterprise to succeed. But a vision for education that stops at the school gates has failed to deliver the opportunities that they need. Under the last government, absence was at historic highs. Despite the heroic efforts of staff, the disadvantaged gap is still stubbornly wide. Children with SEND still sidelined, bright pupils still left to drift along a system of high standards. But for some, but not for others, is not good enough.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, high standards and inclusion must go hand in hand. The last government's vision for education was too narrow. No school is an island and for children to do well, we need to look outside as well as inside the classroom. We need to rebuild the services on which families rely. That's why we've acted fast, beginning to remove the stain of child poverty, rolling out free breakfast clubs, expanding free school meals and removing the two child limit. I am deeply proud that this Labour government will have lifted more than half a million children out of poverty by 2030.

We have also delivered the expansion of 30 hours of government funded childcare. We are rolling out Best Start family hubs and we will fund Ascend Practitioner in every hub. And now today we go further. We are publishing our schools white paper, A vision for schools, not as a standalone, but at the heart of happy and healthy childhoods for every child. A great local school, a school of ambition and achievement, a school filled with sport, music, drama, a school of high standards and inclusion.

And let there be no doubt standards will rise for all children. Those born under this Labour government will, on average, leave school with a grade five or higher across their GCSEs, and I will not have higher standards for some, while others are left behind. The disadvantaged gap was as stark in 2024 as a decade before. And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will cut it in half. We will boost the impact of the pupil premium and the national funding formula, consulting on better targeting, and we will deliver three big shifts in our schools.

The first from narrow to broad, capturing the true breadth of opportunity starting before children even reach the classroom with our best start family hubs. To improve the transition into reception, we will establish partnerships between early years and schools, and staff will work together to help children settle. School days will be energised by a broad and rich curriculum. The knowledge and the skills for all of our young people to succeed, and we will consult on measuring attainment and progress. Improving the progress eight measure to strengthen the academic core and to support students to pursue subjects which strengthen our economy and our society like drama, art and design.

If that is the route that they want to take. High expectations and standards for all, and nowhere more so than reading. The ability to read opens up a world of opportunity, and falling behind locks too many children out of learning. So our New Year eight reading test will help them to stay on track. But currently, Madam Deputy Speaker, too many children are sidelined, held back their needs not met. We know the biggest challenges are concentrated in some communities, and that is why we launch and fund to place focussed education missions.

Mission North East and Mission Coastal. We will transform the life chances of local young people and draw a blueprint for national change, an education system that works for every child. And that's why our second shift from sidelined to included, to inject excellence and rigour into the learning of every child. But as a society, we have let those expectations slip. For children with special educational needs and disabilities. Now members across this House, we all know that our system isn't working.

They've heard it from their constituents. Parents who are tired of fighting, fed up with sending their children out of their communities to have their needs met, angry that their child's future is being written off. Madam Deputy Speaker, parents and children have been failed and they have been failed for too long. That is the reality that this government inherited from the Conservatives a system that was designed with the best of intentions, but one that became lose, lose, lose. In the words of my predecessor, because of the choices and then the inaction of the party opposite a system that drove local councils again and again to put process above people support was stripped away, forcing parents to run a legal gauntlet for what should have been their child's by right support.

That all too often just didn't materialise. And today that changes. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will fix the system once and for all. Today is a realisation of those children's rights, the right to high expectations and outcomes and the support to fulfil them. Far more local children going to school with their friends in their local communities close to home. Better for them and evidence suggests better for the whole class too. Over the next three years, we will invest more than £1.6 billion to strengthen the mainstream inclusion offer.

And for those children whose needs cannot be met through universal support, there will now be three further layers of support targeted, targeted, plus and specialist available from day one when a child needs them, schools will now have a statutory duty to record and monitor each child's special needs and provision in an individual support plan. We will fortify mainstream provision with our new National Experts at Hand initiative, backed by £1.8 billion of new investment, educational psychologists, occupational and speech and language therapists in our schools, supporting our teachers, benefiting our children.

And earlier this month, we announced huge investment in school buildings to. So every secondary school will have an inclusion base, a dedicated space to bridge the gap between mainstream and specialist provision. Because this is about improving support, not removing support, children with the most complex needs will still have access to education, health and care plans derived from specialist provision. Package of support designed by experts. And we know that insightful, holistic inclusion happens when schools share their expertise and their resources.

So we will strengthen school strategic partnerships. With every school, becoming part of a local send group. A new national inclusion standards will set out clear, evidence based guidance for support to restore parents trust in this system. We will improve the mediation and school complaints process, making the centre Aberdeen North the genuine mechanism of last resort, and we will give the Children's Commissioner a new remit to oversee our Send reforms. I also want to thank every parent, every organisation and every group that has taken part in our national conversation on Send, and I also want to take this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to my hon.

Friends from Newcastle upon Tyne North and Queen's Park and Maida Vale for driving forward that work. But this isn't the end of the conversation and I urge everyone to get involved as today we launch our national send consultation to parents, carers, support staff, teachers, experts and leaders. I ask you to work with us. We're building a system for children with SEND that will be unrecognisable from what came before, and we're putting in the investment, the care and the time to get this right.

With a smooth transition from 2030. Madam Deputy Speaker, schools need engagement from without as well as within communities coming together to support every child. So our final shift will be from withdrawn to engaged. We need to mend the broken social contract, helping children feel that they belong in school. Calm, inclusive classrooms that welcome children with different needs, guarded by high standards for behaviour and attendance. Schools building deep and meaningful partnerships with parents, inviting them in to see how their child can achieve and thrive.

We will establish minimum expectations for home to school partnerships, making clear what families can expect from schools and what schools can expect of families. Excellent support staff, teachers and school leaders to transform children's lives. But too many incredible young women in particular are still leaving the profession, so I'm putting an end to a quarter century of standstill and boosting maternity pay. And I want to spread the excellence of our wonderful staff. So we'll put purposeful collaboration at the heart of our education system.

Strong school trusts are vital, sharing what works and driving improvement so all schools will move towards forming or joining a high quality trust, and will empower local authorities and partnerships to establish trusts to. We'll work with the sector through this significant change, and we'll set high expectations through neutral standards and introduce trust inspection by Ofsted. Madam Deputy Speaker, we in this House have a responsibility to look beyond the here and now a duty not just to run the country of today, but to shape the society of tomorrow.

And members will agree that in Britain, background should be no barrier. Success should be open to all talent. Invention and hard work should matter more than class and connection that stronger, fairer Britain is possible. But to make it true in our country, first, we have to make it true in our schools. True for the little boys and girls now sitting in our classrooms, who can become the thoughtful and engaged citizens to take us towards the 22nd century. For them, we must come together now, today, and build a Britain of opportunity for all.

And I commend this statement to the House.
17:11
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
Secretaries of State Laura Trott. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement and to her officials and advisers for briefing officials and advisers for briefing me over the weekend. I pay tribute to those who pulled together the 300 pages of document, which I will now attempt to scrutinise in the five minutes that I have available to me today. To turn, firstly, to send the principle of more support in schools, evidence led packages and early intervention and more.

Speech and language therapists are welcome. But despite the 300 pages, there is still much that we do not know. We don't know exactly how children will qualify for an Ehcp in the future. There is no clear eligibility criteria for so-called specialist provision set out. There will be around seven packages of support when you get any HCP, but we are not told what these packages of support are, how you qualify for them or how much money will be associated with each. It makes it quite difficult to judge how effective this new system will be, let alone legislate for it.

Many questions also spring from the individual support plans for ISPs, which will take place in schools. It's not clear from the document what will trigger an ISP, nor the funding that will be associated with it. Generally, at the moment, schools have to cover the first £6,000 of support before any HCP is triggered. What will the new threshold be for schools to cover and further on funding? I note that £1.6 billion pot for inclusive mainstream provision over three years. This equates to £24,000 per year per school, if divided evenly across every school in England.

That's nowhere near enough for the extra work that schools are going to have to cover to write individual, tailored ISPs for every child. This is a mammoth burden to place on schools, one that I don't necessarily think is misplaced, but £24,000 a year is not enough to help them manage it. It's not a recipe for inclusion. It's a recipe for disaster. Can the Education Secretary tell schools what additional funding will be available to help them hire extra senco support to help them deal with these pressures? The workforce plan for 6500 teachers, which, incidentally, will not deliver 6500 more teachers, unbelievably, also says nothing about special educational needs provision within the workforce, perhaps because it's trying to ignore primary schools altogether and on wider funding.

The government still has not said how the £6 billion black hole on Send funding identified the OBR will be filled. The latest I read today in the Ft is that this is going to come from councils with the right hon. Lady care to confirm? And the funding pots announced today? Is this new money or is it coming from the department's existing overall Budget? Has the Dfe's Budget expanded beyond what was set out at the spending review on the Budget, and if so, by how much? And will these reforms save money and over what time period? And lastly, on Send, Ministers have repeatedly failed over the weekend to give clarity on reassessments.

So I will give the right hon. Lady one more opportunity. Will she rule out that any child who currently has an ehcp will have it removed? Yes or no? Now turning to the wider school white paper, we have the absurdity, Madam Deputy Speaker of a white paper that says that trusts will be the main driver of system led improvement. But in the schools bill, the department are proposing to take away the academy order where underperforming schools are taken over by trusts.

Either trusts are a driver for improvement of schools or they aren't. I think they very much are. And it seems the education secretary now agrees. So I ask the Education secretary with the zeal of a convert, will she disavow her earlier sins and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reinstate the Academy order? Yes. And on that theme, the white paper says our best school trusts innovate and drive excellence in standards. Well, they used to be standards. Well, they used to be able to. Madam Deputy Speaker, but the schools bill takes away their ability to innovate on the ability to innovate on the curriculum, who they employ, the terms and conditions of employment, and even on uniform. Again, I'm and even on uniform. Again, I'm delighted by this turnaround from the Education Secretary, but I ask that this is reflected in the actual legislation that the Education Secretary is putting through the House.

I fundamentally disagree with the proposal in the White Paper to emphasise inclusion when it comes to suspensions and exclusions. This is the wrong approach. If a pupil is behaving in a way which makes fellow pupils or a teacher unsafe, it is utterly wrong to hesitate to exclude because of inclusion. We have seen in tragic cases of Harvey Wilkos when pressure is put on schools not to exclude how wrong it can go. We must not make the same mistake again.

There is much more to cover. Madam Deputy Speaker, on funding reform, admission codes and work. I would actually praise, for example, on maternity pay. But I dare not risk the wrath. So I will close by saying that we support the principle of reform. But there is precious little clarity for parents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. To state it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will seek to respond to the right hon. seek to respond to the right hon. Ladies questions. I welcome the the broadly constructive approach that she has taken, but it would be she has taken, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that so many of the problems that we're dealing with today were left behind dealing with today were left behind by the party opposite, and an ounce of humility, an ounce of contrition
17:17
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
of humility, an ounce of contrition or understanding as to how we got here today, I think, would really enlighten our understanding of what we need to do to make change happen. As I said in my statement, I do recognise that the intentions behind the 2014 reforms were good intentions, but it became very clear very quickly that problems were developing within that system. And she asks about council deficits. She asks about the challenge that became pretty clear pretty quickly.

Madam Deputy Speaker. And it was in 2019 that the Conservatives brought in the statutory override because it was clear that councils were struggling with the increasing demands that they were facing. But that didn't just happen in isolation. It happened because of the period between 2010 and 2019. Family support services were stripped away, Surestart centres closed early help went. Children were left to struggle and we stored up problems for the future. And that is part of the reason that we continue to see escalating need in our school system because of the failure to identify and support children sooner.

And today, Madam Deputy Speaker, we put that right. We address the challenges that children and families face at the earliest possible point. We do not wait until years down the line when things have reached crisis point. That is true in our schools as it is in children's social care. And it's why also, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will take action to clamp down on the massive expansion we have seen in private equity backed, independent specialist provision that is sucking money out of our education system into the right hon.

Lady asks about specialist provision packages. We have published a document setting out the shape and nature of those packages we intend to appoint. I intend to appoint an expert panel with clinical and education expertise to shape those packages, to make sure that we have clear national standards, not a postcode lottery, as we have seen in the past. And on individual support plans, our intention is that they will be easy to use, digital and can move between different settings. Many settings will already do this, but we want the consistency that comes with having one system, and Ofsted will also look carefully at how settings are using ISPs in order to judge effective inclusion.

She asks whether this is about saving money and what the time period is, and she asks about the OBR's projections. I should say that the figure quoted by the OBR was a projection based on an unreformed system. We are reforming the system we are investing upfront to deliver reform. This is not about cutting costs or saving money or arbitrary targets or reducing numbers. This is about better support and better outcomes for children. The question, the way in which she framed her, her point about inclusion was fundamentally wrong and misjudged.

Of course, schools should take action when violent incidents take place, but that is not the same thing as making sure that schools are catering to children with special educational needs and disabilities. And there is a need for caution in how we approach this point where it comes to the transition to the new system. This will be a careful and a phase transition over the course of the decade, and it will not be until 2030 at the earliest that the new system will be fully operational.

We are taking the time to manage this, to get it right. As children move from one system to the next system. Very. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Lady asks about the role for trusts. She asks about the government's approach. It was the last Labour government that introduced academies to drive up standards in our most disadvantaged communities, but I see no conflict at all between the approach that we are taking and insisting that children should be taught by qualified teachers, and that their parents should be confident that the national curriculum is being followed.

It was the Conservatives that first introduced the national curriculum. They were right to do so then, and we still back that now. But I do think it is right that parents should expect a qualified teacher, and they shouldn't expect to be paying the earth where it comes to school uniform. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a conversation I have no doubt will continue in the weeks and months ahead. I relish the opportunity to set out this government's ambition for every child in our country.

This is a golden opportunity to shape our school system to deliver better, earlier and more timely support for children that have been let down for too long. And this Labour government will turn it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around. Father of the House Diane Abbott. The Secretary of State will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary of State will be aware how traumatic it is to grow aware how traumatic it is to grow up and support a child with special educational needs. She will also be educational needs. She will also be aware that disproportionate numbers
17:22
17:24
17:24
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the exhaustion, the underfunding, the private profiteering all must change. And that's why the change. And that's why the Conservatives failed to apologise for the crisis really angered me and will have infuriated families and will have infuriated families across the country. But as we fix this crisis, children's rights must this crisis, children's rights must not be stripped away. Yeah, so as we consider her proposals seriously, we'll continue to listen to and we'll continue to listen to and champion all the families whose lives could be impacted profoundly.

Let me start with three questions. First, early intervention. This is critical for improving children's lives and for making the whole system affordable. And I worry these modest changes won't shift the dial. Will she consider investing in universal screening and then active support for the child and their family earlier on? Second, on the plans for Ihcc speaking both for my family and many others like mine, it's hard to believe the range and complexity of needs and disability can be captured in a small number of predefined ehcp packages.

So can the Secretary of State guarantee her changes mean the voices of parents, the real experts on their children will at long last be heard when decisions are made. And finally, Madam Speaker, on changing the pupil premium device championed and introduced by this party, will the Secretary of State give a clear commitment that no individual child, wherever they live, will see their pupil premium funding reduced? And will she instead boost the pupil premium to put right the cuts and betrayals of the Conservative Party?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State I'm grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, I know he cares very deeply about this as he cares very deeply about this as a as a parent as well as as a politician, and I'm grateful to the approach for the approach that he has taken, and I look forward to working with him and his party in the weeks and months to come. I think we share a commitment to think we share a commitment to wanting in wanting to make sure that as we move from one system, which we all can agree is not
17:27
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
which we all can agree is not working, that the move to a better system is done in a careful and phased way. And yes, where the voices of parents are heard right throughout that process. He asks about early support. Madam Deputy Speaker, I completely agree, and that's why we're investing £1 billion in rolling out Best Start family hubs, while we're also expanding early years education, school based nurseries and investing in local authorities ability to develop early help. And that's why colleagues will will note through the material that we've published, we continue to see an increase in ihcc in the years to come before we start to see a plateauing and then a reduction.

And the reason for that is that we want to do this in a managed way. I would hope that we could reduce that more quickly, not for any arbitrary reason, not because we're chasing a number, but because we should be supporting children much earlier. The evidence of Sure Start was clear that if we step in early and support families, we reduce the need for send support later on in school. But that's because we've met that need more quickly, especially in areas like speech and language support.

I understand the point he makes around transition and education, health and care plans and we will be setting. We've already set out some detail as to specialist provision packages. They will be shaped by an expert panel independent of government. We will put that on statute and there will be clear national accountability and national standards to move away from the postcode lottery that we have seen in recent times. I know he is also interested in how we can ensure that cases of high need and low incidence are also addressed through regional models.

That is something that we've committed to considering through the consultation, and the voices of parents will be heard as we move this forward. We have launched our consultation that will run for 12 weeks. There will be events, the length and breadth of the country for parents to take part in that conversation. I would urge parents, health staff, education staff and others to share their views on what we have published and make sure that we are getting this right on the Pupil Premium and on the targeting of disadvantaged funding.

What I am keen to address is the fact that free school meals as a measure, is quite a blunt way to assess disadvantage within a family, and what we know is that children who are on free school meals or face persistent disadvantage and persistent poverty right throughout their school career are far more likely to have bad outcomes at the end than children who spent a period of time in poverty. So I do think we need to have a more nuanced approach to how we can better target resource to better improve outcomes for children, but we will be consulting on that, and I look forward to discussing it with him further.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Select Committee chair Helen Hayes. I welcome the publication of Hayes. I welcome the publication of the schools White Paper, the Clear Statement of Intent from the government on narrowing the Attainment gap and consultation on Senate reform today. I appreciate the time the government has taken the time the government has taken to listen to parents, carers and children and young people across the country who are being failed by the country who are being failed by the current system in preparing these reforms, and I am encouraged
17:30
Helen Hayes Portrait Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)
-
-
to see many of the priorities identified by the Education Select Committee in our report, Solving Committee in our report, Solving the Crisis. In the consultation paper, including early identification of need, reform of identification of need, reform of mainstream provision and strengthened accountability. The Secretary of State knows that it is Secretary of State knows that it is impossible to overstate the anxiety of parents and carers who have been failed by the current system, about failed by the current system, about what reform will mean will mean for them, and that rebuilding their trust must be central to the government's approach.

Parents and carers are particularly anxious about the requirement in the proposals for a child with an education, health and care plan to be reassessed at the end of their current stage of education. So can I ask the Secretary of State what assurance she can give to those parents who are worried about this change? That reassessment will not mean loss of support, that their views will be listened to during the 12 week consultation period, and that the government remains flexible to respond to the feedback

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is received. Kate. I'm grateful to the chair of the Select Committee and grateful to her and the whole committee for the very serious report and work that they have done. And she will see reflected in what we're setting out reflected in what we're setting out today, that the work that they have undertaken has shaped our approach. And I'm grateful to the committee and all of their members, all of and all of their members, all of the members of it, for their support in this.

I completely recognise what she says around the recognise what she says around the anxiety and worry of parents. I've spoken to parents the length and breadth of the country about the
17:31
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
fights they've had to go through, how tough it has been to secure the support that their children need. And I also want to thank and pay And I also want to thank and pay tribute to Ascend Development Group, who have worked so closely with us to make sure that parents voices, to make sure that parents voices, carers voices and the voices of children and those delivering services have been heard as we shape our reforms. We do want to do this carefully. This is a decade long process and a decade long transition that we are embarking transition that we are embarking upon, and from now until the commencement of legislation in 2029, the current system, with all of its existing duties and rights, will continue.

And after this on, only after this will we begin to move children through our new system of support. Of course, she will recognise that children should be assessed annually through the HCP process. Frequently that doesn't happen or it doesn't happen well, but our intention is to deliver better and expanded support more quickly for a wider group of children, and to manage this carefully. And the commitment that all children in specialist provision within Ahcp will be able to remain within specialist provision unless their parents take the decision to move.

I do recognise the wider point about transition, especially in post 16, and that is an area we also want to continue to work with colleges and providers on to make sure the smoothest move for children, which has been an area that I know she has taken great interest in and has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been flagged to us as a real concern. Sir Iain Duncan Smith Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Iain Duncan Smith Deputy Speaker, Can I say to the right hon. Lady, I welcome obviously, her Lady, I welcome obviously, her ambition in all of this, but where in all of this does she retain or will she retain the power to do something about councils that something about councils that simply fail completely? And Ofsted report of my local council referred to them as disjointed, weak to them as disjointed, weak coordination, limited accountability services, falling short, parents being ignored, never
17:33
17:34
17:35
17:36
17:36
17:37
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:39
17:40
17:40
17:41
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:43
17:44
17:45
17:45
17:46
17:46
17:47
17:48
17:48
17:49
17:49
17:50
17:50
17:51
17:51
17:52
17:52
17:52
17:53
17:54
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:56
17:57
17:57
17:58
17:58
17:58
Jen Craft Portrait Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)
-
-
welcome some clarity on. I welcome the move to make a much less adversarial system for parents, and to actually allow parents to get on with the job of being mum and dad. But I would welcome some clarity on where the kind of accountability is built into the system, particularly as related to individual support plans. I'd welcome some clarity as to whether accountability will be placed more on health authorities, who often have about a 50% onus of delivering certain services. But at the moment there is no statutory duty on them to do so.

And I'd also welcome clarity on whether guidance around the reasonable adjustment framework in schools might be strengthened, and how parents can hold schools and settings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountable if they do not meet their duties under Quality Act framework. Yeah. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, and for all of the time that she has taken to speak with me and with colleagues in the department to colleagues in the department to share her experiences as a parent, but also understanding the wider shift that we need to see. And she shift that we need to see. And she asks a number of detailed questions. I'll respond briefly, but I'm happy, of course, to discuss further through individual support plans. We do need to make sure that there is accountability around that, and through complaints panels, there will be an independent professional as a part of that.

Yes, absolutely. Health authorities must play their full role alongside local authorities in delivering better support. She is right to identify the need for clarity around reasonable adjustments, what that means for schools, and we will be setting out further detail on that.
18:00
18:00
18:01
18:01
18:02
18:02
18:03
18:04
18:04
18:04
18:05
18:05
18:06
18:07
18:07
18:08
18:08
18:09
18:09
18:10
18:10
18:11
18:11
18:12
18:12
18:13
18:13
18:14
18:14
18:15
18:15
18:16
18:16
18:17
18:17
18:18
18:18
18:19
18:19
18:20
18:21
18:21
18:22
Clive Betts Portrait Mr Clive Betts MP (Sheffield South East, Labour)
-
-
these costs recently and currently. But given these reforms she's announced today, which I very much welcome, they're going to take some time to come into effect. Will she give a guarantee now that local authorities are not going to have to rely on statutory overrides to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to provide their statutory duties in future? Thank you. So beyond the period that my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So beyond the period that my right hon. Friend identifies, that will then become the responsibility of central government. That's the commitment that we have given. It commitment that we have given. It is a big undertaking that we have made with colleagues across government to take action on the long standing deficits that local long standing deficits that local authorities have accrued over time. And he is right that the way in And he is right that the way in which we can respond to the challenges local authorities are facing around home to school transport is by improving provision closer to home.

Councils do not want to be sending children far from home. Parents certainly do not want their children spending hours want their children spending hours in taxis to access provision, and that's why the extra capital investment and the 60,000 new investment and the 60,000 new places that we will create will, over time, bring down some of those costs that councils are facing. costs that councils are facing.
18:23
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:25
18:25
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:27
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
reorganise councils to provide better services through eliminating wasteful duplication. Last month, as part of that process, I told the House we would postpone local elections in councils undergoing reorganisation, where local leaders sought it and where they provided compelling evidence based justification. I was guided by two principles. One postponement should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances. Two as a firm believer in local decision making, we should be guided by local leaders themselves. Following extensive consultation with the affected councils, many of whom shared their anxiety that a lack of capacity could mean elections to councils due to be abolished, delaying the reorganisation process, I concluded that those tests had been met in 30 cases.

Councils across the political divide were engaged in the original assessment and across party lines. Many called for postponement. Delay was granted in those cases using a statutory power granted by Parliament, the same power that has been exercised by previous governments. We were satisfied that the use of this statutory power in these circumstances was lawful and justified, as is normal practice. Lawyers kept the legal position under review and I received further legal advice after considering that further advice.

I took the decision to withdraw this proposal. We then rapidly reviewed the matter, recognising the urgency created by the electoral timetable to confirm to the House. The decision made is that the elections in the affected areas will now go ahead in May 2026, in full, and we have made a further order to bring this into effect. We have already written to the relevant councils and we will continue working closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and other sector bodies to ensure they are fully supported.

I recognise that this is a significant change for affected councils. That is why, when further legal advice was received, we acted as quickly as possible to provide clarity for councils. We know this change will mean additional pressure for councils and councillors across the country. That is why I announced last week up to £63 million in new capacity funding, on top of the 7.6 million provided last year for developing reorganisation proposals. Our priority now is ensuring that local councils have the support they need for reorganisation.

This extra money will help councils complete reorganisation effectively and sustainably. We will continue working with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to move to single tier unitary councils for the people of Surrey. Specifically, they will just have elections to the new unitary councils. Given the views expressed across the House following my decision. I recognise the importance members attach to the framework governing ministerial powers over the timing of local elections. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill provides an opportunity to look again at that framework, and the government is reflecting carefully on the amendments that have been tabled and the concerns raised.

Madam Deputy Speaker, reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state, responsible for the visible signs of whether a place is succeeding or failing. The public expect better local services and they are right to. It was important that we acted swiftly on these elections where further advice was was received. I recognise that has been difficult for effective councils and I want to assure colleagues we did not take this difficult decision lightly. I have spoken to many councillors and members of Parliament in recent days, and understand the scale of disappointment acutely.

But ultimately the government must act when legal advice says we need to. We will continue to rebuild local government after a decade of neglect, so residents get the services they deserve. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement to the House. Shadow Secretary of State for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Secretary of State for. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He has caused chaos. He has caused confusion, and he has caused a
18:33
James Cleverly Portrait Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
-
confusion, and he has caused a significant cost to the taxpayer. Cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to avoid responsibility for the fallout. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not an isolated incident. It is yet another government U-turn, and the unavoidable conclusion is that this Labour government is running scared of voters. The original decision to cancel elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He repeatedly defended that position at the despatch box.

He said in the Times that these elections were pointless. And yet when his decision fell apart, he recused himself from the process and left a junior Minister to pick up the pieces. So my first question is simple why was the retaking of this decision delegated? Was the Secretary of State so compromised by his own actions that he could not lawfully retake the decision himself? Will the Secretary of State now place in the House of Commons library the full correspondence that he would have disclosed had this gone to court? And if not, why not? What new factors were considered that led to a completely different conclusion ultimately being drawn? And there are, of course, also, Madam Deputy Speaker, questions of motive.

Is it really a coincidence that the elections first marked for cancellation were overwhelmingly in Labour run areas? I have been in contact with council leaders who describe being placed under intense pressure, repeatedly asked to restate capacity concerns, warned through multiple channels not to criticise the Secretary of State's decision and being left. And being left with the clear impression that future devolution, future reorganisation and indeed future funding decisions depended on their compliance.

A shocking state of affairs under his leadership. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that he acted inappropriately. If the Secretary of State is so confident that decisions were taken without political self-interest and without undue pressure being exerted behind the scenes, he should place all correspondence between his department and local authorities in the public domain. And if he does so, I'll be more than happy to withdraw my accusation of inappropriate behaviour. Does the Secretary of State now accept that there are strict limits on the power to delegate or delay elections outside the exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? And if so, will he ask his colleagues to accept the amendment tabled by conservatives in the other place, to limit the Secretary of State's power to cancel elections using secondary legislation? And given that MP given that Labour MPs voted down the same safeguards at Commons report, the Secretary of State must tell the House what this shambolic episode has cost the taxpayer in legal fees, in wasted preparation and the emergency expenditure now required to organise these elections at short notice.

And there is also a question about election pilots. What is their current status and why has the government still not published the prospectus or provided it for parliamentary scrutiny? And specifically, how many councils that originally said that they had the capacity to bid to take part in these pilots, who later told his department that they lacked the capacity to hold local elections? And how many of these councils with restored, with restored elections are now expected to proceed with these pilots? And ultimately, where does this leave the government's flagship reorganisation process? Elections are the foundation stone of democracy.

They are not a convenience to be switched on and off at the whim of the Secretary of State, which is why we on this side of the House, oppose these cancellations. The Secretary of State's judgement has once again been shown to be fundamentally flawed, and if he cannot or refuses to answer these questions and be open and honest about his behaviour, he should resign.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have also received a letter from the Shadow Secretary of State, and he will receive a response to that in due course. But the decision was in due course. But the decision was updated following legal advice, and we acted as promptly as possible after receiving that further legal advice. And that was the right
18:38
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
thing to do. Now, fresh ministerial consideration when decisions are revisited following legal advice is revisited following legal advice is perfectly normal and has happened before, and that was why it was before, and that was why it was done in that way. He will know that there is a long standing principle that government does not publish or that government does not publish or comment on legal advice, and I know he knows that because his words spoken in November 2023, in this chamber, were as follows.

In accordance with the long standing convention in this House, we do not discuss the content or nature of legal advice to government. He was right about that. Now, the motivation of council leaders who were writing to me to share their views, and indeed my own motivation, was because of concerns raised across the political spectrum about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation on time because of the benefits that represents to voters in eliminating wasteful duplication and making sure that the savings can be ploughed back into the front line.

Services which matter the most to local people. On his point about amendments that have been tabled, I think in the other in the other place, the government will of course consider amendments to these powers in the usual parliamentary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Toby Perkins. Thank you very much, Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I say to the Shadow Secretary of State, if you're going to call for the Secretary of State to resign, maybe make sure you've to resign, maybe make sure you've got more than four people sat behind you. It makes it seem more credible. But can I say to my hon. credible. But can I say to my hon. Friend, I appreciate what he is saying here about the importance of elections, how rarely these things are should be cancelled.

We in Derbyshire have proposal expectation to be moving to the unitary authorities in 2027. Does he agree with me that it's not he agree with me that it's not illogical to not have elections to authorities that aren't going to exist very soon? Can he tell us what lessons have been learned, and what this will mean for those authorities that are likely to be moving down this path in 2027?
18:41
18:41
18:42
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
incident. Having gone through the last conservative government in which top down reorganisation which top down reorganisation forced onto areas such as Cumbria and Somerset were bitterly opposed by local areas, yet forced onto by local areas, yet forced onto those local communities against local opposition Cumbria County Council taking the conservative Council taking the conservative government to court. Somerset Council opposed Somerset councils Council opposed Somerset councils opposing the forced reorganisation, and when opinion polls were taken across Somerset and the wild, the conclusion was that two authorities better than one.

The government, forced those decisions onto Somerset. So my first question for the Secretary of State is whether, if polls are taken in areas subject to top down reorganisation, the results of the public will be supported by the government. And and secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats opposed the postponement of these elections. We put down a fatal motion in the House of Lords, which the Conservatives failed to support, which could have therefore stopped the postponement in the first place. In the House of Lords, they failed to support that fatal motion.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask whether my second question to Secretary of State is whether, given that nine authorities had their elections postponed in 2025, whether the advice and rationale which applies in 2026 applies to the postponement that happened in 2025, and if not, why not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This date? Well, he's he's he'll be aware that I, I'm unable to discuss the that I, I'm unable to discuss the detail of the legal advice, although he will know the decision that we took after considering that that we took after considering that legal advice. But his earlier point, I think, is absolutely right. We should all be motivated by the should all be motivated by the interests of local people, and it's in the interests of local people that we should get rid of.

The confusion of having two councils in the same area, so people don't know which council to contact, but also that we should eliminate the wasteful duplication of jobs like wasteful duplication of jobs like chief executives, finance directors and so on, so that we can spend the savings on improving the local savings on improving the local services that make a difference to local people and the communities that they care about so much. that they care about so much.
18:44
18:44
18:45
18:45
18:45
18:46
18:46
18:47
Julian Lewis Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-
of being impartial? I am concerned that, despite the government's that, despite the government's consistent advice that the existing district and borough council areas district and borough council areas should be seen as the building blocks for the new unitary authorities. Labour controlled authorities. Labour controlled Southampton City Council is still insisting on trying to dismember insisting on trying to dismember the New Forest East constituency by going for boundary changes that would strip off the waterside near Southampton from the New Forest to which it has always looked.

Can the Secretary of State tell me that when he comes to make a decision on this and similar issues, the fact that it's a Labour led council asking for it not to follow it to its own guidelines, will not weigh in an inappropriate way in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions that he and his colleagues will take. Secondly. I can't give him that reassurance on his latter point, reassurance on his latter point, and if I can reassure him as well. Concerns have been raised across the political spectrum, including by council leaders from his own party, about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation. And that's why reorganisation. And that's why we've announced additional capacity funding to support those councils to be able to complete this to be able to complete this important, this important reform.

Of course, the the consultations are still underway on the exact form that that reorganisation will take place. And it would be wrong take place. And it would be wrong for me to comment on this on that today.
18:48
18:49
Peter Lamb Portrait Peter Lamb MP (Crawley, Labour)
-
-
that I think a lot of us are aware of is that he inherited a mess when he moved away from the very fine he moved away from the very fine job he was doing at DEFRA to the current department. MHCLG will not publish figures to indicate the publish figures to indicate the savings that this is allegedly going to generate. The only figures that we have available are those produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which have been quoted by Ministers previously. When you look through those figures at the geographical sizes we're now talking about, there are no savings through local government reorganisation, particularly when the wider public sector reform agenda is being taken apart by larger police areas and changes to the size of the Icbs.

So on the basis of this, we undertake a situation where there will be significant financial costs to these local authorities, but none of the savings that are currently projected. I welcome to publish the advice and the figures on this. Have they got contrary figures? The sides we're now talking about are 14 times larger than the next largest authorities in Europe, with a greater diameter than Greater London, without any community of interest. So given given the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the fact that this is going to leave labour communities at the mercy of right wing councils. I'm sure that the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure that the hon. Gentleman. You need to sit down. I'm sure that the hon. Gentleman will be putting his question right now. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his question right now. Yes. Given that poor advice has previously been given by the Department to the Secretary of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

State, is it not time to pause and reconsider the evidence base for local government reform? Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. I do thank him for his his question. And of course, I recognise he's one of the finest constituency MPs in the in the House. It was a delight to campaign for him and it's a pleasure to see him now in his seat. But we've had this conversation before and it's quite right that we should continue to have that. I don't agree with his analysis. There are savings that will derive from local government reorganisation, as well as making the system simpler for local people to understand.

But it's a debate I know that will continue. continue.
18:50
18:51
18:52
18:52
18:53
18:53
18:54
18:54
18:55
18:55
18:55
18:56
18:56
18:57
18:57
18:58
18:58
18:58
18:59
18:59
19:00
19:00
19:00
19:01
19:02
19:03
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
going to introduce the elements of the bill that as a published. And then at the end of the debate, I'll respond to the debate and the amendments that several hon. Members have tabled. So just to explain, clause one A increases the aggregate limit of financial assistance, which can be provided under section 81 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, from £12 billion to £20 billion. This is to reflect inflation and inflation adjustments. Since the limit was last raised in 2009.

Clause one B raises the level of incremental increases that can be made in an order by the Secretary of State from £1 billion to £1.5 billion. Thi again reflects inflation inflation adjustments. Since the limit was last raised in 2009. The parliamentary scrutiny arrangements for these incremental increases remain precisely as they were. Namely, they are subject to the affirmative legislative procedure. Clause two amends the financial assistance for exports and overseas investment under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, and this brings in four changes to the act.

It raises the commitment limit from £84 billion to £160 billion. It simplifies the legislation by expressing the limit in sterling rather than in Special Drawing rights. As is currently the case. It makes provision for the limit to be increased by increments of up to £15 billion through secondary legislation as the need arises, and it removes the limit on the number of occasions on which the limit can be raised. Clause three of the bill outlines the territorial extent of the bill. I can confirm that the provisions of the bill do not engage the legislative consent motion process.

My department have had discussions prior to introduction on this bill with all the devolved governments, and they confirm that the legislative consent motion process is not engaged. I hope, Madam Chair, that all hon. Members will agree that all these clauses, all three of these clauses should remain, should stand part of the bill. And I look forward to hearing the debate on the amendments. I'll, I won't I was about to step down. I'm afraid so. I've finished I.
19:05
Harriett Baldwin Portrait Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)
-
-
I call shadow Minister Dame Harriett Baldwin. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And it is a short bill, but it does And it is a short bill, but it does raise and spend potentially a huge amount of public money. So in the interests of thorough scrutiny of this short bill, I would like to speak to the amendments that we have tabled to it to clause two on Export Finance Amendments three and four. They concern the use of public finance for exports that may ultimately be re-exported to sanctioned destinations.

And what these amendments would prevent is the government providing export finance or insurance, where there's reason to believe that goods may be re-exported to Russia or to any other country subject to UK sanctions. In such cases, the Secretary of State's financial commitments would be capped at zero, and these amendments are not abstract. Madam chair, they respond to a very real problem that is happening in our world today, one that has been highlighted by independent analysis. For example, Sky's Ed Conway has done extensive reporting showing that while direct UK exports to Russia have collapsed since sanctions were imposed, UK origin goods are still reaching Russia through third countries.

Exports to states such as Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan have surged by extraordinary amounts, sometimes by more than 1,000%. And obviously these are not normal market movements. There are clear indications of diversion routes being used to circumvent sanctions. These are not just trade flows on a spreadsheet. Madam Chair. Sky news has shown that UK origin components have been found inside Russian military equipment used on the battlefield in Ukraine. Among the items identified in Russian systems are British made microchips found in Russian drones, UK origin electronic components inside Russian missiles, dual use technology that should never have been able to reach Russia under the sanctions regime, and these components were not exported directly from the UK to Russia.

They were routed through intermediary countries, often the same countries where UK exports have suddenly spiked. President Zelensky has publicly raised concerns that UK goods are still making their way into Russia, despite sanctions. And that's why we believe that amendments three and four are necessary. They represent a simple but important safeguard. The UK must ensure that its export finance system doesn't inadvertently support supply chains that undermine our sanctions regime. In the case of Russia, we must be absolutely certain that no UK backed goods are being diverted in ways that could support its illegal war against Ukraine.

Now the Minister has spoken about the need to expand UK export finance capacity and to support small and medium sized enterprises. In particular, we agree that export finance has an important role to play, but it must be deployed responsibly. I am sure the whole House would agree that public money should never be used in ways that conflict with our foreign policy or national security objectives, and so these amendments ensure that the government exercises due diligence, and that UK export finance support is aligned with the UK's sanction framework.

So I'm sure the Minister will agree that this is a constructive and proportionate proposal and will want to support it tonight. if I may, Madam Chair, to the new clause tabled in the name of His Majesty's Opposition. This is about the steel industry, because we can all agree that steel made in the UK is a strategic foundation sector for the United Kingdom. It supports thousands of skilled jobs and underpins supply chains across manufacturing, construction and defence. We did not oppose the government's emergency legislation last April, although we warned that it was rushed and the government hadn't got a proper plan.

But after nearly a year on from that emergency legislation and nearly two years into this government, we are still waiting for the long promised steel strategy. The government has still not been able to agree a deal with the Chinese, despite the Prime Minister's visit to China. There have been secret meetings after secret meetings between Ministers and Jingyi, about which the government has refused to update parliament, so new clause two would simply require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the increased financial assistance limits on the UK steel industry.

That report would set out first the level of financial assistance provided each month to UK steel undertakings under section eight of the Industrial Development Act of 1982, and second, the number of full time equivalent steel jobs that in the Secretary of State's view, would have been lost without the increased limit. It's a straightforward accountability measure, Madam Chair, if public money is being used to support the steel sector, Parliament and the public deserve to know how much is being spent, why it is necessary and what outcomes it's delivering.

The government has repeatedly spoken about the importance of steel, and we agree that steel is very important, but without a clear strategy or transparent reporting, it's impossible to judge whether interventions are effective or whether they represent value for money. How do we know that this is not just a limitless limit, a limitless amount of funding, crowding out support to other industries? And how can we assess whether it's good value for the taxpayer? So our amendment doesn't constrain the government's ability to act.

It simply ensures that support is justified, targeted and effective. And in that spirit, Madam Chair, I hope the Minister will recognise the value of this additional transparency and accept the amendment. If I may, Madam Chair, may I turn to the amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. We we believe that amendments one and two are sensible and straightforward amendments. And if the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking is likely to be present in the supply chain of a business receiving export supported goods, then obviously the level of public financial support should be zero.

That is surely the only responsible position that this House can take. We are inherently supportive of the need for transparency in supply chains and will support these amendments as well. And turning to the amendment in the name of of the hon. Gentleman from North Antrim. Again, transparency in terms of the amounts that are being allocated across the whole United Kingdom seems a helpful assistance in terms of transparency to this House. On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that point, I give way. Can I commend the Shadow Minister for what she said and for Minister for what she said and for bringing it forward and releasing to to Northern Ireland in particular? The Minister referred to the discussions in contact with the regional administrations, the UK Export Finance, industrial UK Export Finance, industrial support has previously helped a number of companies in Northern Ireland to the tune of maybe some hundreds of millions in in guarantees for international sales. Wrightbus would be one of those we we in Northern Ireland and we those of us who will make contributions will get this.

We are of the opinion that that the adherence to EU rules. Does the Minister not agree that this needs to be clarified? The transparency the hon. Lady referred to. So the EU cannot continue to dictate terms for this nation through the back door of Northern Ireland? Does the Shadow Minister agree? That's very, very important and the Minister and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government must respond to that. Well, the hon. Member makes a very important point, and I know very important point, and I know that the the House will be eager to hear how enthusiastic the Minister hear how enthusiastic the Minister is for all of the amendments that have been tabled this evening, and I'm sure we will be hearing from him shortly in terms of his support for them, or potentially why he for them, or potentially why he doesn't support them, and why he will be urging his colleagues to vote against them this evening.
19:14
Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)
-
-
Alex Ballinger. your chairmanship. I welcome the Bill and the more broadly the Labour government's focus on our modern industrial strategy in the Black Country, where manufacturing is our tradition. Businesses are following this agenda very closely. And so I'm pleased to see the bill will result in increasing headroom for both industrial financial assistance and UK export finance. However, I have three questions for the Minister on practical points for SMEs access to finance in this bill. First, access to trade finance for SMEs in Halesowen and Cradley Heath.

I speak to firms that can win export work on quality and reputation, but who lose contracts because they cannot bridge the working capital gap between buying inputs and getting paid. A forge may secure promising overseas order, only to be asked by their bank for levels of security that are simply unrealistic for a business of that size, and by the time finance is arranged, the customer may have gone elsewhere. So while I welcome the increased capacity in clause two, I'd like reassurance from the Minister that UK Export Finance will translate that headroom into products that genuinely work for SMEs faster, simpler and more proportionate to their requirements.

Second, I wanted to speak up for downstream steel SMEs in my constituency. We have several steel processing firms, including firms like Davro Steel, who take steel and add value through processing and distribution, supplying manufacturers who depend on reliable specifications, timings and price stability. These businesses, however, are anxious about the direction of travel on steel tariff safeguards and quotas because measures that protect larger players in the sector can, if designed poorly, raise input costs or restrict supply for downstream SMEs.

So I hope the Minister can reassure the House that he will look at the whole value chain, not just the headline producers, when it deploys the increased assistance enabled by clause one. And thirdly, on the defence supply chain, the Black Country has deep links into defence manufacturing. And here two issues may impact the positive changes in the bill. The first is export licensing timelines, where excessive delays can kill a contract, and the second is the growing concern about ESG related access to finance.

These are practical problems when a legitimate UK defence supplier struggles to access competitively priced finance. Because lenders policies treat defence as reputationally high risk. So I'd ask the government to ensure that our regulatory architecture does not accidentally penalise lawful, strategically important business industries in the defence sector. To close, I support the bill. I support the intent behind clauses one and two to create headroom so the government can act to support manufacturers and exporters. But I will ask the Minister for reassurance on three points.

The SMEs will be able to access trade financing, practice that downstream processes and manufacturers will not be overlooked in favour of larger players, and that defence exporters will see improvements in licensing speed and fair access to finance.
19:17
Joshua Reynolds Portrait Mr Joshua Reynolds MP (Maidenhead, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Joshua Reynolds. >> The Liberal. >> Democrats support. >> This bill. >> And we support the amendments. >> That before committee today. >> The bill does something that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill does something that straightforward and is necessary. It raises the Industrial Development Act cap from 12 to 20 Development Act cap from 12 to 20 billion, reflecting the inflation changes that since the alignment was last set in 2009. And it nearly doubles the UK export finance commitment limit from 84 to around 160 billion. These changes, both UK Industrial assistance and export finance framework would hit their ceilings if we didn't make these changes, so these changes are really important to make.

We support this bill because British businesses need government's backing to compete globally, and these limits need to keep pace with our ambition. The amendments before us strengthen the bill in a few distinct ways. Amendments one and two ensure that government backed export finance cannot be used to support businesses who supply chains involve modern slavery or human trafficking. It is a straightforward ethical line. British taxpayers should not be underwriting exploitation and we as Liberal Democrats are glad to support these amendments. I would ask the Minister to confirm what existing safeguards are in place and whether implementation guidance will be issued so that businesses know where they stand.

Amendments three and four address the risk that UK Export Finance could facilitate sanctions evasion through Re-exporting. As we raise the statutory limit to £160 billion, Parliament must be satisfied that none of this expanded headroom can be used in a way that undermines our sanctions regime, and therefore we support these amendments. New clause one, requiring annual reports on the Act's limits to on the Act's limit changes to each of the four nations. Although export finance is reserved, matter outcomes are not necessarily evenly distributed, but a report into this will give scrutiny to Parliament about whether this expanded capacity is reaching every single part of the United Kingdom and therefore, of course, we support it.

And new clause two, requiring additional requiring annual reports specifically into the steel industry. Steel is a profound strategic importance to the UK, and it deserves the dedicated parliamentary scrutiny that new clause two suggests, and therefore we will be supporting it. New clause three that stands in my name would require the Secretary of State to report on the annual impacts of the act, limits on GDP, on the export capacity of small and medium enterprises, and on the volume of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

UQs 24 to 25 activity contributed to £5.4 billion to the UK economy. Parliament should be able to verify that claim on an annual basis. According to the ONS, there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK. Yet in UK Export Finance annual reports, it shows that they supported just 667 businesses. Annual reporting will hold the government to its own target of supporting an additional 1000 SMEs to export. It will make visible whether the current eligibility criteria, which requires at least 20% of a business's annual turnover, to be from exports in any one of the last three years, continue to lock out businesses that are trying to break into the export market for the first time or not on the UK.

EU trade part of new clause three, the Chartered Institute for Export and International Trade has documented a 30% fall in EU export value among the smallest firms since the TCA and a recent Institute of Directors Policy Voice survey found that 54% of businesses that stopped exporting stopped exporting to the EU, cited the trading relationship with the EU as one of those reasons. These are not businesses that are failing to break into new markets. These are established exporters that have walked away from our largest and nearest trading partner because of barriers that have got in their way, are too great to bear every customs declaration, every check that didn't exist before 2021 is another reason that businesses are not exporting to the EU, because it simply isn't worth it for them.

Those are the realities behind the statistics that simply increasing the UK's capacity alone cannot fix. Parliament should be able to see whether an expanded UK export finance capacity is making measurable differences figures, and therefore we hope that the Minister will be able to support the new clause three amendment. The most effective long term support for British exporters would, of course, be a new bespoke UK EU customs union analysis from Frontier Economics, commissioned by best for Britain in February 25th, suggests that it could boost British GDP by 2.2%, and the House of Commons library estimates this could generate an additional 25 billion in additional annual tax revenue for HMRC, something I know the Chancellor would be grateful for.

New clause three is the link between the accountability mechanism that allows Parliament to see whether what is being proposed is working, so we will be supporting this bill. We will be supporting the amendments to this bill because capacity without accessibility is just meaningless and capacity without accountability is unacceptable. So the government needs to accept the new clauses that match the expanded headroom with the practical reforms to ensure that it will reach the 5.7 million SMEs, which are the backbone of British business that are currently not being supported by UK Export Finance.
19:22
19:24
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Iain Duncan Smith. Madam chair. >> It's a great honour to speak to this packed chamber on my amendment. Yeah, it's good of me to be brought Yeah, it's good of me to be brought forward so soon because of so many people ready to speak. Can I say that I speak in support of the two amendments in my name and those of my colleagues and friends, one and two, which I it's my intention that should be moved when the time comes. So the why is this necessary? Well, in this particular area, I refer to the hon.

My hon. Friend, because she has been stalwart in campaigning against slave labour, against forced labour, and I bow to her because of her stalwart support of this. And the point about these amendments particularly, are that it's really vital, she said, to safeguard the UK, export finance is legally protected from any exposure to forced labour and human trafficking. You know, we've we've been through this so often again and again. And I say to the right hon. Gentleman who will be responding, who has been a stalwart supporter of this kind of drive, I just hope that he's able to give me a very clear sign that the government wants to adopt these amendments, because they are critical to the nature of cleaning up what essentially has become a supply chain, which is too often full of product made by slave labour.

So I'm in favour of the of the Bill. I'm not against it in principle. I think it's the right thing to do, to basically up the limits to 20 billion in aggregate limits to 160 to account for inflation. We must ensure therefore absolutely right that we increase financial firepower is not used, however inadvertently, to fund modern slavery. So amendment and be together, ensure that the Secretary of State has reason to believe modern slavery is present in a recipient supply chain. The permitted financial assistance for that export drops to zero.

In other words, no finance. And for those that may not have followed what's been going on with these things, we had to amend the original health care bill to stop slavery being used in that. And we've had to amend. Last year, as the hon. Lady said, we've had to amend the Great British Energy Bill. Now, the government at that time decided to vote that down. But when it went to the Lords, it was amended. And suddenly many colleagues on that side suddenly realised actually what they were going to be asked to do was to vote in favour of slave labour in the supply chains to to the great British Energy Company.

And they said no. And I think the government decided not, which was absolutely right to do in the end, but I wish we hadn't had to go through all of that. Surely there's a moral purpose in all of this, which is, if we have any suspicion that something is a product or a supply chain, has elements that have been used in forced labour, we know that China does it endlessly. There are elements of that in Russia and other countries that use that.

We should not allow that to come. And I have to say, when we compare ourselves to the United States on this, no matter what, who's in power, the reality is their governments have a very simple rule that it is the responsibility of the companies who are actually importing to check their supply chains, the excuse that they didn't know or couldn't find out is simply not good enough, and they are prosecuted. If that slave labour is in the supply chain. And that is what this is really all about, just trying to shut down another possible loophole in this case on finance.

And so UK export finance is currently exposed, we believe to force Labour for instance, in 20 2223 it supported businesses involving a subsidiary of a company sanctioned by the US as a People's Liberation Army entity. And this is something which nobody wants, I think, on either side of the House, if they really ask themselves and the government, I'm sure does not want this. So the question really is how do we shut this down? And I want to quote a couple of people who have spoken about this in the past, who are really quite senior in the government.

So the Prime Minister said, and I want to quote this, we're not going to raise human rights standards if we ignore it in trade. It shouldn't be up to the consumer to research every product and work out every ethical aspect of it. And I say yes, because of course, it's impossible to do so as an individual. I had the row with Amazon and other companies and said, why don't you make it easy to find out what the root in your supply chain is? You don't know until you actually have the product land on your desk where it was made.

Why can't they have it on their computers and identify that they don't want to, because they think people may not buy those products? The other one is from trade. Well, while he was trade seq, we are very clear on our position regarding the abhorrent practices of modern slavery. It's a terrible crime which we are determined to eradicate. I assure you, this government takes this issue seriously and is continuing to assess and monitor the policy tools available to ensure that we can best tackle forced labour in supply chains, said in May 25th, by Mr.

Reynolds MP and Ed Miliband. I should say the the Environment Secretary. This is a quote, our Clean Power mission should not come at the expense of human rights. This involves confronting human rights abuses, including modern slavery, in energy supply chains. Absolutely right. I don't understand why it took so much for us to get get his side of the fence to agree, finally, to take it out of the supply chains for the great British energy company. I just don't understand that at all.

Given what he says his views are. And UKEF has also supported China Southern Airlines, an organisation affiliated with involuntary labour transfers. And, I quote, poverty alleviation, which of course is complete sham campaigns in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Successive governments have acknowledged that the poverty alleviation is a euphemism for involuntary state imposed labour. We know that there's no question about what's going on behind these ridiculous euphemisms, and that's what we know. And we should therefore be ensuring doesn't happen.

But it has happened, and we currently have an uneven human rights standard across government. Well, the Department of Health and Social Care is now required by law, as I said earlier on, to eradicate slavery from its purchasing. Other departments, which are currently exposed to complicity in human rights, are not required to satisfy these standards. UKEF is a case in point. I simply beg the government at some stage to get back into the Modern Slavery Act and amend it so that we make it outright and a criminal offence for anybody to import or to support any product made.

Any company that makes products using slave labour that would kill this off once and for all, and would cover all elements of government activity, which I know the Minister who will respond to this actually does believe in. And so I simply say to him, why doesn't the government just simply say, enough's enough, we're going to get after it, and we'll come back to that, I'm sure when he sums up on this. So this amendment mirrors the high standards set in the Great British Energy Act, which we, as the hon.

Lady pointed out, which we finally got the amendment agreed to. And it mandates very clearly that no slavery or human trafficking be present in any part of its supply chain, and by allowing public money to flow to entities sanctioned by our allies, we risk disrupting multilateral relations and creating significant operational risks for British businesses. I also say simply to those that are interested in listening to this, that the reality is we also do down our own competitiveness. It is no surprise.

It should be no surprise to us that countries like China are able to outbid British companies and Western companies in bid patterns, etc. like Huawei. When we discover later on that they use a significant amount of slave made product where they don't pay any salaries to them, and where therefore they're able to keep their costs much lower than British companies, Western companies, European companies, even American companies, because we are obligated, quite rightly, to pay proper wages to those who are making the products.

So it's also a terrible offence in trade terms, not just in human rights terms. And so while the UK maintains its own internal environmental and human rights policies, they have already been proven inadequate for this task, inadequate in preventing investment in companies seriously exposed to human rights abuses, of which this is the worst of them all. And the bill presents a rare and necessary opportunity. I say to the Minister to use primary legislation to bind UK outward investment to a zero tolerance approach towards modern slavery.

The government, I'm sure. I hope not, but I'm sure will say that this bill is a narrow, that this is not the right bill, not the right time. I'm afraid. We've always had this when I was on the other side, and the government used to speak at the same time, I used to say to them, there never is the right time and there never is the right bill. There's just the wrong one that's sitting in an effort to amend it. So we've heard this repeatedly, and all the reforms to the Modern Slavery Act would be brought forward.

Quotes. When parliamentary time is allowed. That's what the government said. And parliamentary time is allowed. As I said earlier on, we should get the Modern Slavery Act updated so that it is absolutely an offence to be to have any involvement whatsoever, either importing, export or financing any of that trade that has slave labour involvement. But none of this has been brought forward. We have an opportunity, though, with this bill, and so I do not apologise for these amendments and narrowly focussed.

It may be on an institution though now, which these amendments will do. Focus making mistakes in the past, which we have evidence of funnelling UK tax monies into pockets of human rights abusing companies in China. This surely must stop. So if we're going to bring this element of financing up to date, we're going to give the power and the capacity to be able to support those who are exporting and importing, then the answer is we must also make sure that they do that in a fair and clean way, and that this house of all houses, when this was the first country to abolish slavery in the world history, we were the first to do it.

And our record should stand, therefore, that we were ever we seek it wherever we see it, we will stamp it out. And this is yet another way of doing that. So I urge the Minister, I urge the Minister to go off script and say that he will do this because it is morally right, it is economically right, and it is right for this House and the people that here at elected here to get this one done.
19:36
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> Jim Allister. Thank you, Madam Chair. Looking at this bill, one would make the natural assumption that since it applies across this United Kingdom, that it must bring a level playing field to this United Kingdom, that it must, in consequence, deliver parity and equality of opportunity for companies across the United Kingdom, companies, which, of course, are all taxed on the same basis, pay into the same Treasury. So the reasonable expectation would be that if there is financial assistance available and they qualify, that they should equally be able to obtain it.

Sadly, though, you wouldn't know it from reading this bill. It is not so because this bill is subject to a higher authority in respect of my constituency and of the whole of Northern Ireland, in that, sadly, we remain subject to EU state aid rules which cap the delivery of that parity and that equal opportunity to companies operating in my part of the United Kingdom. And of course, that imposition of the. EU state aid rules arises from article ten of the protocol, now called the Windsor framework, which the EU has accurately described in these terms.

This means that EU state aid rules will continue to apply to the EU member States, as well as to the United Kingdom, in respect of aid that has an effect on the trade between Northern Ireland and the European Union that is subject to Windsor framework follows from these provisions of the Windsor framework and in particular articles five and nine, that trade in goods and wholesale electricity is subject to the Windsor framework, and being subject to the Windsor Framework means that under article ten, we are subject not to the rules of this House on state aid, but to the rules of a foreign jurisdiction which make rules and laws that we neither make nor can we change.

And therein lies the fundamental objection to the fact that though we are passing a bill which rightly raises the thresholds of available assistance in Northern Ireland, this House is not sovereign in that regard. They can only grant that state aid to the point and the level that the EU permits under its EU state aid rules. Now we're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supposed to be yes, you. Does he accept that the situation's even worse than that? situation's even worse than that? Because if there's a tenuous connection between goods which are connection between goods which are subsidised, or get state aid in GB, but have got a tenuous connection with markets in Northern Ireland, that again, the EU can limit the amount of state aid which is given amount of state aid which is given in those circumstances. So, again, even disadvantaging some producers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here in GB. Yes, that's absolutely right, because the Windsor framework is because the Windsor framework is premised upon an assumption of risk that goods from Northern Ireland that goods from Northern Ireland will permeate the EU market and therefore goods which are supplied therefore goods which are supplied from GB companies into Northern Ireland are subject to that risk. Ireland are subject to that risk. And if that risk is manifested, then those companies to it would appear or subject or could be subject to the same.

A state aid restrictions. And yet we're supposed to be one sovereign United Kingdom. But the EU requires that businesses in Northern Ireland will not benefit from the same state aid, to the extent that the goods in question might be sold into the EU, and that inevitably places businesses in my constituency which pay the same taxes as businesses across the United Kingdom, puts them at a distinct disadvantage compared to what in some cases might be competitors in GB in the production of goods.

And it's even worse for Northern Ireland companies, particularly manufacturing companies, because they depend as part of the integrated United Kingdom market. They depend for their supplies, the raw materials, more often than not from that supplied from GB. And of course, those raw materials, the supply of them is now fettered by the Irish Sea border. To get their raw materials, they have to pass through an international customs border with paperwork, with decorations, with tariffs in some cases all adding to the cost of business.

So not only is business subject to that extra cost insisted upon through the Irish Sea border, but they're now put in a position where they cannot have equal access to the state aid which might be available elsewhere. And that is a fundamental inequity as it applies across this United Kingdom. And it is further compounded by the fact that if there is a dispute about whether or not something amounts to state aid and whether or not it infringes EU state aid rules, it's not our courts that decide that it's it's the European Court of Justice that was decide that.

So not only are we deprived within the sovereign United Kingdom of the right to grant a equal state aid across this United Kingdom, if there's a question as to its validity, it's a foreign court that adjudicates upon that because of our subjection to EU law. So it really is a double whammy in that regard. And of course, the consequence of that is inevitably to create a chill factor when it comes to government, considering whether or not to give state aid to Northern Ireland, because if they know that there could be a challenge from the EU and that challenge could go to the European Court of Justice, and all the bother that that involves, the chill factor is going to cause the government to desist or hold back from giving that aid.

So the loser, again, is the business in Northern Ireland. That's a good one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And he accepted a further chill factor, namely when companies which factor, namely when companies which could decide to invest in GB or invest in Northern Ireland may well invest in Northern Ireland may well feel that since the support which they could achieve will be less in Northern Ireland than what it would Northern Ireland than what it would be in GB, that they simply choose to invest outside Northern Ireland to invest outside Northern Ireland in GB and therefore jobs and investment opportunities are lost as a result of the very picture that he has painted, of.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Course, and that's compounded further by the fact that if they did set up a Northern Ireland and they were a manufacturing business, and they were depending on the raw materials from GB, as most are, they have to pass through an international customs border with extra costs as well. So not only are they being invited to set up in Northern Ireland, where state aid may be a capped by a foreign may be a capped by a foreign jurisdiction, but they're also being invited to set up a in a jurisdiction where the raw materials are going to cost them more by virtue of their icy border.

Now, of course, the Minister will say, as he said to me before, but you have the advantage of dual market access. No we don't. We have the worst of all worlds in Northern Ireland. We have the worst of all worlds in the sense our raw materials, our hyped and priced. Because they are a sea border. We now have the reduction in available

**** Possible New Speaker ****

state aid. I'm sure that the hon. Gentleman is minded of the Bill that we are is minded of the Bill that we are discussing, and will soon get back to the bill that we are discussing Jim Allister straightaway.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Allister straightaway. Well, indeed I will. But it was in fact in the debate on this bill. The Minister made the very point The Minister made the very point that I was seeking to answer in a previous occasion. But it is, it is it is those circumstances which caused me to support and move new clause one same I myself, and honourable and right honourable colleagues, because I think it is right going forward, not just in the interest of transparency, but in the interest of seeing just how level or unlevel a playing field we have under this bill for the whole United Kingdom, that the government should annually publish the levels of support given to each part of the United Kingdom.

Because, yes, we're all here as constituency members to jealously represent the interests of our constituents. And I want to know from this government, I want to know from this government if my constituents, if the businesses in my constituency are getting a fair crack of the whip. And that is why new clause one is the reason why we should have a reporting mechanism to indicate that to us going forward. So on that basis, I very much speak to you and support you.

I also I also support the other amendments before the House.
19:46
Carla Lockhart Portrait Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Carla Lockhart you, Madam Chair, and it's an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim and I stand to speak in support of NC one, in the name of the hon. Member, and signed by numerous people across these benches. New clause one is not radical, it's not wrecking. It is actually very reasonable in what it asks, and therefore it should be accepted. What it asks is that when this House votes to increase financial assistance for industry and exporters, the government return within a year and every year thereafter until Parliament.

Plainly, how each part of the United Kingdom has benefited. That should not in any way be controversial, but sadly it is necessary because Northern Ireland does not stand on equal ground. This bill lifts the cap on financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act and increases UK export finance statutory commitment limit, and that's a good thing. And in theory, that should benefit every business across our country. But under article ten of the Windsor framework, EU state aid rules continue to apply in Northern Ireland, where support may affect trade in goods within the European Union.

So while the rest of the United Kingdom moves forward under one subsidy regime, Northern Ireland operates under a different legal shadow. The practical effects of hesitation, hesitation and department's hesitation and advice, hesitation and investment because the final interpretation does not rest with the UK courts alone. That is not equality within the Union, and we cannot view this in isolation from the wider damage already being inflicted in Northern Ireland by the protocol and the Windsor framework. I've said it before in this House that the protocol on Windsor framework is not a minor technical adjustment to trade, it is a bureaucratic burden, a constitutional compromise and an economic noose around the businesses simply trading within our own internal market.

And we see it evidenced here today in this bill, when it doesn't apply to Northern Ireland. The failure is not anecdotal, it is measurable. It is documented and deeply felt. The Federation of Small Businesses has reported that 58% of businesses in Northern Ireland face moderate to significant challenges. Because of these arrangements, more than one third have stopped trading with Great Britain altogether to avoid the cost and complexity. Let the reality of that sink in. That's not frictionless trade.

That's not the best of both worlds. That is economic distortion inside our own country. I've spoken about the businesses that have had essential goods delivered from Scotland, costing time and money. I have raised the case of used agriculture machinery refused entry unless it meets EU standards, despite them being road driven and clean. I've heard from retailers struggling to source ordinary goods from their main market in Great Britain because of paperwork and regulatory barriers that simply do not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

This is the lived reality of the Irish Sea border, and we're told that all of this is necessary to protect the Belfast Agreement. It's not. The agreement is built on consent, the principle that Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom cannot change without consent of its people. Yet our economic and legal position has been fundamentally altered. Without that consent. The agreement does not require an internal border within our sovereign state. It does not require that one part of the United Kingdom be subject to distinct regulatory and subsidy regime, overseen in part by a foreign court, the European Court of Justice.

This bill increases state support for British industry. But unless we confront the consequences of the Windsor framework honestly, Northern Ireland will potentially not benefit in step with England, Scotland and Wales. New clause one simply asks for transparency if Northern Ireland is genuinely benefiting. Equally, let the government publish the evidence annually. But if it wants again, Northern Ireland is constrained while the rest of the United Kingdom moves freely, then this House also deserves to know just that. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

Our businesses pay the same taxes. They deserve the same support without qualification, without hesitation and without constraint. So that is why I support new clause one and my colleagues on these benches. And I commend the hon. Member for North Antrim for bringing it before the House today. Thank you Minister.
19:51
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Wind up. achieved 5% growth in the last year, faster than any other part of the economy, and I think we've seen quite a creative industry this evening, managed to get amendments into this very tightly constricted bill. And I'm happy to address some of the issues that I think some of them strayed somewhat wide of the mark of the bill itself. Let me turn first of all to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

He and I have participated in many campaigns on forced labour and other issues, and I am entirely with him on the aim of wanting to prevent all modern slavery. I would just correct him on one factual mistake that he made. He said that the UK was the first country to ban slavery. It was Haiti. You could argue that the French, because they did it in 1804, you could argue that Napoleon abolished it, but then they returned to slavery afterwards. So but it was Haiti that was first.

But he makes a very good point that modern slavery is an abomination. It is morally wrong. Forced labour is morally wrong. It's also a taint on any kind of international trade. It undermines fair practice from other countries that don't engage in forced labour. And I'm determined to do everything I possibly can, both in this role and if I'm not in this role in the future, to make sure that we tackle forced labour in every single part of the way we run our economy.

And as a Labour member, it would be an it would be shocking if I weren't to say precisely that. And I would say to him, he knows that I'm not going to accept his amendment because because it false fake shock doesn't suit him as a look. But I do think it would be wrong for us in this country to feed ourselves, to clothe ourselves, to house ourselves on the back of forced labour. And we are engaged at the moment in a review of responsible business conduct.

And I very much hope that that will move us in a direction of being able to tackle this in a comprehensive way, rather than just in this particular area. I do want to reassure him that UKEF take UK Export Finance, take these issues extremely seriously, and they are very diligent in the way that they analyse and look at any of their investments that they make to make sure that environmental and human rights issues are fully addressed before they make any financial commitments.

And we do intend to produce our response to the Responsible Business Conduct Review very soon. I can't give a precise date, as Ministers rarely don't manage to produce dates. As he knows, the UCF uses OECD standards and equitable principles Equator Principles. Rather, it also reports extensively on this as it is required to do under the two acts which apply to it, and it works with the office for Responsible Business Conduct Dispute Resolution Unit, which provides a non-judicial grievance mechanism for looking at precisely all of these issues.

So I'm not saying a long term no to the request these asking. I completely agree with the aim of what he's seeking to achieve. I think we we already do that under UCF, and if he's got particular issues that arise in the future, I hope he will write to me. And I'm very I'll be very happy to respond to him. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. And I understand what he's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I understand what he's saying very clearly. But I will say that some of the a couple of examples I gave where this had slipped through the net does show slipped through the net does show that this is not perfect. And the second bit which I would put to him is then does he think the is then does he think the government is likely therefore, to deliver on what they said they would do, which is to take the modern day Slavery Act and beef it up in such an extent that those companies importing and exporting have the responsibility to check

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their supply chains, other than that, to be a criminal offence. I can't say anything more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can't say anything more clearly than that. I want to make sure that we in the UK are not reliant for our economic prosperity reliant for our economic prosperity on the forced labour of others, and we need to make make that as we need to make make that as comprehensive and as effective as we possibly can. I would just say to him, I know the points, the two to him, I know the points, the two cases that he referred to and, and, and if you want, I'm happy to write to him about those in precise detail rather than delay the house tonight.

But I would just say that, funnily enough, the precise processes that we went through in the UK in relation to UKEF and those those cases would have been met by the US legislation as well, which is arguably not as effective as it would like to be. So I, I'm interested in being effective in this, in this space, as as interested as him, I'll turn to the the hon. Member for North Antrim, who gave an exceptionally good speech on why we shouldn't have left the European Union, I thought, and why we should never have accepted the deal that was put on the table.

And I note that the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me on that subject, and didn't agree with him on whether the UK should leave the European Union. I am afraid that. However, if you just allow me, I'll respond to the to the points that were made by him and by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, which is, first of all, the requirements under the new clause, I think are completely unnecessary because UKEF already reports annually as required by legislation, all of which is cleared through the National Audit Office.

It's all there, perfectly available for anybody to see. And I got a sense that there was a suggestion that Northern Ireland was losing out because of the money. And from UKEF, quite the reverse. I think if either of the hon. Members want to go through the what is already published in this sphere, then they can see for themselves precisely how well Northern Ireland does. And of course it should do, because we want to make the whole point of these. Of the two acts that we're referring to today, is that they should be able to enable, I am going to give way to him if he just holds his horses for just a very brief moment.

And of course, I would make the point that at two further points first, that UK UKEF has offices across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. But I think there's a misunderstanding here, which is some people seem to suggest that what happens is that the government goes give money to that business over there. That isn't what happens. What happens is that this is a demand led process, which leads to UKEF being able to respond to the demand that arises.

We need to make sure that that is spread across the whole of the United Kingdom, and that's what we intend to do. Of course, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stafford of Northern Ireland would expect to do well out of this, because proportionally we we export much more of our industrial production than happens in other parts of the United Kingdom. And parts of the United Kingdom. And whilst he rails against the decision on Brexit, etc. does he accept that since the United Kingdom as a whole voted to leave the EU, the government's the EU, the government's responsibility was to make sure that then the rest of the whole of the United Kingdom left on the same terms.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I wasn't a member of the government and I didn't support the deal that he supported in the first deal that he supported in the first place, which which gave us some of the problems that we've got today. I want to make sure that all the businesses across the whole of the businesses across the whole of the United Kingdom are able to export. I've point I've made this point before that it's just over 1 in 10 before that it's just over 1 in 10 businesses in the UK export across the around the world.

If we could manage to double that, it would be very good. I think it's something like 16,000 UK businesses who used to export into the European Union no longer do. So. I think that that is an own goal, which is why we're trying to reset our relationship with the European Union so that we can do better on exports. I'll turn to the amendments from the hon. Lady from Worcestershire. She was primarily aimed at money laundering and some of the issues that in relation to Russia, I want to make absolutely clear, we are determined to do everything we possibly can to debilitate the Russian military complex, first of all, by making sure that it doesn't have the finances available to it because it is unable to trade in in the rest of the world.

And secondly, to make sure that it doesn't have the material, the kit that it needs to be able to conduct its war. And that's why the UK has implemented a comprehensive set of sanctions worth over £20 billion of UK Russia trade in the UK's next package of sanctions, we will introduce new sanctions on the direct and indirect export of goods from the UK to Russia, and further tackling issues in chemicals, minerals and metals which have been identified to have potential uses in Russia's military industrial complex.

We will target actors in Russia and third countries that support trade in Russian energy, including the shadow fleet, vessels, refineries, terminals and and their facilitators. And the government has since January 2025, regularly updated. Detailed guidance has provided. Has regularly updated detailed guidance for exporters of at risk goods, including the kind of things that the hon. Lady referred to, which I think she was taking from an article in The Times which was repeated in the Telegraph or the other way round, and detailing specific products.

And third, countries where Russia is focusing efforts to circumvent sanctions. Of course, they attempt to be wily, but we are determined to outfox them. This guidance goes further than any partner countries, providing a unique resource for UK exporters and the. So I'm on the back of that. I would say to the hon. Lady, of course, she's right that we want to tackle any attempt at money laundering, but I think that her amendment, first of all, it confuses the role of Ukef with the issues in the article in The Times.

And secondly, it would duplicate measures that are already adopted by Ukef on the back of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Terrorism Act of 2000 and the 2017 Treasury Regulations. If I come to new clause two, which relates to steel, I would say again, Madam Chair, that the reporting requirements are very clear for ukef under under existing legislation and the so the precise issues that are in relation to steel, which we are very intent on making sure that we have a proper strategy so as to protect the sector for our for our security interests and for the jobs that it represents across the whole of the UK.

And that is all very important. But I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the amendment of how Ukef functions. It is essentially demand led, not determined by government centrally except in very exceptional circumstances. And the and there's one other flaw in the amendment, which is that most of the major steel plants in the UK are in assisted areas. So financial assistance usually comes from section seven of the Industrial Development Act rather than section eight, which is what is referred to in the amendment.

The the my hon. Friend, the Member for Halesowen asked me several questions, just about which I'll refer briefly to. He asked me about support for SMEs in particular. Ukef supported 496 SMEs in 20 2425, thanks in part to changes which have made it easier for smaller businesses to access Ukef funding financing. And I'm determined to make sure that that continues in relation to new clause three reporting on GDP and SMEs. I think I've already made the point that although Oxford Economics research shows that 115,000 businesses were effectively supported by Ukef, nonetheless, all those reporting requirements that are in the amendments were already met in law and consequently, Madam Chair, I hope that hon.

Members will not be supporting any of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments before us today. The question is that clause one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. As many as stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to amendment one to clause two, which is being selected for separate decision. I call Sir Iain formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. So moved formally. The question is that amendment
20:03
None Portrait Division
-

one be made. As many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, opinion say I. I of the contrary, The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, no. Tellers for the ayes Gregory Stafford Rebecca Paul Tellers for Order.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 161 the noes to the left 272.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 272. The ayes to the right 161. The noes to the left with 272. So the noes have it. The noes have it noes have it. The noes have it unlock. With the leave of the house. I shall put together the questions that clauses two and three stand part of the bill. The question is that clauses two and three stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary.

No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. New clause two has been selected for a separate decision. Dame Harriett Baldwin to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move new clause two formally. Formally. The impact of financial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assistance limits on the steel industry. The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause two be read a second time. As many as are of that opinion say I. I on Order. Order. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, no. Tell us to the eyes. Gregory Stafford Rebecca Paul Tellers for the noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right were 156. The noes to the left 273.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left 273. The ayes to the right were 156. The noes to the left 273. So the noes have it, the noes have it unlock. New. Clause three has been selected for separate decision. Joshua Reynolds to move new. Clause three formally. Impact of financial assistance limits. Number two. The question is that new clause three be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no.

no. Motion. Clear the The The question The question is The question is that The question is that new clause three be read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. No. The Tellers for the ayes are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Tellers for the ayes are Charlotte Cane and Tessa Munt. The Tellers for the noes, Mark Ferguson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. One One minute. North

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! Order, order! The Order, order! The ayes Order, order! The ayes to Order, order! The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right 77. The noes to the left 280. The ayes to the right were 77. The noes to the left 280. So the noes have it. The noes have it unlock. Order, order. The question is that I do report the bill to the House. The question is that I do report the bill to the House. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have Order! Order! Whip

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to report. I beg to report that the Committee has gone through the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and directed me to report the same without amendment. Third Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. Minister to move. Third Reading. Sir Chris Bryant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Chris Bryant. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all honourable colleagues for their engagement on this bill and beg to move that the bill be read a third time. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Voltaire said that a small book, a small book is a great evil. But this small bill will do a great deal of good. It will ensure that the government can continue to support British industry and British exporters. £14.5 billion of UK export finance support last year is supporting up
20:44
20:44
20:45
20:46
Joshua Reynolds Portrait Mr Joshua Reynolds MP (Maidenhead, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson Joshua Reynolds. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Britain is a trading nation. When Britain is a trading nation. When our businesses win contracts abroad, they create jobs, raise wages and generate tax revenues needed to generate tax revenues needed to fund our public services and expanding UK export finance capacity to £160 billion and raising the limit for industry development to £20 billion, sends a clear signal that we are open for growth and want our exporters to compete globally.

That matters for advanced manufacturing, that matters for life sciences, for clean technology and for the thousands of smaller firms right across every constituency who have the ambition to sell to the world. We support this bill because that ambition deserves to be backed. I am disappointed that the government could not support the amendments that we brought forward, and of course, I'm disappointed that they couldn't do that because we've been asked today to approve near doubling of UK's statutory commitment limits without mechanisms we feel are required to verify whether these are working properly.

UK Export Finance supported 667 businesses last year, and we are concerned that the eligibility criteria that Ukef have lock out firms trying to break into exporting for the first time, and this does remain unchanged. We also, of course, are concerned that the structural barriers that drive former exporters away from our largest export market in the European Union remain unaddressed. But we do support this bill because it's important that we move forward supporting those businesses that are exporting. But we are, as I say, concerned that we have missed an opportunity today to help support those British SMEs that want to go and start exporting, that used to export to the European Union, but can't now.

And we will monitor closely to make sure that this works in practice for all of those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

local SMEs. The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be now read the third time As many as of that opinion say aye. of the of that opinion say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the next order of the day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order of the day. Universal credit removal of two child limit bill committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. Order under the order of the House of the 3rd of February. the House of the 3rd of February. We shall now move to the Committee
20:49
20:50
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
working lives as well. No child should have to face lifelong consequences like those, and consequences like those, and neither should the country have to bear the huge cost of so much wasted talent and potential. wasted talent and potential. Lifting the two child limit is universal. Credit is the single most cost effective lever we can most cost effective lever we can pull to reduce substantially the number of children growing up in poverty. And in doing so, we're helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives, supporting their families, investing in their future success.

It's this government's mission, Madam Chair, to break down barriers to opportunity, to change the course of children's lives for the better and to build a more hopeful future. And the Bill makes a big contribution, delivering more security, more opportunity, more respect for families and communities across the UK. Clause one removes the Universal Credit Two-child limit in Great Britain from April this year. By doing so, will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. So what that means is that for assessment periods starting on or after 6th of April, the Universal Credit child element will be included for all children in the household, increasing the amount of Social security support available to families on Universal Credit.

With three or more children, all the associated exceptions will be removed at the same time, including the notorious rape clause. Yes, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. Specifically on that. Does the department have good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the department have good enough data on subsequent children of people put in the information that the department needs to ensure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the department needs to ensure that the the extra payments can be made to muesli? We're confident that we we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're confident that we we can do that for those from from April do that for those from from April onwards. Yeah. Reinstating support for all children in Universal Credit is a key step to tackling the structural drivers of child poverty. This bill, combined with other measures in our child poverty strategy, will lift over half a million children out of poverty. Clause two removes the two child limit from Universal Credit in Northern Ireland from April. We are including Northern Ireland in the Bill at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, which is bringing forward a legislative consent motion in the usual way.

I'm delighted to see the hon. Member for Strangford in his place, and he made the point in the Second Reading debate that 50,000 children in northern Northern Ireland will be lifted out of child poverty. And as he rightly said, if anyone suggests that there's something wrong with them, I agree with him on that point and I'm grateful to him for making it. I'm glad to give way to him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last opportunity. I very much welcome with what government's bringing forward. It's good news and as the hon. Gentleman refers to and as the hon. Gentleman refers to anybody that's against that, there's certainly something wrong with them. So I can't see that that wouldn't be welcomed in Northern Ireland. The fertility rate. Just if I can follow this through, Madam Chair, and the fertility rate on Chair, and the fertility rate on Northern Ireland, 1.71 to be stable it needs to be 2.1. Does anyone think this will encourage more think this will encourage more people to have children? And if it does then it's good news as well.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm not sure what the effect will be. I mean, it's often said that having a Labour government has the effect of increasing the birth rate. Whether that will prove to be the case this that will prove to be the case this time I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't know, but I but Madam Chair, child poverty is a big challenge. Reducing it over the next ten years will require commitment and will require commitment and collaboration across all four nations.

Throughout that period. The strategy, including removing the two child limit, builds on plans underway across government and devolved governments as well. And we'll continue to collaborate with devolved governments on this, particularly through the implementation phase that will now follow. Clause three sets out the territorial extent of the bill. The commencement dates for each of the sections delegated powers, and the short title of the act. So, Madam Chair, this government recognises the consequences of child poverty and the damage it does to a child's life chances in the poorest 10% of areas, babies are twice as likely to die before they turn one as those in the wealthiest 10%.

Poorer children are more likely to have mental health difficulties by age 11, more likely to be unemployed later, and to earn less as adults. We estimate the bill will increase the Universal Credit Award for 560,000 families, families gaining on average £5,310 per year. It's a much needed change from the choices of the the previous government. They chose austerity and children paid the price. Tackling child poverty is an investment in our economy and a down payment on Britain's future.

We can't compete

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. I will give way one more time. I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way before the Minister for giving way before the House. There are four new clauses to the legislation, which set out a pathway through which to generate data, particularly around the welfare cap, which we know holds welfare cap, which we know holds about 141,000 children. Will he in the assessments which government made particularly draw out the made particularly draw out the impact of the welfare cap on those children, and look to remove it to ensure that those children aren't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

held back in poverty? Well, I can I'm sure we will turn to the point that she's made turn to the point that she's made in a few moments, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that we reassure my hon. Friend that we will be undertaking a thorough evaluation of the impacts of the strategy, will be publishing strategy, will be publishing regular updates, and I think she'll find there the information that find there the information that that she's interested in.

But, Madam Chair, we can't leave millions of children to succumb to the damaging impacts of poverty. We, the government, wants instead to invest in children and to invest in Britain's future. And I beg to move that. All three clauses stand part

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the bill. Minister Rebecca Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Rebecca Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I am in part going to speak effectively to amendments one and two, although to amendments one and two, although they're not ones we're going to be voting on this evening. But essentially I'm speaking because we do not believe that scrapping the two child limit, lifting it in this way is the way to tackle child way is the way to tackle child poverty. Now, when conservatives introduced the two child limit in 2017, we did so for one simple reason fairness.

We believe then, as we do now, that people on benefits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. Nine years later, we stand by this principle. The welfare state should be a safety net for people in genuine need. Yet today, too many people feel the welfare system has drifted from its original purpose. They see a system that rewards dependency while working families and individuals shoulder the tax burden. The two child limit is a way of saying that work should pay, that taking responsibility should matter, and the system should stand with those who pull their weight.

Sure.
20:57
Rebecca Smith Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
I'm excited. thinks that work should pay. Could you perhaps tell us why, during the last government, we went from 1 in 3 children in poverty, having a parent in work to 2 in 3 children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in poverty, having a parent in work. Well, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. But we also for his intervention. But we also know that poverty did decrease under the last government. So I'm going to keep keep making some progress on this. True compassion progress on this. True compassion for families in poverty means offering sustainable solutions, not just sticking plasters. We need to just sticking plasters. We need to tackle the root causes of poverty rather than masking the symptoms. This means dealing with structural issues which damage children's life chances rather than simply handing out families more cash.

It is worth noting that the two child limit has had no significant negative effects on school readiness for third or subsequent children in England. Indeed, school readiness is a cornerstone metric of the government's opportunity mission, and Labour and other opponents may criticise the Cap for all sorts of reasons, but scrapping it will not be a cost effective way of improving children's educational development. Now, in terms of holistic solutions, we know that work is the single most transformative route out of poverty.

Work provides stability, self-respect and the crucial stepping stones to a better future. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that families on Universal Credit can access meaningful employment. As I have said before, children in long term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived. They are 10% more likely to end up workless themselves. When we were in government, conservatives oversaw a consistent reduction in the number of children in workless households. Yet under Labour, this this number has reached a nine year high.

There are now 1.2 million children living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year. Without a working parent at home, children miss out on seeing the rhythms and rewards of working life the morning alarm, the daily routine, the pride of earning a wage and the discipline of saving up for things that matter. But this government seems bent on disincentivising work and destroying jobs, many of the jobs disappearing under Labour's disastrous Employment Rights Act are the very jobs most accessible for people on universal Credit.

In the hospitality sector alone, 111,000 jobs were lost. Between 2024 and 2025 budgets. Construction trades have been badly hit as well. Last week, one of my constituents, a mother with an autistic 16 year old son, contacted me. He is desperate to find a carpentry apprentice. He has rung as many employers in Plymouth as he can. Not a single company can afford to take him on. In fact, according to his mum. Whereas last year there were 20 suitable apprenticeships available, this year there have only been three on offer.

Time and time again, small businesses tell me that they are struggling with Labour's increased employment costs. They simply cannot afford the financial burden and the time commitment required to train younger apprentices. Britain's youth unemployment rate is now higher than Europe's for the first time since records began. There are now 150,000 more young people who are out of work than when Labour took office, and in total we have 729,016 to 24 year olds who are unemployment now. True compassion means creating a system that is fair to working families, especially those whose incomes are only just above the threshold for universal Credit in this place.

Three weeks ago, I mentioned a self-employed mother who encapsulates this issue of fairness. She confided in me that she and her husband are seriously considering whether they can afford to get pregnant again. She is one of many working mums who face a heart wrenching dilemma, fulfil her longing for have another baby and lose her earnings as a result, or do what is affordable and risk a lifetime of regret for the child. She never had two working parents, and particularly the self-employed across the country.

Scrapping the cap sends entirely the wrong message. They are making difficult choices about family size, because the state is not going to swoop in and cover the cost. Can we can we really look working parents in the eye and say that we voted for a system that requires them to make tough decisions, while absolving families on benefits from these same dilemmas?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is she aware what percentage of people who are subject to the Two-child cap currently are in work? Two-child cap currently are in work? And is she aware that 22% of people on Universal Credit earn more money

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on Universal Credit earn more money than the personal allowance and therefore pay income tax? So I thank the hon. Lady for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which actually provides me with a great opportunity to be able to say something that I discovered. Well, probably realised again in preparing for this debate, which is that actually, yes, we do know that there are lots of working people who claim Universal Credit, but what we don't know is how many hours those people work to be able to ascertain how many of them are full time workers, and how many are part time workers.

Now, of course, if they're full time workers, there's one argument to be made, but the vast majority of them, as I would assume, are part time workers, in which case we need to be encouraging them to work more hours. And I'm going to get to a point where this is a problem later with all the other passported benefits that they get once they are entitled to Universal Credit. Now, how can it be fair to expect working parents to subsidise other families decisions that lie beyond their own financial reach? And we must not forget the single people whose household overheads are higher than those in dual income households.

There were 8.4 million people living alone in the UK in 2024. Nearly 30% of households. They, too, should not be saddled with the extra tax burden that scrapping the two child limit will inevitably create. Now, this Labour government prefers hand-outs to hard choices. Giving away cash will always be more popular than exercising fiscal responsibility. The backbenchers like it the left, the left wing think tanks like it, the families who will get thousands more pounds every year like this. And who can blame them? Spending other people's money in an easy is an easy way for the government to feel good about itself.

But this money Madam Chair must come from somewhere. This government is only pretending that it can afford to scrap the cap. Originally this government said it was unaffordable, which is true. The cost of this policy will be about £3.5 billion. But instead of sticking to his guns, our Prime Minister has capitulated to his backbenchers. It requires backbone to bring the welfare Budget under control. And backbone is exactly what Labour lacks. By contrast, previous conservative governments did indeed control spending. Until the pandemic, spending on working age welfare fell in real terms.

This is why we have committed to save £23 billion. We will crack down on the abuse of Motability. We will stop handing out benefits to foreign nationals because citizenship should mean something. We will stop giving benefits to people with low level mental health problems to ensure that we can target support to the people who need it most. Under under Labour, the overall benefits Bill continues to balloon by the end of this decade, health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion.

I did read that right. Scrapping the cap is fiscally irresponsible and Labour knows it. This bill will only increase the tax burden on hard working men and women, whose household budgets are already being stretched to the limit. Yes, I will give away Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to say, Madam Chair, that I feel I have to disagree with the I feel I have to disagree with the hon. Lady, and I do it for a very simple reason. As the Minister said simple reason. As the Minister said in his introduction, he mentioned my comments in the last debate. my comments in the last debate. There's 50,000 children in poverty in Northern Ireland will be lifted out of that poverty. We'll have the opportunity. We'll have a better standard of living.

13,000 families will have a better standard of living. And I think, Madam Speaker, I can say this. I think the mark of any society is whenever those who are well, less well off who need help, that we must help them. And I think that's why government is doing the right thing. They're helping the people to lift them out of poverty. And what's wrong with that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. And of course, how we care for the most vulnerable how we care for the most vulnerable is the mark of our society. But as conservatives, we don't believe that is simply by trying to lift them up through giving them extra them up through giving them extra cash. All we are doing is changing that relative poverty measure. We're not suddenly lifting all these people out of poverty because these people out of poverty because we're giving them more money.

We don't know what they're going to spend that money on. What we need spend that money on. What we need to do is spend the money. What we need to do is spend the money on actually putting in place things that are not the sticking plasters, but that actually have a systemic impact and bring people from a long term poverty into long term being in a position to afford what they need to. Now, Madam chair, inflation has soared to nearly twice as high as when this government first entered office.

Food prices are rising, utility bills are rising. Even the cost of relaxing at the pub with a beer is rising. You do not lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent has argued so persuasively before. When inflation rises, spending power falls. The money you earn buys less because each pound is worth less than it was before. Indeed, the money you receive on benefits is also worth less because of inflation.

Families feel it at the checkout, at the petrol station and with every bill that drops through the floor. Inflation not only squeezes family budgets, it narrows their choices, with the cost of everyday essentials continuing to climb, many working families are being forced to delay or even abandon plans for another child. Scrapping the Two-child cap gives families on benefits, a choice that many working households can no longer dream of. The ability to grow their family without facing financial choices. This kind of unfairness erodes trust in our social contract.

The social contract is an implicit agreement between citizens and the state, which gives the state its legitimacy. People work and pay their taxes. In return, they trust s on hard times, they trust the state to spend on their behalf. But the welfare system has become totally lopsided. Over half of households in this country now receive more from the state than they pay into it. Taxpayers are supporting a system larger than themselves. Scrapping the two child limit will further exacerbate this imbalance.

And the problem doesn't stop there. There is an entire shadow system working alongside Universal Credit. As I've mentioned before, Passported benefits are costing the taxpayer £10 billion every single year. These include healthy food cards, discounted broadband and free prescriptions. Put together, they distort work incentives leading to a cliff edge denial of these entitlements when a claimant comes off universal Credit. Many parents want to be working, but they are better off remaining on benefits once they factor in their loss of eligibility for these extra entitlements.

Yet again, they have been let down by a system which should be supporting them into work, not trapping them on benefits. Finally, one final time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Minister, remind the House in terms of the weekly rate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House in terms of the weekly rate for the standard UK allowance. I'm not particularly very well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not particularly very well today, so she'll forgive me if my memory is foggier than normal. That's why I'm wearing my glasses and it's why I'm struggling not to and it's why I'm struggling not to cough throughout this debate. So I'm happy to have a conversation with her after. But testing me on those sorts of particular things at those sorts of particular things at this particular time is perhaps not not the kindest thing to do. The two child limit is about basic fairness to working parents, the very people who take taxes, whose taxes fund our welfare system.

They are already making tough decisions about the size of their own families. We cannot accept people on benefits from those hard choices. Scrapping the cap is a direct insult to the working families this country relies on. This government should remember the case it once made for keeping the cap. When the Prime Minister suspended seven of his own MPs in 2024 for voting to scrap it, he did so on the basis that the policy was simply too expensive. Now he has bowed to pressure from his backbenchers, but nothing has changed.

It is still unaffordable. Why is this government preparing to spend billions removing the two child limit, when it cannot even get a grip on rising unemployment? We should be expanding real routes into work, not deepening incentives to remain on benefits.
21:10
Rebecca Long Bailey Portrait Rebecca Long Bailey MP (Salford, Labour)
-
-
IMA Rebecca Long-Bailey. right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, and myself and others, and I'll try to be as brief as I can, scrapping the two child limit in full remains the single most impactful step we can take to reduce child poverty. It will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030, and can, with other measures in the Child Poverty strategy, more than 550,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the decade. Now, some in this House have said, how can the country justify this multi-billion pound spend? It's around £3 billion a year but child poverty costs the UK economy £39 billion annually, more than ten times as much.

That's 39 billion, reflecting poorer health, lower educational attainment, increased pressure on public services and lost economic potential. So investing 3 billion to reduce a £39 billion problem is not reckless spending. It's a highly targeted, cost effective investment with long term returns. It's preventative policy at its very best. Now, others have asked why should taxpayers support larger families? Well, the honest truth is that only a very small number of families have more than four children, and almost all of them are working hard to provide for them.

The two child limit has had no measurable impact on family planning. It's not influenced fertility rates. It simply punishes children who are already here and every child, regardless of birth order, deserves enough food, don't they? A safe home and a fair start in life. And when children are supported to thrive, they do better in school. They stay healthier and they contribute more fully as adults. And that benefits all of us. And finally, for those who argue that support should not go to families out of work, remember this 6 in 10 children affected by the two child limit live in households where at least one parent works, and those families are taxpayers too.

And as my mum says there, but for the grace of God go I. Crisis can happen at any moment in an instant. Bereavement, illness, redundancy, family breakdown can push any household into temporary reliance on universal credit and a humane and flexible social security system exists to provide stability in those moments of crisis. So I urge all members of this House to support the passage of today's bill. But of course, this must just be the start. And we must go further.

And alongside scrapping the two child limit, we have got to address the wider benefit cap introduced in 2013. It's bore down on the backs of many families, like a rucksack full of lead organisations, including the child Poverty Action Group, End Child Poverty Coalition, Save the Children UK, the Children's Society, Barnardo's Action for children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of All highlighted the damaging impact of the overall cap. It places arbitrary ceilings on support regardless of rent levels, local costs or family size.

It disproportionately affects single parents, overwhelmingly women and families in high cost areas. It drives rent arrears, temporary accommodation and homelessness, and the evidence is clear it doesn't meaningfully increase employment. What it does is it increases hardship. So if we're serious about tackling structural poverty, we can't remove one barrier while leaving one firmly in place. Lifting the overall benefit cap would complement the removal of the two child limit, ensuring that the gains we make today are not clawed back through arbitrary ceilings that fail to reflect real living costs.

So I applaud the government for scrapping the two-child cap. It's the right thing to do. But now I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances today that his next step will be to look at lifting the benefit cap.
21:14
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Weald of Kent spokesperson Charlie Maynard. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. It's been a very painful path to get to this point, but I'd quite simply like to say that I welcome simply like to say that I welcome what the government is bringing in today. Reversing the two child limit will lift 540,000 children out of absolute poverty, and it is unquestionably the right thing to do, certainly for those children and for their families, but also for our economy, our public services, and for our society as a whole.

Children growing up in poverty face worse educational outcomes, poorer physical and mental health, and fewer opportunities in adulthood. As a member of Salford has just pointed out, you know, this has a huge economic cost on our society as well. And investing now a relatively small amount for great gains later is a very sensible thing to be doing. This change will be up to worth up to £5,000 per year for each of the 500 families, more than 500 families in my Witney constituency who have been impacted by this cap.

I have had heartbreaking emails and surgeries, and I'm sure we all have from constituents impacted by this cap who have had to skip meals in order to ensure their children don't go without, because their money each month simply doesn't stretch far enough. Our food banks help enormously, but relying on them is not the solution, obviously. So too many children and families have been trapped in poverty because of the previous decision to impose this cap and this government's stubborn decision to keep it until now.

And I wish this had happened a year ago, and that would have saved a lot of trouble and stress for families and children involved, but also for a few members in this chamber tonight. So I commend the Labour MPs who lost the whip for fighting to end this policy for their courage, and I am sure that it is their voices and actions which have played a large part in bringing this government now to bring forward this legislation. However, while this bill is very narrow in scope, I think we should also recognise that it is only one step towards tackling child poverty and there is much more we need to do.

And that is what the amendment tabled by my colleague, the Member for Torbay highlights. Ministers will no doubt have seen the report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published, which will welcome, while welcoming the decision to lift the cap, warned that progress on tackling child poverty as a result of removing the two child benefit cap will likely stall after April. That's two months away, unless this is supported by further follow up measures. The headlines from that report were that the number of people living in very deep poverty was at the highest level in more than 30 years, based on 20 2324 figures.

But now this government must make an absolute priority to address this. That is why we are calling on the government to look at the much wider issues of overall levels of child poverty, levels of destitution and deep poverty among households with children, educational and physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty. They need to thoroughly assess this. A year after the passage of this bill and report back to the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on its impact. Certainly. Whether he was aware of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether he was aware of the child poverty tackling child poverty strategy and the inquiry poverty strategy and the inquiry that the the Education and Work and Pensions Committee's is, is doing, which is looking at just at just that as well as the published data that the Education Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the Education Secretary published just before Christmas, I think. Yes, I am, and I congratulate you. Well, the member as chair and the Committee for doing all that good work, and many thanks. That may encourage the government to take steps that go beyond this welcome but narrow bill to support children and their families who are struggling week to week to get by, including, for example, auto enrolment of all those who are eligible for free school meals so that children are automatically considered eligible when their parents apply for relevant benefits or financial support, or giving people the ability to juggle caring responsibilities alongside work without falling into hardship.

By increasing the value of carer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits, particularly for those on low incomes. Rachael Maskell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rachael Maskell. Thank you chair. There could be no greater cause for a government than to lift for a government than to lift children out of poverty, and that's why I very much welcome the removal of the two child limit. However, Joseph Rowntree Foundation have reported 141 children in families reported 141 children in families who will not see the full benefit of that change. 50,000 children, the poorest of our children, who will get no benefit whatsoever because of the benefit cap.

And therefore we have to really examine the impact of the benefit cap on these families and how it is holding those children back in poverty. Of course, we must strain every sinew in order to address poverty. Looking at issues like
21:19
Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )
-
-
sanctions in the the the welfare system, looking at things like the spare room subsidy, which this government championed so much with government championed so much with the bedroom tax campaign and so much more. And of course, we know the impact, especially on disabled children growing up in poverty has the greatest cost to the state than the greatest cost to the state than if their poverty and destitution were to be addressed. And of course, were to be addressed. And of course, poverty is a source of many adverse childhood experiences, causing multiple disadvantages to children and changing their life trajectories.

My work at looking into the intersection of child poverty and the 1001 critical days shows the causal link. When I recently met with the Director of midwifery and discussed poor maternal outcomes, she impressed on me how addressing the multiple indices for which poverty is at its root, is the most significant step we could take. Low birth rate, domestic violence, substance use and into general disadvantage lead to setting a baby and then a child, and then an adult onto a negative trajectory.

So when it comes to lifting children out of poverty, we have to look at what's holding the current 4.5 million children in poverty, 2 million in deep poverty and 1 million in destitution. So it is to be celebrated the steps the government has made. But there is much, much more to do. Last week, I had the privilege of launching Kate Pickett's new book, The Good Society. So has spent the last couple of weeks engrossed in statistics and research on the impact of poverty on our society, the causes and solutions.

If the Minister hasn't read it yet, I suggest he makes it his priority. I describe the book as a manifesto because I believe it echoes our values, but also provides the evidence base the Minister needs as to why holding children down in poverty is a moral ill. When the evidence that to remove the cap will save the government substantially more and give a child a better outcome in health, education, employment, injustice and in society. The government said it was going to invest in a decade of renewals, so would reap the benefits within two terms of office were it to remove the benefit cap.

These four new clauses before us today call for an assessment which the government must be keen to do. If we don't, the academics clearly will drive out the data and present it to us. And I simply say to the party opposite that they are wrong. On the basis of evidence, we need to look at the number of children who have now been pushed into poverty under the last 14 years. Life expectancy in our developed country, now 24th out of 38 in the OECD and infant mortality now 29th, there is a causal link.

So whether health outcomes, educational outcomes, impact on family or the justice system, the prevalence of their roots are traced back to poverty in childhood. If we are serious about cutting the Social Security cost or cutting the prison population cost to the Exchequer, the only path means that we have to invest to end child poverty and take ambition beyond that of the child poverty strategy launched by our government. Evidence in York, where we have introduced free school meals, has shown that we are lifting children out of poverty and the outcomes are significantly enhanced for those children, their health outcomes, their educational outcomes are to be seen.

I'm just going to continue, and therefore we need to ensure that we move all children out of poverty, because we also see that the risks the child has in poverty, including exploitation, can be addressed. If we put the right security around the child and there is strong correlation between children in the justice system and poverty, and with over half of children in secure accommodation eligible for free school meals, while the evidence set out in the Good Society is so powerful as to why we need to lift children out of poverty, and we are rightfully grateful of the steps made, we have got more to do.

Further, we know that 30% of disabled people live in poverty, and the risk of deep poverty is 60% higher. In families where someone is a disabled person. And it is right. Therefore, in new clause two, that we seek to find deeper evidence. One of the reasons why ensuring that we look at the benefit cap to my constituency is because we've got one of the highest costs of living in the country, and therefore the cost of housing is holding those families back, not having the the, the resources in order to pay for the basics for their children.

And that's why I've worked with Citizens Advice in York to talk about these issues, and said that I would raise them with the Minister today. And as Pickett and Wilkinson point out, in the spirit level, the inequality with the UK, the second worst in the world is the root of each strand of social disadvantage that successive works of academics, leading to two reports by Sir Michael Marmot, have shown the impact on health outcomes and whether in education or justice or housing or welfare, or indeed having any agency at all, we have a social and moral imperative to end the inequalities that widened since the 2008 economic crash.

So I call on the Minister to look specifically at the benefit cap, and to move those children forward, to lift them out of poverty, because if we can turn the tables on their life outcomes, we know that this can make such a significant difference. And if we're serious about our society gaining from the economic and social advantage of ending child poverty, we must look further. A minimum income guarantee as a next step and seriously consider a universal basic income.

So no child experiences a deep and pernicious poverty that this place has for far too long held them in suppressing their life chances and causing such

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harm. Can I just remind members that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just remind members that we are specifically talking to the amendments this evening? Sian Berry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments this evening? Sian Berry. Thank you, Madam Chair. The government should have brought this bill forward as soon as it was elected 19 months ago, but it elected 19 months ago, but it failed to do that. It could have listened to the families with more listened to the families with more than 200,000 children, who are enduring or facing the overall benefit cap before making its final plans, but it failed to do that. Ministers still could have listened at Second Reading when many hon.

Members, including myself, said this policy was too narrow. The
21:26
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
government could have widened this bill's scope, but it failed to do that. This bill is not wrong, but that. This bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right. By far too many children. I am here now to speak in support of my new clause one, which has wide cross-party support. This clause would mandate support. This clause would mandate within six months a full assessment of the families left in poverty by the failure of the government to tackle the overall benefit cap, showing its impact on each of our constituencies and the families we represent.

We need to know who is being left out from the help in this bill, including who is being left in poverty, and we need to know the wider impact too, as the change takes hold. This includes the removal of exemptions because at the same time, this government is seeking to remove people from the few qualifying benefits that exempt people from the cap, including disability benefits. This wider attack on benefit claimants threatens to make the gap in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill even worse. We also. Idea why the government. Has left the overall benefit cap in place, knowing full well that it in place, knowing full well that it will lead to this massive anomaly with other children driven into poverty at the very time we should poverty at the very time we should be taking all children out of poverty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I sincerely thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because I did raise this at Second Reading and Ministers there, they Reading and Ministers there, they gave they gave answers that actually echoed rather horribly the prejudicial, stereotypical arguments that we heard moments ago from the opposition spokesperson, implying that it would incentivise people to work when we know it really only drives people into poverty. Today, we also have excellent proposals in new clause three and clause four, which has the same goal.

I appreciate fully the request for consultation and the provision of cost estimates in new clause four. A new clause three is very helpful in looking at the impact of the bill on families, with disabled people and on mental health. These are all very important considerations. And I think from listening to debate at Second Reading and today, looking at the amendments across many parties on both sides of this House, a near consensus, excluding the Conservative Party, we have, that the government isn't going nearly as far as it should.

The fact is that the overall benefit cap is just as cruel, just as driven by prejudice and stereotype as the two child limit. And the Conservatives should never have introduced it. Those affected include nearly a thousand families in my constituency of Brighton Pavilion. It is a high proportion due to our excessive housing costs and that is the point. Whatever extreme examples those on the right wing of politics wave around, these families don't get to keep and enjoy this funding that they get from Social Security.

They go straight out again in the absolute basics, and sky high rents are responsible for most of the higher living costs that put people on the cap and the money they receive, often on top of hard won low wages. Just go straight out to the pockets of landlords. This cap punishes the wrong people. So today I want a clear commitment from Ministers setting out how they will collect data, analyse it and report back to this House very swiftly on the families.

They are not helping with this bill and then I want a clear commitment to fill this huge gap in their child poverty strategy, which so many charities agree with. Some might call this a U-turn, but through another lens it would just be a very welcome last minute equaliser. Real help, more support, not spin and delay is what these children's lives deserve.
21:30
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Thank you chair. >> I want to. >> Speak to new clause four in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to new clause four in my name and the name of many of hon. Members, but it echoes new clause Members, but it echoes new clause one and also new clause three. And the reason for it, and I take the reference from the hon. Member for Strangford really, when we came together to discuss the two child limit and this piece of legislation, the House was filled largely with compassion, because we had a view that we just couldn't stand by and watch so many of our children living in poverty.

And that's why we welcome the bill. That's why we've campaigned for it for for so long. And we were building a an element of consensus across a large part of the part of the house. But the problem that we've got has been pointed out by my hon. Friend for Salford from York and from from Brighton Pavilion, is that a good bill? Is being ruined really? Or damaged? Anyway, by avoiding the issue of the overall benefit cap? So as it's impossible for backbench to move amendments which will incur government expenditure, it's impossible.

It was impossible for us to move in a straight amendment to abolish the overall cap. So we've come at it through the amendments that we've tabled, which is simply saying to the government, please acknowledge that what the two child abolition of the two child limit does is it leaves a large number of our children in poverty. Our friend from York has said 141. I think the figure is about 150,000. On the last estimate, 50,000 families who gain nothing as a result of this excellent piece of legislation, but doesn't go far enough.

And there's another 30,000, I think, in the figures that only gets some partial benefit. So all these amendments are saying to government, because we can't move an amendment tonight that will scrap the cap, at least consult, consult about the implications of this bill and those it leaves behind and in in the new clause amendment, a new clause I put forward, I just listed a number of those organisations that we all depend upon for the analysis of poverty and the discussion of the implications.

So these are not these are not revolutionary amendments. They're straightforward. Just please don't tell us in government what your next steps are because it has to include, we think, the tackling of the overall cap itself. And I welcome the reviews that are going on. But whilst those reviews are going on, time is ticking over. And just as we had the it took us a year to arrive at the debate and final conclusion on the two child limit, we could be into another year.

Of all those children still living in poverty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank thank my hon. Friend for right hon. Friend for giving way. right hon. Friend for giving way. So the response to my right hon. Friend will be that everything that everybody has just been asked is actually in the terms of reference for the child poverty inquiry. So the the outcomes that you would like will be addressed within the like will be addressed within the child Poverty Strategy inquiry from the Education Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's why I urge the government Ministers to ensure that they act swiftly on the response of that swiftly on the response of that review. Because because I believe all logic drives those reviews to all logic drives those reviews to actually come up with a recommendation that that overall cap will be eliminated once, once cap will be eliminated once, once and for all. And I'm hoping we can get something from the Minister tonight. Some form of words that recognises the seriousness of the issue, recognises the, well, the urgency of the issue itself, but then also recognising that those those reviews will be report swiftly, I believe, and therefore we could then I think and almost consensually have legislation brought through in this House and we could get it through incredibly speedily.

I just want to comment on what the opposition spokesperson has said, and I'm sorry she's not very well. And I hope when she recovers that she'll discover compassion, because that's not what that's not what we heard. That's not what we heard tonight, because we need to understand the genesis of the overall cap, as well as the two child limit. And the genesis goes back to the financial crisis of 2008, 2009, when our our financial sector operated like a casino. We came to a financial crisis.

And when George Osborne was elected in 2010 as the Chancellor and became the Chancellor, he then decided actually it wasn't about the the the deregulation of our financial sector, it was about government overspending. It never was. So he introduced a policy of austerity. And the way to introduce austerity was to target the most vulnerable. So so he targeted the argument. There was no money left. And the, the argument of the no money less was disproved. Time and time again.

The argument the Tories put forward is that we're spending too much on tackling poverty. We're spending too much paying for education teachers, we're paying too much for our health service. When the crisis was brought about as a result of speculation through deregulation under the Tories for over 30 years. Advocacy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's strayed some distance from the bill. True, true. So I'll just bring that section to a fairly rapid

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that section to a fairly rapid response. What happened is the Chancellor, at that point in time. We are going to return to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are going to return to the amendments to this bill. So the amendment to this bill is to tackle that inequity that was to tackle that inequity that was introduced as a result of George Osborne's policies to target children and disabled people, because that's what it did, and that's what this was about. And what the Conservatives have done today, chair, is what they did in 2013. When they introduced it. They thought, how can we construct a moral argument for this? So they reverted to the 19th century Paul Waugh the I when they reverted to the argument of less eligibility, because that's what it was in the 19th century.

Paul Waugh Paul Waugh the idea was that someone who's in need of support should never, never, ever be raised to the level of decency of an ordinary labourer. And that's what this was, this argument from the 19th century, that you cannot allow people to actually be raised out of poverty. They must remain in poverty. And that's what the Poor Law did, and that's what this did. It thrust

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and deep poverty. I'll give way. I thank the Member for giving way. Was it not the Member for Chingford, who, on a visit to Glasgow, discovered there was much poverty and then decided it was all poverty and then decided it was all the fault of there being too many children, and so decided to punish the children for being poor in the children for being poor in order to teach the next generation a lesson. Immoral nonsense that belongs with Malthus, not with any logical, social, socially minded human being.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the Poor law, less eligibility moral case was eligibility moral case was disproven because of the implications of it. The results of it was to drive people into poverty and real hardship, and in particular children. And that's what the two-child limit did, and that's what the overall cap has done. So all we're appealing for done. So all we're appealing for from the government tonight is to having introduced this excellent having introduced this excellent piece of legislation lifting 450,000 children out of poverty.

Please don't leave the 150,000 behind. Give us an indication tonight that there will be a plan from government to tackle that issue, because again, we we we were united in virtually united in compassion when this bill was introduced. We can be united in compassion once again to ensure that we scrap the overall cap. But there is a sense of urgency now because I don't want children in my constituency to continue to live in such poverty, to continue to live in homeless accommodation, in temporary accommodation, to continue to live, yes, in deep poverty, not able to go on those school trips that other kids do within their classroom, not be able to afford the new shoes, the new coats and all the rest of it.

This is almost the same sort of speeches that were made in the 19th century. In this place itself. It was why, actually the Labour Party was founded in the first place, that we represent working class people and that we want to eradicate poverty from our society. So I urge the Minister to give us some indication tonight of the next steps in this bill to incorporate in the consideration of this bill as we pass it into law, about what the next bill will look like.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

surely, surely, it's got to ensure the abolition of the cap itself. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Chairman. I would like to speak this evening in support of amendments one and two laid in the amendments one and two laid in the name of my hon. Friend and next door neighbour. One of the most basic principles of any successful basic principles of any successful society is that those who work hard are able to reap the rewards. Yet under this government, millions of
21:40
21:41
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
Brian Leishman. Thank you very >> Brian Leishman. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There are pockets of Grangemouth with the pockets of Grangemouth with the deepest poverty in Scotland, while tonight in Clackmannanshire, 29% of children will go to bed living in destitution, hunger and hardship are becoming more common. That's why I support the amendment from my right hon. Friend from Hayes and Harlington this evening. Now, it's obvious that four decades of deindustrialisation and the economic and social consequences that have followed have been devastating for communities like mine.

And of course, I also understand that we can't reverse 40 years of decline in 19 months, but we must be bolder than we have been so far, because to delay will be lethal. And let's forget talk about stability. After 14 years of austerity, then a global pandemic that exaggerated the inequality austerity created, and then a cost of living crisis that is making people poorer, then stability just will not cut it. It's transformation we need. And truthfully, there is plenty money in society.

The problem is who holds it with solutions like an annual wealth tax on the very wealthiest in society, those with assets of over £10 million and more, and the redistribution of that wealth into public services, education, health. Then we will improve people's living standards and effectively tackle the scourge of poverty. But to do that will mean making very different political choices. But our Labour government must meaningfully shift the dial on poverty in my constituency and across the entire country.

Those choices have to be taken by us because frankly, we know that no one else will. Now, there is no doubt that lifting the two-child cap will help many families in my communities. But we cannot stop there, as my hon. Friend from Salford said earlier, because sadly, Labour governments don't come round all that often and we have the chance to be a Labour government that transforms Britain into a fairer, more equal place that my communities and others like them all over the country so desperately need.

So tonight, I urge the government to do much, much more and to think of previous Labour government's record on lifting people out of poverty and the words of a previous Labour Prime Minister because we are a moral crusade or we are nothing. It's about time that we acted like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. Ann Davies. I stand to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ann Davies. I stand to speak in support of new clause one, submitted in the name of the hon. submitted in the name of the hon. Member from Brighton Pavilion. The Two-child cap should never have been introduced in the first place. been introduced in the first place. And to my hon. Friend from South West Devon, I gently ask as one of West Devon, I gently ask as one of four siblings, was I the third born worth less than my two older sisters or my younger sister? And as a mother of three daughters, was any one of my children worth less
21:45
Ann Davies Portrait Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
than anyone else than any of the others? Well, absolutely not, and at its most basic, this is what at its most basic, this is what this policy is about. I also was in receipt of free school meals, and I receipt of free school meals, and I remember well queuing up outside the school Secretary store to collect my dinner token. So I would collect my dinner token. So I would have been one of these statistics, one of the 31% of children in Wales growing up in financial poverty, not emotional poverty, not poor in love, but in financial poverty.

And there's a huge difference there. And that's why this bill is necessary. Ending the two-child cap causes an 11% fall in child poverty, a nearly 20% drop in deep poverty, according to the modelling by the Bevan Foundation and Policy and Practice. But this bill, success in tackling poverty is limited by other government policies, especially the benefit cap. And as it stands, the benefit cap limits total income from certain Social Security payments to 22,000, not the 71,000 that's been mentioned here for couples and single parents outside London.

Frozen at that rate for the 2627 by the Labour government. Now, over 3000 households were already affected by the benefit cap in Wales as of May last year, and 83% of those were households with children, the majority with three or more children. So these families will not benefit at all from this bill. In fact, the Bevan Foundation estimates that more than 1 in 5 households affected by the two child limit will not fully benefit from its removal because of the benefit cap.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion new clause one places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment of the effects of the Bill, which includes an estimate of these households which will not see the full benefits of removing the two child limit because of the benefit. Cap and I support this amendment as a way to understand the real impact of leaving the benefit cap where it is on families across our nations and our communities. But it doesn't go far enough, as many have said as Clive, company spokesperson, I try to ensure the UK government also tackled the benefit cap, as well as the two child limit.

But the narrow scope of the bill meant that I could not put amendments to do this. Only the Labour government can make this bill include changes to the benefit cap, and to help further reduce the unacceptable levels of poverty within our communities. The UK Labour Government has said it is committed to tackling child poverty when 31% of children in my constituency are in poverty, now is the time for the government to show that commitment in action. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to use powers available to him to legislate to scrap the benefit cap alongside the two child limit and make a real difference to children and families across all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our communities. Amanda Martin. Thank you madam. Madam chair, I want to speak in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Favour of the Bill, but I want to speak against amendment one as it an attempt to gut the bill and defeat the Bill's purpose entirely. defeat the Bill's purpose entirely. Madam chair, there are moments in politics where the questions before us are not complicated, where in us are not complicated, where in fact they are simple about dignity, compassion, and the kind of country that we choose to be. And I'll start, Madam Chair, with an
21:48
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
start, Madam Chair, with an important aspect of this bill forcing women to disclose and prove rape in order to feed their child was one of the most cruel and indefensible features ever embedded in our welfare system. Scrapping that clause restores restores something fundamental humanity. There have been and there are constituents in Portsmouth carrying trauma quietly while still working, parenting and trying to hold their families together. They have needed and still need support, not interrogation. No mother should ever have to relive the worst moments of their life just to put food on their table.

Madam chair. It should never have been in place in the first place, and it needs to go. Alongside this injustice sits another harmful narrative. The suggestion, Madam Chair, that families affected by the two child limit are somehow avoiding responsibility and just knocking out kids is a case of being lazy and going for money. The facts simply do not support this claim. Around 59% of affected households are already in work. Nurses, teaching assistants, shop workers, cleaners, carers. I could go on and in Portsmouth North I meet parents finishing night shifts, juggling childcare and parents in situations who through tragedy, accidents, redundancy, relationship breakdowns, illness or death of a partner find themselves in situations they didn't start out on when planning their families, many of whom work additional jobs and still skip meals so their children do not have to eat less, only to be told support stops because of an arbitrary rule.

This, Madam Chair, is not fairness. It is hardship being locked in as a child poverty action group and many others make it clear child poverty damages health, education and long term opportunities. They are not statistics. They are Portsmouth children with dreams, talents and futures worth. In my opinion and this government's opinion, futures worth investing in. Removing the rape clause and ending the two child limit says something powerful that dignity matters, that work should be respected, and that no child should be punished for the circumstances or the place in their family they are born into.

And as the opposition mentioned, the economic impact of this policy, I want to just look at the economic picture. Inflation is falling and the Bank of England expects inflation to get to the target quicker than expected. Six interest rates and cuts since the election the fastest rate of cuts in 17 years, taking an average of 14,000 off new mortgages and all without austerity and making the most vulnerable in our society pay. In Portsmouth. This has seen a reduction of £1,750 on the average mortgage, and can also provide 62 million for local services, roads, libraries, reviving high streets and many other local services, including 15,711 young people to benefit from the youth investment.

Cutting the national debt last week and showing the largest Budget surplus for many months since records began without austerity. Thanks to the choices we've made and thanks to bills like this, the economic plan is a correct one without having to put our country's and our city's my city's children. And as my friend from Salford noted, the cost to tackling poverty at source rather than paying ten times more to support children in poverty throughout their lives is not just morally but economically correct.

Madam chair, this is not just good social policy, it is the mark of a decent society and one I am proud to stand up for. But, Madam Chair, I would like to end by asking the Minister in his summing up, to tell me more about the work that the government will do on monitoring the impact of these changes and how they will how they will work across government in joined up, consistent way to improve outcomes for young people and families such as the workers rights, the renters rights, breakfast clubs, free nursery and the skills agenda for apprenticeships and Training pathways and the Youth Guarantee, to name a few.
21:52
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Kirsty Blackman. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's great to get a chance to speak in this. The Committee stage of the in this. The Committee stage of the two child limit bill. Do you know, I'm just so pleased that this bill is actually progressing. I'm pleased that this has happened. This is something that I feel like we've stood on these benches and argued about for so many years. There is it finally seems like it's going to be real.

I was given into trouble by a government Minister for not welcoming the the bill. I have welcomed the bill at every opportunity. I am very pleased that the two child limit is being removed. In fact, I had my own bill in order to remove the two child limit so I could hardly do anything but welcome this bill. I'm standing up today to talk about the amendments that have been put forward in relation to the three new clauses that have been put forward.

We support all three of the new clauses that have been put forward. So the new clauses cover looking at the benefit cap, and I agree with the points that have been put forward about that. I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member from Portsmouth just now. I thought it was really spot on and talking about the impacts of poverty, the impact of poverty on the life chances of children forever as they as they grow. And I think that not just the two child limit has caused this Two-child limit is one of the elements that has increased and exacerbated child poverty, but the benefit cap has also increased and exacerbated child poverty.

If you look at the families that are that are covered by the two child limit, 40% of them have got a disabled family member in the household, whether it's one of the children or one of the parents that is a disabled family member. If you look at the benefit cap, it's overwhelmingly people with disabled members and their families that are hit by the benefit cap. If we're saying that Personal Independence Payment, for example, is recognising the additional costs of disability, if we're saying that the additional payments that are being made through the Universal Credit system, whether that is the the child, the child element, whether that is the limited capability for work element, if we're saying that they are an additionality because of the complex circumstances that you're facing, that are contributing to your poverty or your inability to work more hours, or your illness and your ill health, if we're saying that these are additional payments that are being made in order to ensure, in order to recognise those additional costs, why then are we putting a cap on it? Why then are we saying, actually we believe that that children cost more money and that people on Universal Credit deserve more money depending on how many children they have? Because children shouldn't go hungry, which I believe is what the government is saying here.

But then we're capping it and saying, well, children shouldn't go hungry apart from those children whose when you hit the benefit cap, children shouldn't go hungry and families shouldn't go hungry. Apart from if you've got a set of complex circumstances that mean that you can't take on additional hours because you've got complex health needs and a requirement for a house that's adapted and therefore costs more in terms of rent, for example, why are we saying that these additional charges are reasonable, but they're only reasonable for some people and for some families.

So I think that the government needs to look again at the issue of the benefit cap, that that specifically in terms of a new clause one, there's a number of other things that the government needs to look again at that are covered by some of the other new clauses. The government has made welcome moves in terms of clawbacks and repayments from Universal Credit payments. It has reduced the percentage that that people can pay back. In terms of those clawbacks, however, it has not taken any steps to look at the affordability of Clawbacks.

It is just set at a percentage. It does not look at whether or not people can afford to pay back that money that they've previously been overpaid in Universal Credit, or they've had as an advance, which means that some families are significantly disadvantaged because they may have more outgoings, because they live somewhere like Brighton, where rents are absolutely through the roof, where they live somewhere like the north of Scotland, where heating costs a fortune because it's freezing more often than it is freezing down here.

You know where you've got these additional issues. They're not looking. None of the repayment schemes. Look at whether or not people can afford them. And I would urge the government also to make have a look at whether or not this is contributing to child poverty. The hon. Member for the opposition, when she stood up and spoke, said something along the lines of you don't solve poverty by ensuring that people have money. I mean, you literally do. You literally do solve poverty by ensuring that people have enough money.

That is the the solution that's the cure for poverty, is to have enough money to be able to pay for the heating that you need to pay for, to be able to pay for the food that your children need to be able to buy a pair of shoes when your child needs a pair of shoes. And it's incredible how fast they grow. By the way, I can't. I think my son went through about five sizes in the space of a year and a half, and you just can't keep children in shoes that quick, can't even get to the shops that quick to to ensure that you're getting the right sizes.

Children grow really quickly in the cost an awful lot of money, and therefore it's really important that we ensure that the child poverty measures that the government is taking are monitored correctly to ensure that they do make all of the differences that the government is proposing to ensure that we can we can see whether the difference that's being made is enough of a difference, whether it's having that change and that effect on the outcomes that we want to see. The government put forward a child poverty strategy, which I felt was deeply unambitious.

It mostly laid out things that the government had already announced, other than the the Two-child limit stuff. It mostly was stuff that had already been announced. It almost entirely was only England or England and Wales and didn't apply in Scotland other than the Universal Credit stuff, the childcare stuff, for example, the free school meals stuff that was talked about, none of that stuff actually applies in Scotland. The school uniform stuff doesn't apply in Scotland, so I felt that it was deeply unambitious.

But I still feel like we don't have enough information about the monitoring. So the three new clauses today that ask for additional monitoring on the reduction of child poverty are incredibly important because we don't have enough information yet. The government is not going to produce its baseline monitoring and evaluation report on child poverty on child poverty strategy until summer 2026. We do not have enough information about how the government is going to measure this, and I would love it if we could have governments that were absolutely upfront and honest about which measures are working and which measures are not working consistently.

We've had governments who put forward legislation, who create primary or secondary legislation and fail to do post-implementation reviews of that legislation, so they fail to tell us whether or not the legislation had the intended consequence. Did it make 30 grand? Did it make 30 million? That's what the government maybe told us it was going to make. But then the Post-implementation review doesn't happen. So we do not see whether or not that legislation was effective. I think in terms of the new clauses that have been asked for here, being really clear about the difference that is made, how many children's lives are improved by the removal of the two child limit, how many children's lives will be improved? More children's lives will be improved by the removal of the benefit cap.

How much of an effect does that have on school readiness? For example, if you look at the information that is provided in the some of the background information to the child poverty strategy, they've looked at a number of studies looking at school readiness and whether giving people additional money and an income boost assists in children being school ready. And in fact, a number of studies have found that it does assist in children being school ready. Now, maybe there has not been a specific study looking on whether or not the two child limit has impacted school readiness, but we know that giving families extra money means that children are more likely to be school ready.

And given that this will give families extra money, then we could draw the conclusion that these children will be more likely to be school ready as a result of the additional funding. I think a lot of the arguments that have been rehearsed today around the fact that it's not the children's fault that they are in this situation, the children deserve to be able to eat, but I just wanted to touch. Lastly, on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the comments, some of the other comments. Yeah, absolutely. What the hon. Lady for giving way. She makes a very important way. She makes a very important point there about not being the child's fault that they grew up in poverty. I grew up in poverty, caring for two disabled parents. I would also say it's not the parents fault, it's actually society's fault when we say that people fault when we say that people should be poor and we create structures and systems that enable that, we are all responsible.

So that, we are all responsible. So would you agree that having this on the face of a bill is just one way? This Parliament can say to the country, we will not put up with poverty for anyone ever again, and it's not people's fault.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kirsty Blackman that is absolutely the case and I accept the rebuke. I think it was the rebuke. I think it was completely reasonable, actually, that, you know, it is not the parents fault. I should have been parents fault. I should have been far clearer about that. I tend to think that poverty and a lack of privilege is caused by a lack of privilege is caused by a lack of choices. Right? And your choices? You can't make mistakes, right? If You can't make mistakes, right? If if I tend to think that privilege means that you've got the ability to be able to make mistakes, I can make mistakes, and I've got enough of a financial cushion to catch me.

I've got enough of a family support to catch me. I've got the ability to be able to do that. If you are living in poverty, if you don't have family support, if you've got poor mental health, one of those mistakes can mean that you end up spiralling and that you are in an unacceptable situation very, very quickly. So that's how I think about privilege. It's not anybody's fault, these situations, because I am allowed to make far more mistakes than people who are struggling on the breadline right now.

And how is that fair that I'm able to make more mistakes just because I'm lucky enough to be in a more privileged position? So just commenting on the some of the comments that were made by the opposition members in terms of people working hard, a lot of the people who are on Universal Credit and who are working are working in those jobs that we really need people to work in. They are working as carers, as shop workers. They're working in all sorts of jobs, but they're working in jobs that not one of us would say is easy.

I don't know if any of you have ever worked as a care worker. The hon. Gentleman has worked, as has been a carer and knows how physically and emotionally demanding that is. If you are working as a carer, if you're working as a care worker and you're being paid the minimum wage, working as a care worker, you are doing a physically demanding, very necessary, very hard job, and yet you still may be in receipt of Universal Credit because of the fact that you're earning so little.

I hate this distinction between people who work hard and people who don't work hard, when it's simply based on salary, and not on the fact that lots and lots of people work very hard for very little money, because work does. The minimum wage is not a real living wage. It is just a minimum wage. Madam Speaker, I think I've been clear about some of the issues that have been raised in this in the the new clauses that have been put forward around the benefit cap, around the issues of disabled family members and disabled children themselves, around the issue of the effect on child poverty, destitution and wider social outcomes.

Just on that last one, I think there probably is more that all of us could do, or that more that governments particularly could do about the impact of poverty and ensuring that those impacts are measured as well. I think that some of the comments that are made in the monitoring and evaluation suggestions around the Child Poverty Task Force, look around the child poverty strategy. Sorry, look at the cold, hard measure of how many children are in poverty and how how are those numbers being reduced or increased as things go on, but less so about some of those impacts? And to be fair to the opposition spokesperson there, how does that impact school readiness? Can we see more of that information about whether or not the government's plans that it's put forward have had an impact on school readiness? Have they had an improvement in mental health of the young people that we are seeing as a result of the child poverty measures that are are taking place? I do still think the government is deeply unambitious here.

I think there's more that they could do around the benefit cap. I think there's more that they could do to match the Scottish child payment, for example, given that child poverty has been reducing in Scotland because it is the key mission of our SNP government, it is worth looking at what works anywhere in these islands and seeing whether or not it could or should be replicated to ensure that we're reducing poverty, to ensure that we're protecting children, and to ensure that everybody has those opportunities, no matter how much their parents earn, no matter how many children there are in the family, and no matter whether or not they've got a disabled family member, I think it's really important that every one of us champions every child in our constituencies and tries to ensure that they get the best possible start in life.
22:07
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
Mr. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to everyone who's contributed to the debate on these contributed to the debate on these amendments. The interventions in the child poverty strategy will lead to the biggest expected reduction in child poverty over a parliament since comparable records began. I well understand the concerns of those saying we should go further, and that certainly is right to urge the government to do, but let's recognise how big a change this will be.

Removing the two child limit is the key step. It'll help children to live better lives, fulfil their potential, have better mental health, do better at school and thrive in the future. And this is a change which is in the national interest. The amendments that we've debated propose a number of reports on on different topics. I'm grateful that the movers, I think everybody who has spoken on the amendments has indicated that they support the bill. New clause one and four asks the Secretary of State to report on the effects on children in households subject to the benefit cap.

Indeed, new clause four, in the name of my right hon. Friend fulfils a commitment he made at the time of the Second Reading to devise an amendment that would have this effect, and I it's an important point, and this is something that we need to monitor carefully. But I do want to make this point that it is in the best interest of children to be in working households, and keeping the benefit cap in place does protect the incentive to work, and work incentives are very important under the policies of the last government.

Far too many people gave up on work. They concluded it wasn't worth their while. We want it to be clear to everybody that it is worthwhile being in work. And the Universal Credit Act last summer made an important step in that direction. Just I'll just make this point and then I'll gladly give way to him. Removing the two child limit does not undermine work incentives. The party opposite sort of suggests from time to time that it does, but actually it doesn't.

Removing the two child limit increases the income of many families in work increases the reward for work. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does not undermine work incentives. Friend. There's an element of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's an element of contradiction in what the Minister has said, because the government's argument up until now has been that argument up until now has been that one of the the most disastrous lack one of the the most disastrous lack of disincentives to the work is low wages. So the government has rightfully concentrated on raising rightfully concentrated on raising the minimum wage and aiming for a proper living wage. Our argument is never been that lifting people out of poverty as a disincentive to work.

It's always been about low

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wages. And raising wages has been a crucially important part of the crucially important part of the government's strategy that my right hon. Friend is right, but removing hon. Friend is right, but removing the benefit cap would reduce work incentives. My hon. Friend, the Member for Salford, I think, made the point that there isn't any evidence that that is the case, but actually there is evidence that that is the case. The evidence, for that is the case. The evidence, for example, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

It's not a huge amount of evidence, but there is evidence nevertheless that that in such as it is that the benefit cap does provide a modest but significant incentive for work, and our view, for the time being at least, is that that should be maintained. Now, we've published an impact assessment as part of the bill, which sets out the number of households who won't gain in full or will only partially gain from this measure because of the benefit cap.

The department publishes quarterly statistics on the benefit cap, which includes the number of households that are capped and how this changes over time. The most recent quarterly statistics show that of 119,000 households that were capped at the start of the quarter, which ended in August last year, 40,000 of those households, about one third, were no longer capped by the end of the quarter. Others were were newly capped. So it's quite a there's a lot of churn in the cohort of capped households.

But the 40,000 who'd left included 2900 who'd ceased to be capped because their earnings exceeded the threshold of full time earnings at the national living wage. And we want to encourage more people to make that transition. We also published statistics on the number of households affected by both the two child limit and the benefit cap. The next annual statistics to be published in the summer and after that, the quarterly benefit cap statistics will show how the number of capped households has changed after the removal of the two child limit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North made some very important. Yes, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was just specifically on that point. It will show the number of households that are in the benefit households that are in the benefit cap. It won't show how many have come into the benefit cap as a result of the removal of the two result of the removal of the two child limit. Is there any possibility of him being able to show a link between how many new families are coming in and are coming in because of the removal of the two child limit, so are now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the two child limit, so are now disadvantaged again, even though the two child limit has been removed. We've set out estimates for the effects that we think there will be as a result of the the removal of the two child limit, and there certainly will be more information in the evaluation report, the baseline report for which will be published in the summer. My hon. Friend for Portsmouth North made some important points, and I particularly agree. With the importance of scrapping the the rape clause, which has been a feature of the legislation since the two-child limit was introduced.

And she's also right that we need to understand properly the impacts of policy interventions. So we have published a monitoring and evaluation framework for the child poverty strategy, alongside the strategy that sets out how we are going to track and evaluate progress, reflecting commitment to transparency, accountability and continuing to learn from what is effective. The baseline report, which, as I've said, will be published in the summer, is going to set out details on plans alongside the latest statistics and evidence.

And we will be reporting annually on progress after that. So I think the information we are committed to publish will provide the information that is being looked for in these moments, and I'm also very much looking forward to the report of the Senate committee that the chair of the committee referred to in her intervention. We are glad to give that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister greatly for that. Will the Minister be tackling the point I made in my speech about the point I made in my speech about the possibility that people being denied disability benefits as a result of separate work for which result of separate work for which he is responsible, might fall into the cap by losing the exemptions? This worries me greatly in respect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This worries me greatly in respect of my own constituent Minister. Yeah, well, one of the amendments does touch specifically amendments does touch specifically on disabled people. That was a new clause that wasn't moved. But as she knows, we are undertaking a review of Personal Independence Payment, which I am co-chairing with others, and we'll see what the outcome of that is going to be. But certainly the effects, if there are to be changes in eligibility, the effects in terms of the benefit cap and other other effects will be will be setting out details of as those things progress.

I thought, madam, I would also just ask my hon. Friend the Member for York Central to place an order on my behalf for Kate Pickett's latest book, which I'll be very keen to have a look at. New clause two. Was the clause specifically about households in poverty with a disabled family member? And I agree that monitoring, evaluation, that and other things is very important. But I don't think we should have an assessment which sits in isolation from the impact assessment which I have described, which we are committed to delivering alongside the wider child poverty strategy.

New clause three asks that we review the impact of child poverty on destitution, wider social and economic outcomes. Grateful for the hon. Member's support for the Bill. What I say to him is we have set out a second headline metric. We will be measuring deep material poverty in the child poverty strategy, in the monitoring and evaluation framework. So we are going in that evaluation. We are going to be tracking progress against two headline metrics. Firstly, relative low income metric embraced by David Cameron when he was leader of the Conservative Party.

Sadly now not recognised by the party opposite. But we will be tracking tracking progress against that. But the second will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tracking progress on deep material poverty. Picking up the concerns that he raised. Yes, Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank the right hon. Member for giving way, and I've been wanting to mention this throughout the debate, and I haven't had the right opportunity. But obviously, a large number of these amendments are looking at reporting back, and I appreciate that. The child poverty strategy involves a lot of reporting back. But is the Minister is the Minister aware that in terms is the Minister aware that in terms of auto enrolment of free school meals, the Department for education doesn't actually have the records of which local councils have taken that up yet? So whilst the child Poverty strategy has introduced universal breakfast clubs, there's no matrix to to be able to decipher whether auto enrolment for free school meals is working.

And in some cases, such as in the county that I represent, that's meant a significant amount of money for those local authorities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliberately to try and tackle poverty. So is he aware of that and would he look into tackling that? Well, I'm sure she'll raise that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm sure she'll raise that matter with the Department for education. It's a very important point. And of course we are extending free school meals to all children in families claiming universal Credit. That's an universal Credit. That's an important additional element of the the child poverty strategy. So there will be a comprehensive there will be a comprehensive programme of analysis of the drivers of child poverty, the impact of specific interventions so that we can better learn what works so that we can assess what further steps are needed, and will be continuing to gather evidence for further intervention beyond those that we've announced so far for too long, Madam Chair, the the tide of child poverty was allowed simply to rise.

It is high time to turn that tide. This bill, the centrepiece of our child poverty strategy. It will deliver the most substantial reduction in child poverty of any parliament since records began, and it will make a decisive break from the inaction and indifference of the past. Government can make a difference. We can help children and their families to lead better lives now and in the future for the benefit of all. And Madam Chair, it is for all those reasons that I hope the House will support the Bill and reject the amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. As many as stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no. The ayes have it, the contrary, no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. clause two stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary.

No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause three stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The eyes. Have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have it. New clause three has been selected for separate decision. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

call Charlie Maynard to move new. Clause three formally. Move clause three. In view of the impact of the act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In view of the impact of the act on child poverty, destitution and wider social and economic outcomes, wider social and economic outcomes, the question is that new clause three be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary. No,
22:20
None Portrait Division
-

No. >> No. The question is that new clause three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The Tellers for the ayes are Charlotte Cane and Kirsty Blackman. Charlotte Cane and Kirsty Blackman. The tellers that don't. The Tellers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Order. Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 73. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 73. The noes to the left. 286.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 286. The ayes to the right were. 73.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were. 73. The noes to the left 286. So the noes have it. The noes have it noes have it. The noes have it unlock. To order. Order! The question is that I do report the bill to the House. The question is that I do report the bill to the House. As many as of that opinion say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Order, order! That have it. Order, order! That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Order! Whip Order! Whip to Order! Whip to report. I beg to report that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bill and directed me to report the same without amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without amendment. Third Reading. Now. Minister, to move Third Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So Stephen Timms, Madam. Madam chair, scrapping the two child limit is an investment in the future of children and of the country. 2
22:34
22:35
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the Bill be. Now read the third time. Shadow Secretary of State Helen Whately Secretary of State Helen Whately IDA. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start by thanking hon. Friends for their contributions during the passage of this bill, particularly my hon. Friend for South West Devon, who has argued with true passion against the Bill, drawing on her own experience as well as her sound principles. Am I right, hon. Hon. Friends for Solihull West and Shirley, Hinckley and Bosworth.

Tonbridge. North West Hampshire and Bridgwater, who spoke at Second Reading, and my hon. Friend for the Weald of Kent, who spoke during the Committee stage this evening, and pointed out with customary clarity the flaws in the reasoning of members opposite. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have all seen the strength of feeling among MPs who support this bill. But passion does not make a policy right. Children are a blessing, but they are also a responsibility. Parents up and down the country work long hours and make sacrifices to bring up their children.

Many couples question whether they can afford one child, let alone three, 4 or 5. They make tough but responsible choices. Yet this bill means that they will be taxed to fund other people who make choices they know they cannot afford, and that is fundamentally unfair. Unfair to people who make responsible decisions, unfair to people who decide to live within their means, and unfair to the people who can't get a job, let alone afford to start a family. Because this government is wrecking the economy with ever higher spending and higher taxes.

You don't get a pay rise from your employer when you have another child. You make your money stretch further. But if you're on universal Credit, then this bill means your benefits will rise by thousands of pounds for each extra child you have. Some families are about to get tens of thousands of pounds extra. A single parent with five children will be able to get £10,000 more, and an annual income just from benefits of over £45,000 untaxed. To get the same through work.

You would need to earn £60,000 Now I heard that the Secretary of State is standing over. There was due to talk about welfare reform this evening, and I say to him and to all of them, anyone serious about welfare reform, anyone serious about ending the welfare trap, would vote against a bill that makes benefits pay this much more than work. And anyone serious about fiscal responsibility wouldn't vote for a bill that adds £3 billion a year to the ballooning welfare Budget and costs £14 billion over the next five years.

That money isn't just sitting there jingling in the Treasury Bank account, waiting to be spent on this. That money will have to be taken from a small business, desperately trying not to let staff go. From a family already struggling with food and energy costs, or from the next generation through higher borrowing. However,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ministers dress it up. Someone else will pay. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Members have said that this bill cuts child poverty. What they generally mean is that it reduces generally mean is that it reduces relative poverty. A statistic that tells you nothing about whether children's lives are actually children's lives are actually looking up. They ignore that relative poverty tends to look relative poverty tends to look better when the country gets poorer. Yeah, which is exactly what their policies are doing to this country. They've done it before and they're doing it again.

Taxing more to spend more, killing growth and killing jobs. What really makes a difference? What really makes a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difference to children's lives is having their parents in work. Yeah. But what are they doing about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But what are they doing about that? They are making it less likely under this government. Under likely under this government. Under this government we have seen. I know you don't want to hear it, but we have seen the fastest increase we have seen the fastest increase on record of children growing up without a parent in work, without a parent in work, unemployment. Unemployment has gone up every month now it's at its highest for five years. Madam Deputy Speaker, this debate is about more than just one policy.

It's about two different visions for our country. Labour's answer to every challenge is the same spend more money. They see people as victims of circumstance and their instinct is always to compensate rather than change the circumstance. We see it differently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. We know children are better off

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We know children are better off if the country is better off, if there are more jobs, higher wages, lower inflation and stronger growth. Yeah, look at the moment in our history when living standards rose for everyone, it was when people for everyone, it was when people were motivated to strive, ideas were turned into businesses and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hard work reaped rewards. That is how countries get ahead and their children thrive. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't actually expect the argument I'm making to be popular argument I'm making to be popular throughout this chamber, although no, I'm not expecting you guys no, I'm not expecting you guys opposite to like what I'm saying. I know you're not going to like what I'm saying, but I'll say to you, it I'm saying, but I'll say to you, it is popular out there in the real world. I know every other party world. I know every other party here wants to expand the state, not just Labour or the Lib Dems.

The Greens, the SNP plied and well, who knows how reform will vote tonight. They do have. I can see one MP here. Maybe. Maybe somebody will help his colleagues find their way to the right lobby tonight. But I think I think reform now say they would keep the cap but they still don't back it on principle. It's just a question of timing. Well, well, the Prime Minister has decided the time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is now because he needed to save his skin. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is not a Prime Minister who will take the tough decisions to control the welfare bill and make work pay, because that would work pay, because that would require a backbone and the support of his backbenchers. Only of his backbenchers. Only conservatives, only conservatives are prepared to make the argument for welfare savings and stand up for principles like fairness, personal responsibility and living within your means. Other parties compete to be more generous with other people's money.

We do not. Conservatives believe in a country where work pays, responsibility is valued and welfare is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. That is the difference. Not just over the two-child cap, but over the direction, over the direction of Britain itself.
22:42
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Charlie Maynard further statement. >> Kirsty Blackman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The SNP have been at the forefront of opposing this policy since the of opposing this policy since the very first day it came in, since the very first day that we spotted in the legislation, the rape clause. That meant that people were going to have to tell the DWP that they had been raped in order to get an exemption from the two child limit. That meant that women had to go through that cruel, inhumane system in order just to ensure that their children were eligible for the Social Security payments from day one.

This was a cruel policy from the nasty party. This is not a debate about whether people should be working or not working. This is a not an issue that is pitting the workers against the workless. This is about children. This is about kids being able to afford to eat. This is about their parents being able to ensure that they can grow up in a house that is warm, that they can have food in their tummies before they go to school, that they can have shoes that fit.

This is about ensuring that kids are looked after and have got the best possible life chances. This is about ensuring that poverty is reduced and no child should be growing up in poverty. No child, whether their parents are working or not working should be growing up in poverty. The Conservatives talk about making work pay. Well, they could have put in a real living wage and they didn't. They put in a pretend living wage and called it the living wage, knowing that people couldn't actually live on it.

So I'm not sure they've got a huge amount of high ground when it comes to making work pay. And actually, the system that we've had for the period until now has been the system that the Conservatives created. So there's not a great amount of high ground here about the size of the Social Security system that they made, because that's the system that Labour has been working with. But I'm pleased today that they are removing the two child limit. I am pleased that this will come in from April.

I'm not terribly happy that it has taken us this long to get to that point. I do want to, just before I sit down, commend every person across this House who has supported the removal of the two child limit, particularly those people who have chosen to do so when their party didn't want them to. That is the worst possible, most difficult position to be in, and I really appreciate the people who were willing to stick their head above the parapet and do what was right on this.

I know it's incredibly hard to take that step. Madam Speaker, as a result of this, and we've had lots of criticisms today. We've heard lots of people say that this could go further, that there's more that could be done. Inevitably, there is more that could be done. There is always more that could be done to keep children out of poverty. But this is a good step. Children will be better off as a result. Children will have improved life chances. And what are we all here for? If not that?
22:46
22:59
23:01
23:01
Tom Collins Portrait Tom Collins MP (Worcester, Labour)
-
-
state. And most of us are familiar with the concepts of adoption and with the concepts of adoption and fostering. But it is estimated that well over 100,000 children in the UK are being raised by members of UK are being raised by members of their extended family or by friends of their family. They are being of their family. They are being cared for by kinship carers. An ever increasing number of children are now in kinship care. Staying are now in kinship care.

Staying with a family member or friend has a range of benefits over being looked after by the state. Kinship care can reduce trauma, provide valuable stability and help children preserve their sense of identity and connection to their community. Yet, despite being both widespread and beneficial, kinship care has remained undervalued and under-recognized by our systems. It's astonishing that as of yet, councils are under no obligation to ensure that potential kinship placements are always explored and assessed for suitability before children become looked after.

And yet, children who grow up in kinship care are more likely to be kept with their siblings compared to those in foster care, have better social and emotional wellbeing, and better long term physical health, are more likely to have stable, permanent homes, achieve higher levels of employment later in life, and are more likely to report that they feel loved. Making kinship care the first choice, rather than the lucky product of chance, is a simple change, and I hope the Minister might speak to its pursuit.

Yeah, and there are other ways that kinship carers could be put on a more equal footing. For example, many would be helped to stay in active employment by being allowed employment leave rights that are equal to those for parents who are adopting. Another simple change that could make a big difference. But there is one way in which our systems are very clearly failing children and their dedicated carers that I would like to address, and I'd like to share some experiences of kinship carers that are sadly typical.

And as they frequently struggle to prove to hospitals, schools, doctors and dentists that they have parental responsibility.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Madam Speaker first of all, can I commend the hon. Gentleman for Winchester for bringing this Winchester for bringing this forward? He's absolutely right to bring this up. I spoke to him beforehand. He knows a party where I'm going to say, and it's just a I'm going to say, and it's just a referred to Northern Ireland as an example, and perhaps that might be something that maybe the Minister something that maybe the Minister would be aware of and might wish to, to follow.

Perhaps a better way of putting it. Northern Ireland has a higher rate of kinship. 31% looked after children compared to end of 16%, largely due to a long standing cultural emphasis on family placements. There's also the fact that Northern Ireland offers a most consistent support, as all approved kinship foster carers are legally entitled to the same weekly allowances. Mainstream foster carers, ranging from 149 to £268 per week. Does the hon. Member agree that perhaps what we do in Northern Ireland, as so often is the case, might be a lead for the Minister, and indeed for the very thing that the Minister and the hon.

Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wishes to see. I thank you, madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank him for his Speaker, and I thank him for his intervention. I'm very grateful for him raising a good cases, a good examples that we might like to examples that we might like to follow. And I appreciate him having spoken with me beforehand about his experiences in the situation in Northern Ireland. I'd like to share the experiences of Claire, she said. the experiences of Claire, she said. I rushed into a in a in a complete panic.

I was carrying my two year old nephew who was struggling to breathe. The receptionist barely looked up as she asked me my nephew's name and date of birth. Her next question filled me with fear. Who are you? As I answered, she looked up and I knew what was coming. A barrage of questions about why I had taken care of this child. Where was his mother? Could I prove that social services knew he was in my care? And most terrifyingly of all, did I know that the hospital could not treat him without the consent of someone with parental responsibility? He was struggling to breathe, his face white as a sheet and his chest heaving while this person was calmly telling me that they couldn't help.

Donna's step grandchild was badly injured. The only thing she could do was call the local authority to see if they would vouch for her. It took two hours for the call to be returned. The child had lost blood and was in tremendous pain. Only once, it was explained by the social worker that Donna was the legal guardian. Did they give him pain relief and begin to treat the injury. However, the injury requires surgery, and at a hospital in the next county, an hour's drive away.

Once again, Donna had to explain who she was. No one from the first hospital was there to verify that Donna was the carer. She had to call children's services again, which took four hours to wait for verification. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. Melanie Onn I. Thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and the examples that he giving way and the examples that he cites are incredibly traumatic. These situations are even more These situations are even more complicated for those who do not have legal parental rights, who have an informal kinship arrangement. Has he had any thoughts about what could be done to support those families?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support those families? Warren Point I thank her for that. And it's true that there is a real diversity in the situations of kinship carers, both in the causes and find themselves caring for young people and in the legal structures that they're operating under. And we totally recognise that as we move forward in trying to tackle these issues, we need to be really open eyed to that full range of different experiences and situations. Caroline tells her story.

Eve landed on her arm, screamed out in pain. One look and I knew it was broken. I took her to the emergency department and she was immediately admitted. Immediately to the children's ward. An x ray was taken and Eve was administered morphine. The consultant booked Eve in for an operation the following day. She had been on morphine all night to help with the pain. The surgeon came round and explained the procedure. Eve was prepped and then, as the anaesthetist came with a form to sign, he asked who I was.

I told him I was aunt and the legal guardian. He then asked to see the legal order. I told him I had that no one had asked and he said I refuse to administer anaesthetic without seeing the legal document. I had been up all night with a crying young girl. The last thing I thought about was a legal order. I called my husband, who had to leave work to go home and find the document. It took two hours for the photo ID to be sent.

During this time my daughter was hooked up to morphine. We had to wait for the anaesthetist to finish his surgery list to look at the photo on my phone, which was accepted in the blink of an eye. Steph points out that this happens consistently. I have to show copies at all doctors, dentists, school, etc. any time you have to make a decision for him, I have to show proof. Can you imagine if I lost that piece of paper? It's not right having to explain that you are the carer in front of the child again and again.

Imagine how the child feels. Sadly, these situations are typical and as Steph points out, they can be deeply traumatising for both children and carers. Christine says I really don't want to carry my SCA with me. I'm worried I will lose it or get into the wrong hands. She's not alone. And it's also perhaps not fair of us to expect clinical professionals to recognise the various forms of legal document that aren't recorded on any government system, but instead live as paper artefacts with mysterious acronyms like Sgo, Special Guardianship Order or Child Arrangement Order.

How can we be failing children and kinship carers so badly? And yet there is hope. Christine goes on to say we should be given a card with a barcode and all the details they need to know, so that you can keep it in your purse. Caroline agrees we need an ID card that will live in my purse, so I don't have to go through this again. Kinship Carers UK, a national charity based in my constituency of Worcester, have the answer. They are ready to help develop an authorised photographic, photographic, kinship care, ID card and app for all carers, regardless of the type of legal order.

This card would allow kinship carers to live fully prepared for any eventuality. It would allow clinical staff to immediately recognise and validate a kinship guardianship situation, and it is a best practice in trauma informed care, never requiring a family to retell their story or relive past trauma. To simply access basic care. And the benefits go further. Preventing the situation described by kinship families will save money as well as distress. The cost savings to councils on social worker time no longer spent answering queries or to the NHS in re booked appointments are hard to quantify, especially as the ONS has not managed to identify all kinship.

Children and health trusts do not record instances of rebook treatments for this reason. But even conservative estimates show a kinship carer ID card paying for itself within a year. Kinship Carers UK have already been in talks with DHSC and have received a positive response. They are ready to fundraise to secure resources for development, but talks have stalled as work on the NHS app pushes a full digital implementation of kinship care ID back to potentially ten years away. For kinship families, that is too long and we as a government of action, innovation, partnership and collaboration can do better with a coordinated plan.

In partnership with the Department of Education and DHSC and possibly MoJ, Kinship Carers UK can lead a consortium of charities to realise the ID card and information resources for NHS workers. This could be realised within two years, but later. Digital integration with the NHS in a decade. So I ask the Minister this evening is simple will he arrange to meet with Kinship Carers UK, myself and the Secretary of State for health to formulate a plan with the following goals. To have authorised kinship carer ID cards issued by the end of 2028.

The final adoption by the NHS by 2035. Madam Deputy Speaker. It's time for us to act and do what kinship carers are asking us to do make the system work for them, not against them. Kinship care has worked tirelessly to give the children they raise the very best opportunities in life. Let's match their commitment. Let's commit to ending the stories we heard this evening and begin a new one. When this government stepped up and delivered the kinship ID card.
23:12
Josh MacAlister Portrait Josh MacAlister MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Whitehaven and Workington, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Minister. >> I thank my hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester for securing a debate on this important matter. Madam Deputy Speaker, like him, I recognise the enormous contribution that kinship carers make to that kinship carers make to children's lives. This government is committed to helping more children grow up in safe, stable and loving homes within their family networks, wherever it is in the child's best interests. I want to begin by acknowledging the incredible commitment and generosity of kinship carers, by opening their hearts and homes to some of the country's most vulnerable children, they are transforming the future generation.

We should not underestimate the life changing difference that kinship carers make every single day to children across this country. Kinship children and families need support to navigate the very challenging circumstances they find

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves in. At that point, I will gladly give way. I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He's been. Minister for giving way. He's been. He's giving a comprehensive answer to my hon. Friends speech. One of my constituents, Natalie, she had seven nephews and nieces brought to her door, and she was told by police and social Services it'd be police and social Services it'd be really good if she took them in. She was then told she wasn't entitled to any support whatsoever entitled to any support whatsoever because it was a family arrangement, but she hadn't made the arrangement herself.

Now she's a hero for taking those children in, and I accept that there are multiple campaigns stating what kinship carers should be entitled to. But would the Minister agree that in this circumstance, in these unambiguous, with these unambiguous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

details, that she absolutely should get the support that she was entitled to? I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and it's because of stories exactly like that one from aunts and uncles and grandparents and other relatives across the country who often step across the country who often step in to these children's lives at no notice. Sometimes waking up one notice. Sometimes waking up one morning to find that they are now responsible for very young children, sometimes babies and newborns, that I recommended a whole series of changes when I undertook the independent review of Children's Social Care in 2022, in which I described kinship carers as the silent, unheard majority of the care system under this government, they are now being heard, and I want to set out a few of the things that the government is taking forward now and in the coming weeks, which seeks to change the situation for kinship carers across this country, to, first of all, ensure that family networks and kinship care is always fully explored.

As the hon. Member mentioned from good examples in Northern Ireland and actually elsewhere in in the UK. We are legislating right now to require all local authorities to offer a family group decision making process, like a family group conference meeting to all parents or those with parental responsibility whose child's case has reached the pre preceding stage. This will bake in the need for services to engage proactively with the whole family network, not just parents, to establish whether the family themselves have got a better answer to look after that child than the care system itself may have.

This, more than anything else, will probably be the factor that shifts the culture within children's social care. To put that initial focus on kinship networks, and backed alongside it with the rollout of family network support packages, where councils can then fund some of those more informal arrangements where they are a way of avoiding children's need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enter the care system. I'll gladly give way. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving. Way, and I know he's been a big advocate for kinship carers before becoming a Minister. And still now kinship care is incredibly hard for kinship care is incredibly hard for everyone involved. It often arises from really difficult circumstances, and the family members who make that commitment often give up a lot to do so. So I just wonder if the Minister will join me in paying Minister will join me in paying tribute to Sue Nash, who is a local volunteer in my constituency who runs the Peterborough Kinship Carers Support Group, providing support to kinship carers all across Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire, and really assists them to access the support they need and sort of share best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practice and learn from one another. So well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd be absolutely delighted to I'd be absolutely delighted to recognise Sue Nash and the amazing work that she and so many others work that she and so many others are doing across the country through kinship support groups. The second thing I was going to mention was that the government have supported the charity kinship to supported the charity kinship to run 140 peer support groups and training packages across England, so that kinship carers have got a platform to support one another and also navigate some of the very complex systems that sit around the kinship family system.

We widened therapeutic help for children through the adoption, a special guardianship support Fund, which I've recently announced an extension of two years to and a 10% increase to as well, so that we can continue to meet the needs of adoptive and special guardianship families. And we've introduced the first national definition of kinship care, published statutory guidance, and appointed a national kinship care ambassador. We will continue to go further. I know that many kinship carers face financial hardship, which is why the government will very soon be launching a large trial that will represent the largest single investment financial investment in kinship carers this country has ever seen.

To test the impact of providing a weekly financial allowance equal to the National Minimum Allowance for foster carers in a number of local authorities across the country. The allowance will not be means tested and it won't impact benefits like Universal Credit. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Melanie Onn are. I just want to thank the Minister for the serious thank the Minister for the serious consideration that has been given to this pilot. It is exceptional. You know, we've heard from the hon. You know, we've heard from the hon. Member for Strangford about what a difference that financial support makes, and I congratulate him on makes, and I congratulate him on making sure that this happens for these families who are not asking for the for the earth, they're for the for the earth, they're really not.

They just need a little bit of help, and they want that money to go towards the children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they are looking after. Yeah. I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that. And it's because of the tireless campaigning of so many kinship families over the years that has led the government to the point of setting in train these changes, which will be announced in full very soon, but also the fantastic work and championing done by the APPG, which championing done by the APPG, which my hon. Friend is the chair of, that has meant that we're now in a position to take these steps in the next few weeks through the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

We're legislating to require every local authority to publish a clear and accessible Kinship Local offer, which sets out the support available to kinship carers and children. The National Kinship Care Ambassador will provide support and expertise to support local authorities in implementing this new national duty, and will shortly release a national report summarising learning generated through engagement with the sector. This is the first step in creating a national kinship standard to create a consistent framework across the country for kinship care, directly tackling the postcode lottery of support that currently exists.

My hon. Friend raised the importance of kinship carers having employment leave rights equal to those of parents who are adopting. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we are considering this. The government has launched a review of the parental leave system and is clear that kinship carers and the parental leave they are entitled to is within the scope of this review, and I would like to thank all the carers who have already taken the time to respond to the review already.

We will also improve data by adding a kinship indicator to the schools census in autumn 2026 later on this year, and launched the first national study focussed on children's experiences in kinship care. Making sure children have someone advocating for them in education is vital, and will make sure that the virtual school head roll has a statutory footing for children in kinship care in 2027. And, of course, the generational reforms to send announced earlier today will support many children in kinship families.

We know that the legal routes through which kinship care arrangements are made can be confusing, carry different assessments and entitlements to different forms of support, which is why we've asked the Law Commission to review the kinship legal frameworks. Taken together, this action shows how serious the government is about ensuring kinship, carers, children and families are recognised, supported and valued. On the specific issue of identification for kinship carers, I am aware that there is an existing campaign promoting the need for kinship carer ID led by Kinship Carers UK, and I acknowledge and want to thank that organisation for the work they have undertaken to shine such an important spotlight on this issue.

It is of utmost importance that our National Health Service and other public services have robust systems in place to ensure that parental responsibility is recognised quickly and efficiently. In all situations where a child is no longer being cared for by their parents, whether on a temporary or permanent basis. It is concerning to hear of instances where vulnerable children have been denied access to appropriate and timely medical treatment, due to a combination of existing processes failing, and a lack of understanding by professionals about what kinship care is.

This issue of professionals not understanding kinship care is not unique to health services. Just last week I was in Newcastle speaking to kinship carers who told me about their experience working with their children's schools and the continued need to re-explain the status of their special guardianship order. I've also heard of cases where kinship carers have copies of their sgo, but further verification of the validity of those documents is still sought by professionals. So the challenge is not simply about having a document setting out parental responsibility or the role a carer has in a child's life, but ensuring that services understand the nature of those orders itself.

I agree that we need a clear way for kinship families to demonstrate where they have parental rights, and that is a recognised and accepted process wherever it's needed. However, I think the more pressing concern is ensuring that professionals across all of our services recognise and understand kinship care. I am committed to having conversations with Kinship Carers UK. My hon. Friend, the Department of Health, MoJ and local authority colleagues to explore the best way to ensure that the situation of kinship, children and their carers is recognised and understood and they get the support they need in a timely manner, ensuring that public services do not add more stress during what can already be extremely stressful times.

Across this house, I know we will agree that kinship carers are a remarkable people who step in at extraordinary circumstances and times to give their kin a safe, stable and loving home within their family network. I think we all agree that it is not acceptable that there are situations where children are experiencing unnecessary delays in receiving important medical treatment or other public services due to challenges in providing the legal status of the Guardian. I'm grateful for the contributions made by my hon.

Friend during this debate. I know he is a strong advocate for kinship care, and I thank others for their interventions as well. I look forward to speaking to my hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester in the future, about the progress we are making for kinship, children and families, and to working with him on the specific issues of ensuring that kinship carers and family members are able to prove parental responsibility as easily as possible so that they can step up and step into the lives of these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children readily and easily. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I the ayes
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page