Commons Chamber

Monday 13th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:33
13:34
13:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-

Oh, happy Easter to you, Mr. Speaker. Shipley will benefit from
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
None Portrait Q8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of sales commission charges on park home residents. (908612)
-

>> Great. Please. >> Mr. Speaker. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government appreciates fully the
13:48
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:50
None Portrait Q9. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Council Tax debt collection practices on households in financial difficulty. (908613)
-

Luke Charters Mr. speaker, Minister.
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
None Portrait Q10. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Pride in Place funding on community spaces. (908614)
-

Question ten Mr. speaker.
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:58
13:59
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:01
None Portrait Q12. What discussions he has had with local authorities on the adequacy of the provision of local youth services. (908616)
-

Jon Trickett well.
14:01
14:02
14:03
14:03
14:04
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
None Portrait Q18. What steps his Department is taking to reform the leasehold sector. (908624)
-

>> Mr. Speaker. >> Ernestor thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government continues to steadily implement those reforms to
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:17
14:17
None Portrait Q19. What the evidential basis is for his Department's policy on rent control. (908625)
-

Dan Carden number 19. Mr. Speaker,
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:20
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:22
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:25
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:31
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:33
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:35
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I'd like to update the House on my visit to the Gulf. The evolving situation in the Middle East and the implications for Britain's security. But before I do that, I want to put on record in this House my total determination to make the changes across the entire state that are so clearly necessary to honour the victims, the injured and the families of Southport. Today's report, Mr. Speaker, is harrowing. It is difficult to read, and I cannot begin to imagine the pain upon pain that it will cause, the families that it affects, and our thoughts are with them today.

And the Home Secretary will respond to the report in full. Mr. speaker, after this statement, Mr. Speaker, last week I visited the Gulf and I was able to thank in person some of the brave men and women who, from day one of the Us-iran conflict, have resolutely defended the interests of this country, its people and its partners. I thank them again, Mr. Speaker, in this House for their courage and their service, and I am sure the whole House will join me in those.

Thanks. Mr. speaker, whilst in the Gulf, I met leaders and senior military representatives across the region, including the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the president of the UAE, the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain, the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar. And in recent days, I've also spoken to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Kuwait. Across all of these conversations, I agreed to deepen our engagement on both defence and economic resilience, because, Mr. Speaker, they all made it abundantly clear that the solidarity and strength of our partnership with them has been a comfort in these challenging times, and we should not forget that the nature of Iran's response, the indiscriminate attack upon countries who never sought this conflict, the huge damage done across the Gulf to civilian infrastructure with civilian casualties is abhorrent.

It has clearly shocked the region and all of us, and we must bear that in mind now as we lift our sights to the future. Because whilst the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran is undeniably welcome, it is also highly fragile. The region remains on edge and a lot of work is required to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to de-escalate the situation, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. In pursuit of that goal. We call for Lebanon to be included urgently in the ceasefire.

Diplomacy is the right path and I welcome the talks taking place this week. Hezbollah must disarm, but I am equally clear Israel's strikes are wrong. They are having devastating humanitarian consequences and pushing Lebanon into a crisis. The bombing should stop now. Mr. speaker, we also put on record our thanks to Pakistan and other partners for playing such an important role in diplomatic efforts. We hope the process will continue without further escalation, and that applies to the running sore that is the Strait of Hormuz.

Shamefully exploited by Iran. All of the leaders that I met were crystal clear that freedom of navigation is vital and must be restored. No conditions, no tolls and no tolerance of Iran holding the world's economy to ransom. Because, Mr. Speaker, the impact of Iran's behaviour in the strait is causing untold economic damage. It's visible on every petrol forecourt in the country. My guide from the start of this conflict has always been our national interest. That's why we stayed out of the war and why we continue to stay out of the war, and that is why we are working now to restore freedom of navigation in the Middle East, because that is squarely in our national interests.

Mr. speaker, quite clearly, this is not a straightforward task. It will take time. I met UK businesses in energy, shipping, insurance and finance, and they are clear that vessels will not be put through the strait until they are confident that it's safe to do so. And that's why we're working around the clock on a credible plan to reopen the strait. And, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm today that together with President Macron, I will convene a summit of leaders this week to drive forward the international effort we have built in recent weeks, bringing together dozens of countries to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The summit will be focussed on two things. First, diplomatic efforts to bring pressure to bear for a negotiated end to the conflict and for the strait to be opened. Second, military planning to provide assurance to shipping as soon as a stable environment can be established. And let me be very clear, this is about safeguarding shipping and supporting freedom of navigation. Once the conflict ends, our shared aim here is a coordinated, independent multinational plan. This is the moment, Mr.

Speaker, for clear and calm leadership. And notwithstanding the difficulties, Britain stands ready to play our part. Mr. speaker, let me now return to the impact of this conflict on our economy. We all know that the consequences will be significant, and they will last longer than the conflict itself. Now we continue to monitor the effects, and I remind the House that energy bills went down on the 1st of April. And whatever happens in the Middle East, those bills will stay down until July.

We're investing over £50 million to support heating oil customers, and fuel duty is frozen until September, all because of the decisions that this government took at the Budget. But, Mr. Speaker, there's a wider point, because we can't stand here in this House and pretend that a global shock threatening to hit the living standards of British people is somehow a novel experience. Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now, from the 2008 financial crash through austerity, Brexit, Covid, the war that still rages in Ukraine and the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss.

The response each time, the response each time has been to try to return to the status quo. A status quo, Mr. Speaker, that manifestly failed working people who saw their living standards flatline and their public services decimated. So this time, Britain's response must and will be different to reflect the changing world that we live in. That starts with our economic security, where during this conflict alone, we've capped energy bills, raised the living wage, strengthened workers rights and ended the two child limit that will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty.

But, Mr. Speaker, looking forward, it also means a closer economic relationship with our European allies because Brexit did deep damage to the economy and the opportunities we now have to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore. Yeah, it continues, Mr. Speaker, with our energy security, where I say, once again, oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not set the global price for oil and gas, and households across the country are fed up with international events beyond their control, pushing up their energy bills, and I stand with them on that.

So we will go further and faster on our mission to make Britain energy independent, because that is the only way we get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and take control of our energy bills. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must strengthen our defence security. That means boosting our armed forces, as we have with the biggest sustained investment since the Cold War. It means doubling down on the most successful military alliance the world has ever seen. The NATO alliance of which this party in government was a founding member.

But it also means strengthening the European element of that alliance, taking control of our continent's defence more robustly, deepening our partnerships. Have we done with our deals to build Norwegian frigates on the Clyde, Turkish typhoons in Lancashire? Not only, Mr. Speaker, creating thousands of secure jobs and opportunities for our defence industry right across the country, but also enhancing the way our armed forces can collaborate with our allies. Because, Mr. Speaker, as the Middle East conflict shows once more, the world in which we live has utterly changed.

It is more volatile and insecure than at any period in my lifetime, and we must rise to meet it calmly, but with strength. That is exactly what we're doing at home and abroad. We are strengthening our security, taking control of our future, and building a Britain that is fair for all. And I commend this statement to the House.
14:46
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Kemi Badenoch Leader of the Opposition. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the Prime Minister for thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement? I would also like to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women serving in the Middle East right now. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is right that Britain did not start this war. But whether we like it or not, we are impacted by it and this is likely to get worse. The cost of borrowing has jumped.

Petrol prices are climbing, inflation is rising and living standards are falling. It is time to take decisive action in our national interest. Britain must focus on what is in our power to protect British citizens today. First, we must rapidly solve the energy crisis this war has caused in our country. And second, we must make sure that Britain is ready to defend herself in this new age. A nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to the UK. We should be in no doubt whose side we are on in this war.

Our allies in the Middle East and the United States. So I welcome the Prime Minister meeting some of those allies. And I also welcome his support for diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region. But we will need to go further than just talking, he says Britain stands ready to play our part. We can all see that we were not ready for this situation. Here's what we need to do now. First, we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, not just until July, but longer than that permanently.

Britain is particularly vulnerable to energy price shocks because we are killing domestic oil and gas production in the North Sea. Labour's policy of more expensive energy and deindustrialisation at this time of crisis is dangerous and irresponsible. It is also harming the defence industry. We must start drilling our own oil and gas in the North Sea. Grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, and restore British production before it is too late. The Prime Minister says this won't impact international prices.

This is more than international prices. This is about the domestic supply, especially of gas, all of which is used in this country. Supply matters. And finally, the government must cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty hiking taxes on motorists for the first time in 15 years, while prices are surging, is a disgraceful decision. If Britain needs to be a stronger country, it needs a stronger economy, not one being hammered by the highest energy prices in the developed world.

So will the Prime Minister grant the oil and gas licences and scrap the rise in fuel duty? I know he will say that it's the Energy Secretary's job. The Energy Secretary is not the Prime Minister. He is. He can instruct him to grant those licences. But Mr Speaker. Secondly, to be ready, Britain must be able to defend herself and that means we must be ready for these situations before they happen. France and Greece. They are. I don't know why they're laughing.

I'm surprised they're laughing because last time I checked, France and Greece sent ships to protect our bases in Cyprus while our destroyer was stuck in Portsmouth. It was a national embarrassment on their shoulders and it should never happen again. We need no further evidence that we are living in a more dangerous world than a decade ago. I'm sure Labour MPs will try and think of a way to make this my fault. Let me remind them I know and it's it is preposterous, but let me remind them the historical illiteracy that is on those benches.

Governments of all colours, including those guys there, spent the peace dividend from 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell until the Ukraine war. And when that war came, the conservative government responded rapidly and unequivocally. We didn't have anything stuck in Portsmouth when Ukraine was invaded. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and equipped them with our missiles. We increased defence spending every year since the war started, but the world has since become even more dangerous. Every serious person Mr Speaker every serious person, especially in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament.

After the election, many of the plans for spending were paused for Labour's strategic defence review. Nine months after publishing it, there is still no defence investment plan that explains how we will fund this. The Defence Readiness Bill is also nowhere to be seen. The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending. The question is what tough choices we must make to do so. That is what is missing from the government's plan. The government has a plan for welfare spending until 2031, but no plans for defence spending.

So I say to the Prime Minister, let's put party interests aside. Yes, I'm glad that. I'm glad that they're laughing because I want the public to hear Labour MPs laughing when we say, let's put party in stress. So please keep laughing. Go on, please keep laughing, I say to the Prime Minister. Let's find the money to re-arm. Let's identify the spending cuts. And if we reach agreement on a joint plan, we can all support those measures in Parliament. Conservatives have already found savings to fund more than £20 billion extra for defence spending.

I am willing to work with him to go further. And in his response, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Prime Minister will be tempted to misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes. Yeah, yes, I know they can't even resist the temptation. He and I both know that is not true. But let us get serious. Let's get serious. It is time for us to act decisively in our national interest. Let's show our allies what we bring to the table.

Let's show our enemies that we are able and ready to defend ourselves. That requires a defence investment plan. So I ask the Prime Minister, in conclusion, when exactly will the defence Investment plan be published and what action is he taking to find the money to pay for it? Well.
14:53
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that her opening sentence has changed. She used to say we didn't start the war, but like it or not, we're in it and we should be in it. That was her position. Now she says, well, they can't make their mind up. They supported the war without thinking through the consequences, and now they're pretending they didn't support the war and they're against it all along. She challenged my position, and she did. The mother of all U-turns on the most important decision the Leader of the Opposition ever has to take.

Can I thank her for her support for the planning that we're doing with other countries? It is important. It has a number of components. The political and diplomatic component, the logistics as well in terms of getting the vessels through where we're working with the sector and of course, the military component. We've been working on that for 2 or 3 weeks now. And now bringing together with President Macron the summit later this week in that regard, in relation to energy bills, Mr.

Speaker. Yes, we all want to get energy bills down, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years. But it is because we are on the international market that our bills have gone up. And that is the problem. The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point for energy getting oil and gas, getting to the international market. That's pushed the price up. That's being reflected in every household. And that's why, Mr. Speaker, the only way to take control of our energy bills is to go faster on energy independence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition used to make that argument in 2022. She said this. It is investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep costs down. She changes her mind on everything that is. That was her argument. And now she, just like she pretends she wasn't in favour of getting involved in the war. Now she pretends she wasn't in favour of keeping costs down. And, Mr. Speaker, she says that we must be ready.

That's coming from a party that hollowed out our armed services, Mr. speaker, on their watch, frigates and destroyers were reduced by 25%. Minehunting ships reduced by 50% on their watch. And she lectures us about being ready, having hollowed out our armed forces and hollowed out our capabilities. We're investing 300 million more in shipbuilding, and we've got 13 ships on order. That, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between the two parties, Mr. Speaker. I hope that she and they will forgive me after 14 years of breaking everything under their watch.

And really, I'm going to resist and going to resist the offer of joint planning from the government, from the party that crashed the economy, hollowed out our armed forces, crashed our public services. Thanks, but no thanks.
14:56
14:57
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrats, sir Ed Davey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement? And can I join him in what he said And can I join him in what he said about the horrific, horrific attack in Southport? Our thoughts are with the families of Bibi, Elsie and the families of Bibi, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected. Mr. speaker, a whole civilisation Mr. speaker, a whole civilisation will die tonight. Words I never thought I would hear from an thought I would hear from an American president.

And though Donald Trump thankfully didn't follow through this time, these words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral, and completely outside the bounds of international law this president is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He's no leader of the free world. He's a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. So will the Prime Minister advise the king to call off his state visit to Washington before it's too late? Because I really fear for what Trump might say or do.

While our king is forced to stand by his side, we cannot put His Majesty in that position. And when it comes to Trump's latest cunning plan to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, that will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. So it's right that the UK is not joining Trump. And I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump's. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the Strait of Hormuz that is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis.

That is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. With petrol prices now up by more than $0.25 a litre and diesel up 49% since Trump started this war. Cheered on, let's not forget by the leader of the Conservative Party and reform. Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses can't wait months for the government to step in and help? So will he use the windfalls the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus fares and rail fares and cutting fuel duty by 10% today, bringing down the price of at the pumps by £0.12 a litre.
14:59
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. >> Can I thank him for his question? And in relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, could I really be clear with this could I really be clear with this house that was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let's remember, who've suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. And that is why their words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this government, which is guided by our principles and our values throughout all of this, Mr.

speaker, in relation to the king, the relationship, the king's visit, the relationship between our two countries is very important on a number of levels. And often what the monarchy is able to do through the bonds that they build is reached through the decades and a situation like this. And the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States. And that's why the visit is going ahead in relation to the blockade.

Let me be clear, as I've been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the Strait of Hormuz because of the damage it's doing to economies around the world, including our own economy. That is why we've been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. And we, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the president announced in relation to the help that is needed to families and households.

Obviously, we've put in place help for energy bills already and oil heating that is in place. But, Mr. Speaker, we're keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the Strait of Hormuz open. And that is why we're focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
>> Can I thank him for his question in relation to the cost of energy? Yes, of course we have to focus on Yes, of course we have to focus on the cost of energy, and there's simply no denying the fact that it's because we're on the international market. Our energy prices are going up and down, and families across the country are really fed up with the fact that international events happen, which they can't control, and their energy bills go up and down, causing a cost of living crisis.

That is because we're on the international fossil fuel market. There's no denying that. And that will be the case so long as we're on that market, because that controls the price. Putin and Iran control the price of the international market, and the longer we are on it, the more our families will be subjected to that. We have to take control of energy bills. The only way to do that is through energy independence. It's the only way to do it. And that is why I think we need to double down on going faster and further in relation to that.

Yes, of course, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. Been very clear about that, but equally clear that that won't have an effect on the price and the cost of energy bills. The only thing that will have a price, an effect on the price and cost of bills is coming off the international market that we're stuck with. That's why the Strait of Hormuz is so important. We don't get as much that much energy in oil and gas coming out of or coming through the strait, but it's because we're on the international market that we're impacted by the fact that others do.

That is the source of the problem. That's why we're working so hard to resolve it.
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
None Portrait Miniserial statement: Southport Inquiry
-

To. Secretary on the Southport inquiry.
16:25
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Home Secretary thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Southport inquiry. I must thank all who participated in the inquiry and the chair, Sir Adrian Fulford and his team. Today, Sir Adrian published the report of the inquiry's first phase. This summer. The government will provide a full response. This will also cover Lord Anderson's prevent review. Today I will provide the government's initial reaction to an inquiry that exposes a series of tragic failures from which we must learn.

We do so in the shadow of the events of the 29th of July 2024. I will not name the perpetrator nor dwell on the details of the crimes that saw three beautiful young girls murdered, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults, and lasting physical and psychological harm to many more. I know I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say my thoughts today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are with all those affected. Yes. In honour of them and the memory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In honour of them and the memory of three murdered girls Elsie Dot Stancombe, BB King and Alice da Stancombe, BB King and Alice da Silva Aguilar, we must now act to prevent similar attacks. It is for that reason that my predecessor that reason that my predecessor appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a full statutory inquiry. The lead a full statutory inquiry. The inquiry's work has two parts. The first, which reported today, considered the decisions made by the agencies and services that interacted with the perpetrator.

This included a range of institutions within the criminal justice system as well as education, healthcare and local government. It also considered the actions of the perpetrator's parents. The findings of the inquiry are unsparing. Sir Adrian has uncovered systematic failures across multiple public sector organisations. The recording and sharing of information was poor. None of the agencies involved had a full understanding of the risk that the perpetrator posed, and many did not take steps to assess the risk that he posed to others.

There was a failure by the agencies involved to take responsibility, and nobody was clear as to who was in charge. So the failure, because it belonged to everyone, belonged to no one. Where individuals missed opportunities to intervene, lessons must be learnt. But they did so within organisations that repeatedly passed the risk to others and were systemic failings existed. The perpetrator came into contact with the state on countless occasions. Lancashire Police responded to five calls to his home address.

The police were called when he was in possession of a knife in a public place. He was referred on several occasions to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He came into contact with children's social care, the Early Help service and children's mental health services. He was referred to prevent on three occasions. He was convicted of a violent assault and referred to a youth offending team. All fail to identify the risk that the perpetrator posed, and so he fell between the gaps. The warning signs were missed, a growing history of violence and a clear and continuing intent to commit harm.

In the Home Office, the focus falls on prevent and policing. Sir Adrian is clear that police should have progressed the perpetrator to the multi-agency channel program, and channel could have actively assessed and managed his risk. Instead. He was not deemed suitable because he had no fixed ideology, and this ran counter to the guidance at the time. But the thresholds were unclear and the guidance was applied inconsistently. The perpetrator's multiple referrals were also considered individually, when they should have been seen as a cumulative and compounding risk.

The perpetrator did not receive the correct interventions, and his autism diagnosis meant that professionals focussed far too much on his vulnerability and far too little on the threat that he might pose to others. The horrific attack was itself evidence of the ease with which it could be concluded. There was no restrictions to stop the perpetrator from watching the violent content that inspired him, nor downloading instructions to make poison, nor viewing terrorist materials online. He was also able to bypass the safeguards that should have stopped him from buying and receiving dangerous weapons.

These findings are devastating, but they are not surprising. Findings like these have been heard in inquests and inquiries before. This time, however, they must be a spur for change. The inquiry makes 67 recommendations. The government is reviewing these and will respond to those which relate to national government this summer, and I expect local agencies to do the same. Since this awful crime, the government has already acted and that begins with prevent. Since the Southport attack, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have reviewed historical cases to ensure that similar instances were handled correctly, with cases reassessed for any change in risk and managed accordingly.

This government has reviewed the prevent thresholds and published updated guidance. We've introduced a new prevent assessment framework with mandatory training for counterterrorism case officers, oversight of repeat prevent referrals has been strengthened, ensuring that cumulative risk is not missed and that senior sign off is required before a case is closed, and to prevent independent oversight of the whole system, we created an independent prevent commissioner, and I would like to thank Lord Anderson for so ably taking on that position on an interim basis.

His term ends today, and I am pleased to say that I've appointed Tim Jakes as the new Prevent commissioner, who begins his role tomorrow. This government has also begun to place greater controls on a dangerously unregulated online world. The Online Safety Act requires companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. The act is intended to limit children from encountering content that is legal, but poses a risk of significant harm. But this is just the beginning of what can and must be done.

The internet remains a dangerous place for children, and we are clear that tech companies have a moral responsibility to keep their users safe, but have no doubt that when they fail to do so, this government will intervene, which is why the government is consulting on whether to remove children's access to social media entirely. I can also announce today that we will legislate to prevent the spread of extreme violent content online. We've also made it harder for people to purchase weapons. The Crime and Policing Bill places new controls on the online sale and delivery of knives.

We have banned the manufacture, purchase and possession of ninja swords and zombie style machetes, and earlier this year we published new guidance mandating that any child caught with a knife must be referred to a youth offending team. In the aftermath of the attack, the government commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to consider the legislative gaps exposed by this attack. This identified an inconsistency that clearly needed addressing, unlike terrorist attacks. If you are planning an attack without an underlying ideology, there is no crime on the statute book.

Jonathan Hall, therefore, recommended the creation of a new offence, and this legislation will also be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. But the inquiry also identifies a wider issue. There are rising numbers of young men who are fascinated by extreme violence, boys whose minds are warped by time spent in isolation online, and this is a risk to us all. Where someone is vulnerable to terrorism, they can and should be managed through the prevent programme. However, where they are not, there is no clear approach to that risk.

Today we publish the terms of reference for the second part of the Southport inquiry and it will face directly into this challenge. Sir Adrian will provide recommendations on the adequacy of existing arrangements across all arms of the state for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence fixated individuals. He will explore what specific interventions are required to reduce the risk to the public. He will also review the influence of the internet and social media, and the ease with which weapons can be procured.

Sir Adrian begins this work immediately and will present his final recommendations next spring. Madam Deputy Speaker, In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator. There was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator's parents knew the risk he posed but did not cooperate with the authorities. And there is also responsibility on the state and on all of us here to learn the lessons from failures wherever they occurred.

And the lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure we do not find ourselves here again. Grieving deaths which should never have happened had the state and those who worked within it acted differently. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is our task and I commend this statement to the House.
16:35
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack. B.B. King, aged this savage attack. B.B. King, aged just six. Elsie Dot, age seven, and Alice de Silva, aged nine and eight. More children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside Emergency Services who responded to this event. As the Home Secretary quite rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies.

Sir Adrian said, and I quote, a merry go round of referrals, assessments, case closures and handoffs meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed. The danger posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found Al Carns parents created quotes, significant obstructions to constructive engagement. Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on this side of the House will support necessary actions. During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Cabana's former head teacher Joanne Hodson.

She told the inquiry she was pressured by mental health services to water down the EHC to minimise the danger posed by Cabana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry this, and I quote verbatim my efforts to include this information in the ACP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss steed, who was from Camhs, even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping. AR as a black boy with a knife.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but in the end, the wording of the ACP was rewritten in many places. That's the end of verbatim quote. Madam Deputy Speaker, this contributed to the clear risks being missed. The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue. Mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Khalidkhan because they were concerned about, and again, I quote verbatim, an overrepresentation of young black males in detention and the government's own notes accompanying the King's speech on the mental health bill even refer to this issue as well.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. I think it would be helpful if the Home Secretary makes clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and sets out how the government will change their approach in the future.

Today's report also makes clear that radical autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with. Yet the Government's King's Speech notes the mental health Bill again expressly says people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today's report, will the government reconsider that? I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is, of course, important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said, and I quote, the government has to be aware that if there is an information gap, other voices, particularly on social media, will try to fill it.

He went on quite often there's a fair amount that can be put into the public domain. And indeed in October, 2 or 3 months after the attack, but well before the trial, information concerning the Al Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. So I think the failure to provide information did create an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024. And that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots.

So having regard to that, will the Home Secretary commit to making sure such information is routinely released in cases of public interest in the future? Madam Deputy Speaker, as the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a line in the sand. We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.
16:39
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me say I welcome the shadow Home Secretary's comments about potentially working together on the changes that need to be made as a result of the initial findings of the inquiry. The government will respond by the summer, and I look forward to discussions with him and with others in this House to make sure that the House has united as one in the action that needs to be taken. As he says, that is the very least that we owe the victims families and all those who've been affected by this horrific, horrific tragedy.

Let me just say on the issue of Mrs. Hodgson, the head teacher, who's specific testimony he referred to, she, of course, gave evidence, and I believe that the position that she took was vindicated very strongly by the chair in the findings of the inquiry. Let me be absolutely clear. The only factors that should be taken into account are the potential risk posed by an individual and how best to manage that risk. No other factors are relevant, and it is clear not just in relation to the experience that Mrs.

Hodgson had, but actually the failures that existed across a multiplicity of public agency. That was the failure to appropriately assess the risk that the perpetrator posed to others, which was at the heart of the problem. And that is how he managed to slip through the cracks, because no one agency took responsibility for the assessment of that risk, and ultimately for the managing of the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. Those are the only factors that should ever be taken into account.

And I will be working closely with government Ministers from other departments as we formulate our full response to the findings by the inquiry in setting out what our expectations are of professionals not just in health but in other public services as well. Let me also say on the diagnosis of autism, Sir Adrian, in his report, did make it clear that it would be wrong to make a general association between autism and increased risk of violence to others. But he also found that in the perpetrator's case, the way his autism manifested did increase the risk of harm that he posed to others.

And it does show the absolute importance of taking a case by case approach and making sure that all factors are adequately taken into account, and that agencies take responsibility for how that risk is going to be managed. And again, there are good lessons to learn from from this for health practitioners and for others in our local services when it comes to both assessment of risk, but also ultimately for how it is best managed. Let me say to him on the issues relating to the communications post, the attack taking place, especially at a point where there was a lot of misinformation that was being spread, particularly online, he will know that there has already been a change in practice.

Learning the lessons of what happened there. There was, of course, a well-meaning desire to make sure that nothing was done that might prejudice a future trial, but exactly how the rules are applied, I think, can be a matter of interpretation and degree. The College of Policing has already created new professional practice in its guidance for police officers. There is already now a new CPS, that is to say, the Crown Prosecution Service and Media Protocol, and we are developing a new charter between criminal justice agencies and the media to make sure that whatever information can readily and easily be made available is done.

So at the earliest opportunity, it will always be incredibly important that nothing is done. That might prejudice a future trial. But I know he will acknowledge that since this horrific attack, there has already been a change in approach to comms, and the government and other agencies have already, in other instances and in other cases, been making much more availability, much more information available to the media and ultimately, therefore, to the public. Let me just say in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do I know that the findings of the inquiry and also in phase two report will be of great interest to members across the whole House, and I do look forward to working not just with the official opposition, but with all parties to make sure that the House is as one in the response to this horrific tragedy.

That is what we are all of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

victims of this case. Chris Webb thank you. Mr. Speaker. I welcome the Home Secretary's statement this Secretary's statement this afternoon. My constituents expect prevent to keep them safe. So can she reiterate what changes she will she reiterate what changes she will be making US secretary in this government to prevent to help stop
16:44
16:44
16:45
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller thank. thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack is truly heartbreaking, and attack is truly heartbreaking, and my thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them, and the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless, senseless attack like this from ever happening again.

And the report today lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities. The police prevent NHS mental health services, children's social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator's parents. This is simply not acceptable. So can the Home Secretary please confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the government will be accepting all 67 of the recommendations, and will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months? Today's report exposes serious oversights also by online giants that allow the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks.

Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online, and crack down on those big tech companies like Amazon, who are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items. And finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that prevent is not fit for purpose, and it is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times and yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he didn't possess a specific ideology.

Well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. So will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of prevent within this Parliament so that warning future signs aren't missed? And will she commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall? Casey, in the next King's speech?
16:47
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me thank the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman for her comments. And she's absolutely right. The sheer she's absolutely right. The sheer number of missed opportunities in this case is truly horrifying, and it's why we must do everything we can to reform all of these systems can to reform all of these systems within our public services to make sure no such incident can happen. Again. Let me say to her, there will be a comprehensive response from the government on all of the recommendations made from phase one of the inquiry.

I intend to do so before the summer, so the House will have an opportunity to debate that. And of course, as we move to delivery of the government's response to the recommendations, I will, of course keep the House updated on our progress, including on where potential future legislation might also be needed. Let me say to her, in terms of the sale of knives in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is still continuing its passage through Parliament, we have introduced new age verification checks, both at the point of sale and also at point of delivery of knives, as a way of directly responding to some of the issues that we've seen in this case, where the perpetrator was able to slip through the system, that should not be possible in the future once the bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is implemented.

Let me also say to her, on the the the threat posed by those who are fixated by violence but who don't necessarily have an ideology or who have a mixed ideology, or who fit into having an ideology and then not having one. There is a developing complex picture of the sorts of threats that we are facing. We've made it very clear that those who have no fixed ideology but are vulnerable to terrorism are still and should be referred to, the prevent program that remains the lead program for dealing with the risk posed by those individuals.

The inquiry recognises that there is a gap from those who do not have a fixed ideology, who are not vulnerable to terrorism, who might slip through. The phase two of the inquiry will consider how best to respond to those sorts of cases, will make recommendations on who should take the lead on dealing with those individuals. But I want to assure the hon. Lady and all members in the House, the government is not simply waiting for phase two to report. We're already trialling with a number of local authorities a new approach for those who are below the threshold for prevent, but who have a risk that we are concerned about, and where we believe that they might pose a risk of harm to others.

To think about different ways in which agencies might handle that risk, to make sure that those individuals don't slip through the net. And as we learn lessons from those pilots, we will seek to start implementing them whilst we wait, of course, for Sir Adrian Fulford and the inquiry team to come forward with full recommendations on this later in the future.
16:50
Paula Barker Portrait Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)
-
-
Paula Barker thank you. >> Paula Barker thank you. >> Mr. Speaker, and can I thank. statement? >> I'd like to place on record my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to place on record my sympathies to the families of Alice, Elsie and Bibi who are living with Elsie and Bibi who are living with the most unimaginable loss. The Southport attack has been ruled a disaster waiting to happen after the perpetrator was referred to prevent on three separate occasions and other multi-agency failings have been highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. On the 20th of June 2020, my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lost their son James, who was murdered during the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack.

I'm also thinking of them today. Madam Deputy Speaker like the Southport like Southport. The perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens attack had been referred to prevent four separate times and multi-agency failures were also highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. And like the deaths of Alice, Elsie and Bibi, the deaths of James Furlong, Doctor David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-bennett were ruled as probably avoidable. I acknowledge that it will take some time to go through the 67 recommendations that has been made in respect of Southport, but can the Home Secretary advise, despite the improvements she has outlined today, in respect to prevent.

Does she actually believe that prevent is fit for purpose? And to quote the Home Secretary, Madam Deputy Speaker, from her statement, she said we must ensure we do not find ourselves here again grieving deaths which should never have happened had the state and those who work within it acted differently. But the fact is that we are here again, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we are here time and time again after multi-agency failures. So can she immediately take respect and join in respect to joined up partnership working and outlined to us what those steps will be to ensure that no family has to endure such loss?
16:52
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Defence Secretary well, can I thank my hon. Friend for what she thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said and also associate myself with her remarks about the myself with her remarks about the victims and the families of those who died in the Forbury Gardens attack. She is absolutely right. We have been here far, far too many times. This must be a moment of change, and I'm very hopeful that with such a thorough report from Sir Adrian Fulford, with such clear, practical recommendations for action to prevent such a tragedy occurring in the future, that we can and will make progress.

And I do ask, and I know she will accept, that this is what we owe the families, and this is the very least that we owe all of the families. And I do look forward to working with colleagues across the House to implement recommendations as we move as we move forward, we all have to do more, and government agencies all have to do more as well. Let me assure her that I'm standing up a task force to bring together all government Ministers with relevant responsibilities to make sure that we are beginning work immediately on improving the systems and the processes that are in place at the moment, and that we're not simply waiting for the final phase of the inquiry to report.

So there will be more progress. We have taken steps on reforming prevent. I know that the prevent strategy, the work that it does, has been of interest in this House for many years and has been scrutinised very, very thoroughly. Let me say to her intervention program of this kind is always going to have to move very quickly to deal with changing threat patterns. So even if we just look at Islamist extremism, for example, the way that that might have presented in the era of Daesh and ISIL in Syria sort of becoming prominent is different to how it presents now.

And practitioners have to be able to adapt as quickly as the presentation of extremist ideologies is developing as well. So it will always be a work in progress. I think that that is something that we should acknowledge, just because the nature of the threat is changing so quickly and so regularly. But but we can and we will have strong mechanisms in place to make sure that it does the job that we all know it needs to do.
16:54
16:55
16:56
16:57
16:58
16:59
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Home Secretary. me say to him, it is a big ask and I am very clear. This must be a moment of change. I don't want to be standing here with a future tragedy, saying the same things that have been said in response to what happened in Southport. We owe the families a true moment of change for the way that public services are delivered. And he is absolutely right. The cultural shift is absolutely critical to the ability to make onward progress here, whether that is agencies that don't normally consider risk posed to others because they're primarily concerned about the risk of harm a person poses to themselves and their clinical need that is different to a wider societal need to protect others from harm.

And I do think that that is now something that we are going to have to look at very closely as a government, and to bring forward real change within our health service, within education and within local government as well. Let me assure him and the House I will take a close personal interest because at the end of the day, preventing harm and keeping our people safe is is my responsibility. Where people meet the threshold for being dealt with through the prevent strategy and onward referral to channel, I will make sure we do everything we can to have those mechanisms as robust as possible, but where they are below that threshold, as a society, we still need an answer.

And of course, I will take a very close interest in that myself.
17:01
17:01
17:02
17:02
17:03
17:04
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Home Secretary well, my hon. Friend raises a really, really important point. He's absolutely right. The failure of any one organisation or group of individuals to take responsibility individuals to take responsibility for the perpetrator is one of the key failures that has occurred in this case. What phase two of the inquiry will consider is what is the best mechanism for managing people who pose these sorts of risks going forward? And recommendations will be made about the proper structure that should be brought forward.

I think where somebody meets the threshold and prevent will remain lead the lead institution for referrals. And of course, that referral and onward progression to the channel stream should have happened here. And if that had happened, then we would be in a different position today. But for those who don't fall within that threshold, we will need to have a wider system response. As I've said earlier, I am trialling in different local authorities pilots to look at different approaches for what you might do with those individuals who are who are below threshold.

But in the end, I think Sir Adrian Fulford's work will give us the new framework and some guidance as to the best agency that should take the lead in different cases, because I think when an agency takes the lead, there is an obvious sort of accountability. Or even if they're convening all of the other agencies, which is how multi-agency safeguarding hubs should work and sometimes do not. So those are, I think, the key areas that lessons Thomas.
17:05
17:06
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:09
17:10
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:15
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. The hon. Gentleman is >> Thank you. The hon. Gentleman is right. That solidarity between people from different communities, it's something that we don't often it's something that we don't often talk about in this House or only do so when a horrifying incident has taken place. But it is the absolute backbone of how we function as a society. And I pay tribute to all of those who spend their time working with people from different backgrounds to themselves, whether that's race or faith, in order to hold our communities and ultimately our nation together.

Let me say to him, he's right that there is a very challenging environment. When we look at the overall threat picture, the issues that we're dealing with today relate to somebody with no fixed ideology who's clearly vulnerable to terrorism, but had no fixed ideology, but had this fixation with extreme violence. We have that running alongside the sort of more traditional and well known and understood elements of extremism, like Islamist extremism or extreme right wing terrorism. But even within those better understood forms of extremism, that the pattern is changing and it's always evolving and developing.

And that does pose a challenge to all practitioners to try to keep up with how extremism is presenting itself in our communities. But that is absolutely work that the government is, is absolutely committed to making sure it is as robust as possible. And we take every step we can to make sure that we are countering extremism in all of its forms.
17:16
17:17
17:18
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Well, thank you, Madam Deputy. the state of the Diego Garcia Treaty and the associated Bill. And so I would like to take this opportunity, with your permission, to update the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have debated at length the critical importance of the military base on Diego Garcia for UK national security and that of our allies. The base allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability and global trade.

The base is vital for countering terrorism and threats from state adversaries. It protects Britain's at home and overseas, and honourable and right hon. Members know that the operation of the base has been under threat for decades. This government inherited a situation in which there was no legal certainty for future operations and the threat of the UK losing our ability to operate effectively for us or our allies was and remains real, as the opposition benches know full well, the status quo is untenable.

Ignoring that situation would have been reckless and irresponsible. The previous government knew this, which is why it was they who opened negotiations with Mauritius, why they put sovereignty on the table and why they had 11 rounds of talks and agreed the vast majority of the treaty Mr Speaker. I know they don't want to hear this, but I do think it would be better if we had some quiet and the ability for me to make this statement, and I am proud that this government completed that process in May last year.

The Diego Garcia Treaty puts the base on a secure legal footing for the first time in decades. It gives us complete operational freedom and puts in place important safeguards to protect it from outside threats. In short, the treaty assures the continued contribution of the base to UK national security and the security of our allies. For generations, the Diego Garcia military base was founded as a jointly operated base by the UK and the United States. It is one of the foundation stones on which our close defence and Security partnership was built.

And of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The previous government knew this, which is why, as I said, they took the action to start the negotiations when they did. For this reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, the treaty to protect the base was negotiated in close coordination with the United States, and both this and the previous United States administrations. The treaty was tested thoroughly at all levels of the United States system under two administrations, and found to be robust. Throughout this process, we have also been clear that we could not let the treaty enter into force without US support, and we had that support when it was signed and consistently since President Trump called it very strong and powerful.

Secretary Rubio welcomed it as a historic agreement that secures the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long term, stable and effective Operation of the joint US UK military facility at Diego Garcia. Madam Deputy Speaker, Nothing in the treaty has changed since then, the treaty has changed since then, and United States support has been consistent in viewing the agreement as the best means of protecting as the best means of protecting operations on this vital military asset. However, in recent weeks, the position of the United States the position of the United States president appears to have changed and this means that in practical terms, it has become impossible to agree at political level.

An update to the 1966 UK US agreement concerning the availability of defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, known as the exchange of notes, which is also necessary in order to ratify the treaty. Honourable and right hon. Members will know that updates to the exchange of notes are nothing unusual. In fact, they have been updated periodically to ensure the governance arrangements of the base remain fit for purpose in a changing world. They were updated previously in 1972. In 1976, in 1987, 1999, and were rolled over in 2016.

They now need a further update in light of the Diego Garcia Treaty. We have debated this previously in this House and I know my counterpart, Baroness Chapman, has similarly discussed it in the other place. Madam Deputy Speaker, officials from the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the Ministry of Defence have been working with United States counterparts over many months and made excellent progress in updating this agreement. I can confirm that a finalised text was agreed at official level and is ready for political clearance and signature, but due to those new comments that I referred to, this process will obviously not now proceed on the previously agreed time frame.

And due to the delays in agreeing the exchange of notes, the Diego Garcia bill can therefore not complete its passage this parliamentary session and cannot be carried over due to its advanced progression through Parliament. The government nevertheless remains confident that the Diego Garcia Treaty is the best means of protecting the full operation of the military base for future generations. For us and our allies, we will continue to work with the United States on the agreement and the way forward, and we will continue to engage closely to with Mauritius.

Madam Deputy Speaker, In parallel to these geostrategic developments, there is also, of course, the human story, and I refer, of course, to the Chagossians, rightly raised by many honourable and hon. Members who were removed from the archipelago in the 1960s, and 70s and the government, as I have said on many occasions, deeply regrets the manner of their removal, and we remain committed to building a relationship with Chagossian communities that is built on respect and an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past.

The delay to the treaty will be sad news to many Chagossians, although I accept not all who rightly see it as the only viable means to a sustainable program of resettlement, which Mauritius would be able to implement under its terms. And we also want, as I have said on many occasions, Madam Deputy Speaker to see the recommencement of the programme of heritage visits, which we understand are so important to Chagossians, particularly for older generations. Madam Deputy Speaker, these are times of great uncertainty and acute risk to British interests.

Our security and prosperity are under threat at home and overseas, and this is a moment for calm and reflection, not cheap political point scoring by opposition parties or they're just there just proving this very point, Madam Deputy Speaker. They are absolutely proving this very point, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would put that security at risk and play reckless games. The threats facing the future operation of Diego Garcia base are real, as the opposition well know, and the Diego Garcia Treaty remains the best means of securing the vital military base on the island.

And we will continue, Madam Deputy Speaker, to work with partners, including the United States and Mauritius, to protect our national security and that of our allies. And I commend this statement to the House. Patel.
17:25
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy. >> Speaker. >> And let me just start my remarks by saying that the Minister today has done the right thing by coming to the House to give this statement to the House to give this statement and to absolutely not be dragged here through an urgent question, but state the factual and accurate position now that this treaty is not going to go forward. But of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, he has been once again left carrying the can for the Prime Minister's epic failure of statecraft.

Labour's Chagos surrender has been wrong from the start, and instead of making excuses, the right thing to do would have been to tear up this dreadful treaty and commit to keeping Chagos British. The news of the ratification of this treaty is now done and dusted is a humiliation for the Prime Minister and this government. And let's be clear, this Labour surrender treaty is Labour's mess. And as the House knows, within days of coming to office, the Prime Minister's top foreign policy priority was to exceed the wishes of his left wing lawyer friends and surrendered the Chagos Island at an enormous cost to British taxpayers.

He met the Mauritian Prime Minister, appointed Jonathan Powell to conclude negotiations and rushed and blundered into this treaty. They Ynys Mon announced it to the world just before Mauritius went to an election. And then when the Mauritian government that they agreed the deal with got kicked out, the new Mauritian government, guess what? Demanded more concessions from Britain and Labour rolled over and got eaten for breakfast. They put one of our most important defence and security assets at risk. They compromise the special relationship with the United States.

They ignored and betrayed the wishes of the Jodie Gosling community, and they were prepared to hand over £35 billion of taxpayers money to lease back a land that we own. And then they went ahead with the deal before receiving the critical exchange of notes from the United States. And having been to the United States myself recently, I'm not in the least surprised that the administration has stopped to stop this deal. They can see what we have been saying for a long while.

And it's the Conservatives who have opposed this Labour deal at every turn. And while Labour has spectacularly failed to defend British sovereignty and reform, have gone from suggesting that we sell the island to the US, to suggesting that we give it to the Maldives. The Conservative Party has been effectively scrutinising and opposing this surrender every step of the way to make sure that we keep Chagos British and we protect our sovereignty and our taxpayers. It's conservatives who have exposed the false £35 billion cost of this deal.

It's conservatives who dismantled Labour's outrageous and offensive narrative that those who oppose the Chagos surrender are siding with British adversaries and instead brought forward the. For the major security concerns about this deal and exposed the fact that Mauritius is deepening partnership with Russia, China and Iran. It's. Conservatives that have been pressing the government for months on its totally inadequate answers about why the anti nuclear treaty would apply to Diego Garcia, and it's. Conservatives have been supporting the Chagossians every step of the way and giving them a voice and speaking up for them.

Our questions and debates in this House and in the other place, have led Labour to account and forced them now into this position today. But while this surrender and this whole process now has been ripped up, I do want to ask the Minister some fundamental questions. The Mauritian government has announced that the UK delegation is going to Mauritius later this month. Will the will the Minister tell us who is going. And now what is the purpose? What will they be negotiating? Is there a new timetable? What is actually going to happen? We also know that Mauritius has budgeted to receive the surrender payments from the British government.

So can the Minister confirm that no payments will be made to Mauritius as a result of what he has announced today? And will the Labour Government commit to spending the money they were planning to ship to Mauritius on boosting defence spending at this critical time, which is exactly what the British taxpayer wants. The purpose for which should now be clearly allocated to this fundamental resource. Can he confirm in no uncertain terms that for as long as the US opposes this deal, Labour will not seek in any way to reinstate this.

And on the Chagossians, if the island stay British, is it the government's intention to look at resettlement options? And will he rule out new any new legislation coming forward next session, even if it isn't in the King's Speech, so that the Surrender treaty cannot become operable? The only bill that the government should be taking forward now, in the next session is my original bill to make sure that Chagos remains British. Yeah, Minister.
17:30
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will start with a thanks to the will start with a thanks to the hon. Lady. She is rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this over many, many months. And I have come due to flee to answer many of those questions. I've met with her privately and this has been scrutinised by many committees, and it was the right thing to do to update the House today on this on this development. And I'm I'm glad that she acknowledges that point.

Of course, it's not for government to simply choose easy paths. It's to choose the right path, and it's to choose the path that's in the interests of Britain and our national security and that of our allies. And fundamentally, at the heart of this Madam Deputy Speaker is a question. The opposition know that there is a huge challenge here. They knew that there was a problem, and that's why they started this process. And throughout this, through all the exchanges we've had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.

And I cannot recall a time Madam Deputy Speaker when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. And it's regrettable that the official opposition, indeed the party opposite, only see one of their members has turned up today, have been at the heart of this. And they will say, of course, oh, this is just politics. And we in the government should be thick skinned. And quite frankly, the British public deserve better.

Indeed, the national interest is what drives this government and our national security, as they well knew, which is why they started the process. So we've seen, frankly, ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats it faced, about the security provisions of the treaty, which, of course, we strengthened about the costs, no matter how often they give these false figures about the costs, it doesn't make them any more accurate. And of course, about the views of Chagossians, which I accept are wide and varied, but they conveniently always ignore the views of significant numbers of Jodie Gosling communities and groups who feel very differently about this treaty and who have supported it since the start, and indeed, about the protection of the environment.

And the fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition know the reality. They operate in a state of convenient amnesia. They knew the jeopardy facing the base. They knew that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements, in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. And they know, too, that the treaty signed by this government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. So, as ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition cannot run fast enough away from their record in government when it suits tiresome political politicking.

And the British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy and they deserve better.
17:32
17:34
17:34
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Doctor Al Pinkerton. Doctor Al Pinkerton. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I genuinely thank the Minister for the statement today Minister for the statement today for the advance sight of this statement and for his long engagement with me on these issues, the process for negotiating this treaty has been, I'm sorry to say, utterly shambolic from its beginning under the previous government to its demise under this one, as the government shows, a gentleman, a gallant gentleman from a sedentary position says, why did we finish it? I'm sorry to tell him they didn't.

There is no evidence at all. There is no evidence at all that this statement was finished by the previous government. But as this government shelves this legislation, it must now reckon with the litany of failures that have plagued this process, specifically, its inability to secure financial legal guarantees, fundamental legal guarantees from the US through the necessary exchange of letters, its reluctance to adopt measures which would enable genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the planned vast sums of money that would be sent to the government of Mauritius, and its wilful reluctance to work with or to secure the rights of Chagossians, including, but not limited to, the right of return to the Chagos Islands.

Aside from the government's apparent ignorance of the legal prerequisites for the passage of this treaty, the most objectionable aspect of this process has been the woeful engagement with the Chagossian community. The British state has long denied Chagossians a meaningful say in their own future, and the provisions of this treaty shamefully failed again to affirm those rights. So if this treaty ever does return to this House, the government would do well to observe and understand the amendments submitted by the Liberal Democrats in the other place, securing genuine rights for Chagossians and helping to buck the historic trend of that community being left out of the decisions about its own future.

But I only have one very simple question for the Minister. Given that the government has now abandoned its proposed deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands, can the Foreign Secretary set out what this means in practice for the long promised right of return for Chagossian? Will the government now commit to supporting resettlement under continued UK sovereignty? And if so, how does he assess the implications of that return for the evidential and legal basis underpinning the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion? In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, British citizens physically located on the islands would constitute a resident difficult.
17:37
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
To order, order Minister. >> Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank him for his his comments and his continued engagement in good faith throughout engagement in good faith throughout this process. And I can assure him that in due course, we will obviously return to the issues that he and I and his honourable and right colleagues were discussing with us and the concerns they expressed in amendments in this place and indeed, in the other House. And I can absolutely assure him of that.

But I have to. Of course, I have to, of course, reject his assumption that this is somehow met with demise. It has not been abandoned. And we have always been clear about the need to have the agreement on the US. UK exchange of notes. Indeed, I refer him to the comments of my hon. My hon. Friend in the other place, on the 18th of November, where Baroness Chapman said very clearly, and I quote, before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following.

Pass both primary and secondary legislation. Update the UK US exchange of notes and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration. We have been always clear about the process that it needed to be followed in parallel here. It's regrettable to us that obviously there has been a delay that we've run out of time in this parliamentary session, but the facts have not changed in the need for this treaty, or indeed the need for the different processes and legal provisions to be brought in place.

He rightly raises the concerns about the Chagossians, and he and I have discussed these on a number of occasions. Of course, we have engaged extensively with Chagossian communities. There are a range of views in the community. There will be many who will be deeply disappointed by this delay in the treaty, not least for the very reason that he refers to, which is that we believe that this is the best route under Mauritius's guidance to lead to resettlement. And of course, I want to re-emphasise our commitment to restarting at an appropriate time.

Those heritage visits that are so important, he'll understand why the current situation does not allow that to take place, but we will obviously seek to do that at the earliest opportunity. We know how important it is, particularly for those heritage reasons to do so.
17:39
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Iain Duncan Smith. a bad bit of legislation is when you see carte blanche, Henry VII's powers inside a very thin and flimsy piece of legislation and granting therefore, the government the right to do anything it liked with the bill, even after it had passed. So that made it a dog of a bill. But now the government has come to either pause it or whatever they call it, returned it, or you turn it. Can I just take the government back? That old gentleman back to the statement he made about the Chagossians, because right at the heart of this lies their rights over this.

And I will say that he talked about them wanting to come to some conclusion about their ability to return to the islands. So could you perhaps answer me within all of that? Why then when the the Supreme Court ruling that section nine of the 2004 order in council that barred the right of abode to Lagosians was illegal, why have they then mounted an appeal against that to ensure that they are illegal if they go to their islands? Does he think the Chagossians have no right to go to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the islands? Or they do have a right, which is it? If he could answer, yes, Minister. Well, he's actually familiar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, he's actually familiar with the history on this. He'll know the judgements in the courts of England and Wales on this matter, of England and Wales on this matter, on the right of abode. I'm not going to comment on ongoing legal proceedings. Safe to say that we were disappointed by the position were disappointed by the position that was taken, and our understanding is that biota are appealing that judgement and we appealing that judgement and we have taken an interest in that matter.
17:40
17:40
17:41
17:41
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:43
17:44
17:45
17:46
17:47
17:48
17:49
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Any Stafford? >> I mean, on the on the last point, I'm sure she can see the absurdity of of what she and others appear to be supporting. This is a dangerous be supporting. This is a dangerous political stunt. It's putting lives at risk. It is not safe. It is not proper to be on those islands. And we're very, very clear about that. And we've communicated that very, very clearly. And obviously, the administration will take whatever steps they deem necessary under their laws and administration to ensure the adherence to their laws, but also the safety and security of individuals.

And it's simply I'm genuinely astounded that people would support this. It's putting putting lives at risk and deeply irresponsible in terms of the the wider questions that she asks about. I've been very clear throughout. There are a range of views within the communities. There are a range of views within the British communities. I've heard them, I've met with them. I've heard very difficult views, people who don't agree with us on this issue. I'm not afraid to do that. Neither is the government. It wouldn't be practical just to take simply one person representing a whole, whole community.

But what we have done throughout this process is to seek to ensure that the voices of Chagossians are heard. For example, in the proposed trust fund securing places on that. I've set that up on a number of occasions. We will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to engage with all Chagossian communities. Can I remind members that if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I remind members that if they were not in at the beginning of the statement, they will not be getting. Carlisle. Mike Martin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

getting. Carlisle. Mike Martin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This process is, amongst other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This process is, amongst other things, about protecting British access to the communications spectrum, and that's why the previous government started it, and
17:51
17:51
17:51
17:52
17:53
17:54
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:57
17:57
17:58
17:58
17:59
18:00
18:00
Al Carns Portrait Al Carns MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans) (Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour)
-
-
the British people, but they are always appreciated. They defend the very freedoms we enjoy. I agree last week my right hon. Friend, the Defence Secretary, revealed details of one such operation. While the of one such operation. While the focus of many has been drawn to the Middle East, UK armed forces, in partnership with our allies, have partnership with our allies, have been deployed to deter increased Russian activity that we have seen and witnessed in the Atlantic. The specific operation involved a specific operation involved a Russian Akula class submarine and a concurrent deployment of two specialist submarines from Russia's main Directorate for Deep Sea Research.

Last November, the Defence Secretary outlined to the House how GUI vessels, including the spy ship Yantar, are directed by President Putin to engage in hybrid warfare activities against the UK and its allies, specifically around critical undersea infrastructure. Their mission is to survey pipelines and cables during peacetime and then potentially, if required, sabotage in conflict. In response to the Russian subsurface activity, the Defence Secretary deployed a Royal Navy warship and a Royal Air Force P-8 aircraft alongside allies and partners to ensure the Russian vessel was monitored during every phase of their operation.

The Akula subsequently retreated home, having been closely tracked throughout, and we continue to monitor the two submarines when they were in around UK waters and of course, beyond. Our armed forces left them with no doubt that they were being monitored, that their movements were not covert as planned and that they are attempted. Secret operation had been exposed. The two submarines have also now left UK waters and headed back north, and this operation, which lasted more than a month, has now concluded.

Madam Deputy Speaker, and often treacherous conditions. Our pilots racked up over 450 flying hours. Our frigate sailed several thousand nautical miles. 500 British personnel were involved in the response, and I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to every single person involved. Mr. speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, we expose this military operation undertaken by Russia for three key reasons. Firstly, to send a message to Putin that he failed to remain covert and that any attempt to damage critical national undersea infrastructure will not be tolerated and cannot be denied.

Second, to demonstrate that even with significant capabilities and personnel deployed in the Middle East, we will always, always do what is necessary to protect our homeland. And thirdly, to highlight a significant operation carried out by our armed forces, who once again met this challenge with a characteristic determination and professionalism. We all know too well. Madam Deputy Speaker, this operation reminds us why the seabed matters, especially for the island nation of Britain. It connects us to everything, and that connection is sustained beneath our waters without interruption.

Through a vast network of cables and pipelines on which much of our way of life relies. Much of the gas that heats our homes, 99% of international telecoms and data traffic. Trillions of pounds of global trade each day. And because the seabed matters to us, it is also a prime target for our adversaries. The UK's undersea network is highly resilient, but the threats are increasing and so we are stepping up our action to defend it, including providing an extra 100 million for our vital P-8 submarine hunting aircraft.

Launched our Atlantic Bastion program to combine the latest autonomous technologies with the best warship and aircraft to create a British built hybrid naval force and making the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. After years of hollowing out and underfunding from various governments, Madam Deputy Speaker, the threat is clear and our resolve to confront it is absolute. And that is why this year we are deploying our carrier group where it is most needed, the North Atlantic and the High North.

And while we are supporting NATO's new mission, Arctic Sentry. I also want to put on record our thanks to our allies with whom we have cooperated closely throughout this operation, including Norway. Our shared commitment to confront Russian aggression in the North Atlantic is at the heart of our lunar House agreement, and together we are now building a combined fleet of new submarine hunting frigates and new uncrewed systems. And let me say a few words on Ukraine, from where I have just returned last week.

Today, two wars and two continents have been fought for the very same time. And Putin wants us distracted while he steps up strikes on Ukraine relentlessly and indeed at an enormous scale, with around 7000 attacks a day on the front line and 55,000 drone and missile strikes last year alone, we must always remember our duty to Ukraine and recognise Russian aggression is growing across Europe once more. Madam Deputy Speaker, Let me finish where I began with praise for our people.

We have the very finest armed forces a nation can hope for. Second to none. As I speak, we have personnel deployed across every domain, every moment of the day, in every part of the world, and they are in constant confrontation with our adversaries from the depths of the seabed to the reaches of space. When a crisis erupts, as it has done in the Middle East. I understand people questioning why all UK military assets and personnel have not been sent to deal with it well, as demands on defence rise, we must deploy our resources to best effect across multiple priorities.

Because of an increase in defence investment, we will be able to call on more and more resources in the coming years. As we defend our interests and partners in the Middle East, we will tackle increasing threats in the High North. We will stand with Ukraine. We will meet our NATO obligations. Above all, we will always fulfil the first duty of government to protect our homeland and keep the British people safe. And I commend this statement to the House.
18:05
David Reed Portrait David Reed MP (Exmouth and Exeter East, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister David Reed. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement. Now, with all eyes on the Middle East, let us not forget that Russia East, let us not forget that Russia remains the most acute, persistent and active threat to the United Kingdom. Putin's goal of conquering Ukraine is unchanged, and the fact continues to place our entire European continent in jeopardy. His ongoing nefarious activity, most notably on our own territorial waters, should be a stark wake up call.

We must ask, acting on the threats that are visible and right in front of us. Now, we may be critical of the government's tortoise like approach to giving defence what it needs, and Madam Deputy Speaker slow and steady does not win this race, and it certainly does not keep us safe. But what does unite us is the full throated support for the men and women of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, who keep the wolf at bay in these dangerous times, and I pay particular tribute to all those who serve in the Middle East at the moment in recent Atlantic operations, and especially those who.

Crew are continuous at sea. Deterrent patrols 24 over seven 365 days a year, every year. When the Secretary of State came to this House last year, Madam Deputy Speaker to highlight the actions of the Russian spy vessel Yantar, he told Putin, we see you, we know what you're doing, and we will not shy away from robust action. Now, that was the right message. But at some point, simply saying we see you is not enough. Words must be backed by action. This is not just a question of traditional defence.

There is a growing and underappreciated threat to our national resilience, to our way of life. Just 65 undersea cables carrying 99% of global communications, and a far smaller number of pipelines and interconnectors link our gas and electricity supplies to others. So can the Minister guarantee there are no hostile devices, kinetic or otherwise, on near or underneath any of those cables, pipelines or interconnectors? The reality is he cannot. The Secretary of State, Secretary of State spoke of confidence that there was no sabotage on this occasion.

But what of the many other incidents in UK waters in the Baltic, in the cables running to North America, west of the British Isles, where monitoring capacity is limited at best? The truth is, we don't fully know how secure our critical underwater infrastructure is. That is why we are dismayed that the much touted Defence Readiness Bill has been delayed by a full year. We're still at a time of demanding cross-party unity. It was deeply disappointing to hear the Prime Minister flatly reject the leader of the opposition's offer of greater engagement earlier today.

That was the wrong call on Russia's shadow fleets. Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Prime Minister announced on 25th March that British forces would be permitted to board sanctioned vessels transiting UK waters, we rightly supported that decision and the Chief of Defence Staff, when asked at the recent London Defence Conference, said plainly we are ready and yet no action has been taken. We set a red line and we watched Russia repeatedly cross it. Worse, Russian military vessels are now accompanying shadow fleet ships, deliberately escalating the situation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, This is deterrence in reverse. The Minister and I know better than anyone else in this chamber the very real challenges of boarding vessels at sea and the serious legal questions surrounding what happens to a ship and its crews once the decision is made to seize them. These are the same challenges that I face personally while serving in the Royal Marines boarding pirate vessels off the coast of Somalia. Back then, those legal and logistical hurdles were just as real. But it was clear that the global economy was being directly impacted by piracy, that we had to act and we found a lawful way to do so.

So why can't we now, when the situation is far more grave? Now, it's been reported that the Attorney General has denied the legal basis for interdiction. If that's the case, I ask the Minister directly, what is the current position of the government, and can he tell this House how many sanctioned vessels have transited UK waters unchecked? Russia is brazenly moving military supplies through our own waters that must be met with robust action, not statements. To conclude Madam Deputy Speaker. Today's statement is a start, but only a start.

And it's clear the government is not moving fast enough to deter our adversaries. Deterrence requires capability and capability requires funding. Now, I know the Minister has not had sight of the defence investment plan, but I can at least can at least tell the country when it will be published. So two months delayed. This is simply becoming a farce. Does he agree with us and the Defence Select Committee that this government must commit to 3% of GDP on defence within this Parliament, not the next.

Now, the Conservatives have already identified saving, delivering over £20 billion in additional defence spending. We want to go further and we renew our offer to work across the aisle to find them, because the choice is simple. If we are serious about deterring Russia and other hostile states from the high north or our overseas bases, then we must reach 3% on defence now, not later, and give our armed forces the resources they need to keep us safe.
18:11
18:12
18:13
18:14
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement? Can advance sight of his statement? Can I also associate my party with his thanks and appreciation for the dedicated service of our Armed Forces personnel around the world? Madam Deputy Speaker, While the world's attention was on Trump and Netanyahu's catastrophic war in Iran, Vladimir Putin was collecting vital information about our critical infrastructure. In response, the defence secretary told Putin, for the second time, we see you, but we need much greater confidence that this government has the plan and resolve not just to observe Russia's activities, but to meet and resist them.

Should that be required, as Putin plans for future conflict, our government appears frozen. DeLay and inaction is sapping industry's confidence as well as our allies, whilst enabling Putin's war machine in Ukraine. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government must remedy these failings as a matter of urgency. Our national security and the sovereignty of our Ukrainian allies demand it. So I would like to ask the Minister, Will he commit to publishing the defence Investment Plan before the House Prorogues and will he publish a plan to raise £20 billion in defence bonds to be spent on urgent projects, including rebuilding our naval capabilities, which are critical for protecting our undersea infrastructure? Madam Deputy Speaker, The Minister rightly highlighted Russia's continued assault on Ukraine.

Peter Magyar spectacular victory in yesterday's Hungarian elections should unlock European financial support to Ukraine. Just the same time, Donald Trump authorised a suspension of sanctions on Russian energy assets. The government cannot allow this opportunity to slip. So will the Minister work with EU partners? So the UK's £30 billion share of the frozen Russian assets in Europe can be sent to Ukraine's defence, alongside the promised 19 billion from the EU? And will he work with colleagues across government? Finally, to put an end to the scandal of UK companies providing maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal?
18:16
18:17
18:18
18:18
18:20
18:20
18:21
18:22
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:24
18:25
18:25
18:26
18:26
18:26
18:27
18:28
18:28
18:29
18:30
18:31
18:31
18:32
18:33
18:33
18:34
18:34
18:35
18:36
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:38
18:39
18:39
18:40
18:41
18:41
18:42
18:42
18:43
18:44
18:45
18:45
18:46
18:46
18:47
18:48
18:48
18:49
18:50
18:50
18:50
18:51
18:52
18:52
18:53
18:53
18:54
18:54
18:54
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
I beg. >> House calls. >> For a review of SEND provision and reform, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Every debate allowing this debate. Every debate on special educational needs and disabilities is dominated by statistics funding, school places, workforce numbers. These are, of course, important, but at the heart of this is the issue of the children, the families and their carers who rely on the system. So therefore, I want to thank the hundreds of families who've contacted me since this debate was scheduled, both in my own constituency and across the country.

Now, this debate was applied for before the White Paper came out. So colleagues will forgive me if I decide to focus pretty much my whole comments on the white paper, but I'm sure other colleagues across this House may speak more widely on the issues. In my opinion, any credible reform of send, including the Government's White Paper, must meet three tests. It must strengthen legal protections. It must improve delivery on the ground, and it must address the underlying pressures in the system.

And if it does all of these three, it can and it will save money in the long run. But I'm afraid that on all three, the government's proposals fall short. Before turning to the substance of the proposals, I want to address the process by which they've been brought forward. The consultation itself has raised serious concerns. Parents and representative organisations have expressed overwhelming opposition to key elements of the reforms, particularly around the potential weakening of legal protections. National charities have warned that proposals risk eroding rights, while others have questioned whether the most consequential changes have been fully and transparently put to the consultation at all.

At the same time, many parents and forums report feeling that engagement has been superficial. The workshops and consultation exercises have not meaningfully reflected their views, and this matters because reform of this scale depends on trust. Yes, I will of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Write to underline the issues and that's why everyone's hearing house is quite full. But one of the things that has never been done, things that has never been done, and I think it should be done, is the issue of I'm 71 years old. I remember when I was young as a child, there wasn't many children that had autism and had learning difficulties, but today the numbers difficulties, but today the numbers are exceptional. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? It's time to sort out the reason why there are so out the reason why there are so many children with special needs are necessities and qualities that they don't have and they didn't have back in the 60s and the 70s when I was a boy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think the the hon. Gentleman raises a very good point, a very interesting point. And I think if you're going to try to think if you're going to try to solve, if that's the right word, the issue around special education needs and more importantly, put in needs and more importantly, put in place the systems to support children with special education needs. You do need to have an needs. You do need to have an understanding of the reasons for it. But instead, I have to say to the hon.

Gentleman, I think in the hon. Gentleman, I think in the government's proposals, there is a feeling for families who are already exhausted by the system becoming disengaged from the very process that it's supposed to improve it. Now, across Farnham and Bordon, Hazelmere and the surrounding villages, Send is the most single, most important and most prominent issue in my casework inbox. Parents, schools and carers feel consistently let down by a system that is too slow, too complex, and too, too, too often unresponsive.

Now, as Vice Chairman of the APPG on Send and through my work on the Health and Social Care Select Committee, I see these challenges not just locally but reflected across the country. I will give way. Yes, I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He's obviously making very persuasive arguments and points in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr. Like many other constituencies, the issue of Send and support for Send is an ever increasing problem. It's not just the support but the quality of support and what we are now seeing parents having to lose their jobs because travel for send children to and from school is being prohibited.

Prevented. Does the hon. Member agree that this consultation should focus on the need as opposed to the financial aspect? I as I said in my opening remarks, my view is, is that if you get this system right and I and I and I don't assuage any any unfair or untoward motive from the government, I do think they come from this from a point of trying to trying to improve the system. But if you improve it properly, then I think it will save money.

And I think the danger with the way the government has approached this is they're looking to save money and they're thinking about how they can solve the system. And I think that I think that is the danger. I think that is the danger. So moving on to those three tests that I talked about at the start, the first test is whether the government's proposals strengthen legal protections. Now, education, health and care plans introduced in 2014, I accept, are not perfect, but they provide something essential clarity, structure and, crucially, legal enforceability.

Can I make a little bit more progress? The central question is whether individual support plans will carry those same enforceable rights. At present, the government has not provided that assurance, and I look to the Minister to do so. In fact, external assessments suggest that these changes will significantly weaken legal protections. Now, that creates a clear risk replacing a system that is legally enforceable, albeit slow, with one that may be simpler in theory, but weaker in law. And we know that enforceability matters across the country.

Over 9 in 10 tribunal appeals are upheld in a minute against against the local authority. And while, let's be frank, that covers no local authority in any kind of glory. It is evidence that the legal framework works. When families are able to challenge decisions, remove that safeguard and families lose their ultimate protection, I give ways.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. You for giving way, and I thank him for bringing this really important debate to the chamber, important debate to the chamber, and I recognise his passion for supporting young people with SEND. I do disagree with him on his views I do disagree with him on his views when it comes to the government white paper. I'm not saying I'm sitting on this side of the bench. I'm saying it as a former teacher who worked with the system that did work, that was very similar to the system that's being put forward, I system that's being put forward, I would just put to him the point about legal enforcement and EHC.

I would question that, because actually what you found is that even when Teach children did get ADHD, the school just weren't able to provide what the ESP said, whether it was a legal requirement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or not, those schools just weren't able to provide it. I just ask them to reflect on that. Madam Deputy Speaker given the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker given the amount of time, I'm probably not going to take too many more interventions on the on on the hon. Gentleman's point, I think it's a strange argument to have that because a child has been has been legally given a a EHC P, which, legally given a a EHC P, which, which requires the school to provide a certain level of support that because for whatever reason, that because for whatever reason, whether that's through the school, through the local authority or whatever reason that cannot be supported, we should therefore water down its legal rights.

So when the current system works and it does work in places, it is transformational. One parent in my constituency wrote and I quote, we are incredibly relieved. I have received the final copy of my EHC and the school is now implementing it. It has been a long road. End quote. That relief exists, that relief no won't. That exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty is ambiguous with ambiguity is not reform, it's regression.

Now, the second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and through local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight, ICB, Camhs waiting time stands at around about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks without clinical capacity. The central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended.

Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and sencos across my constituency, including at South Farnham School, Highfield, South Farnham, Saint Polycarp, St Mary's, Bagshot and the infants, infants and others. A consistent picture emerges. Rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly and I quote Camhs sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity, end quote.

So that is not joined up delivery. It's displacement of responsibility and the consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12 year old whose needs were identified in year two is still waiting an assessment without diagnosis. Her school has been unable to put the right support in place. And her mother wrote, and I quote, we are at the end of our wits. The delays are not just administrative, they are shaping the course of our daughter's life.

End quote. And that's not an isolated quote. I've also worked with the family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refused any HCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process only for the decision to be overturned. There is further consequence of these proposals that need to be addressed by moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable, EHC framework towards individual support plans. Much of the responsibility for decision making and inevitably dispute resolution risks being pushed onto schools in one in 1 in 1 moment that would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs.

At a time when schools are under significant pressure. This risks shifting both legal and emotional burden onto institutions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are simply not equipped to carry it. A member of the Health Select

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A member of the Health Select Committee for giving Way, is he not making two contradictory points, though, because he says, on the one though, because he says, on the one hand, that it should be legally enforceable, a point on which I entirely agree, particularly as as entirely agree, particularly as as when one looks at partially and wholly upheld. As you know, 99% of wholly upheld. As you know, 99% of tribunals are supported. But but but but, but is also he also recognises that actually EHC are not coming through at the at the level within the 20 weeks that they should and certainly at about the 10% level.

So therefore, having the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legal backing and framework isn't actually delivering the outcome. Well, I don't think those two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't think those two points are contradictory. I think one one is a one is an issue of the legislation, which is what I'm talking about and what the government is potentially looking to change. And one is the how the system itself is being implemented system itself is being implemented by local authorities and others. And I and I think I've been very clear in my speech that whilst I absolutely believe like I think he does, that the legal requirements should remain, I'm not in any way sugar covering the the difficulties that local authorities are having in meeting those legal requirements.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the third test, which I mentioned are whether the reforms address the underlying pressures in the system. Now demand is rising rapidly. Over 1.7 million children in England are now identified as having special educational needs, with numbers increasing year on year. Yet the government's proposals place additional expectations on schools and local authorities without resolving those fundamental constraints, namely workforce funding, certainty and system capacity. The White Paper promises more educational psychology as more therapists, more specialists, but training and educational psychologists can take up to eight years.

So the question is simple how are those gaps going to be filled in the meantime? And at the same time, the department's own figures showed that there are now 400 fewer teachers in than when we left office. So schools are being asked to do more with less. Now, local authorities are at the sharp end of the system, and they are being placed in an increasingly impossible position. And I know colleagues will know that in Surrey, around £100 million has been invested locally to expand provision, alongside further investment in staffing.

Yet demand continues to outstrip capacity and in Hampshire, send overspend now stands at around £140 million, placing extraordinary pressure on finances. But this isn't unique to my areas in Surrey or Hampshire. Across the country, councils are being asked to meet rising demand, fulfil the statutory obligations and absorb increasing costs. Without that long term funding. Certainty, certainty and the result is a system where families face delays, councils face financial instability and schools face mounting pressure. Madam Deputy Speaker I think, taken together, this is not simply a failure of local authorities, it is a failure of the system to meet demand and into that system.

The government proposes a decade long transition. Councils are already preparing for a surge in EHC applications as families seek to secure existing protections before reforms, before reforms take effect, and that's certainly not going to ease pressure. It is, in fact, going to intensify it. Now, through my work on the Health and Social Care Select Committee, I consistently see that send cannot be addressed in isolation. The number of children with SEND is rising by about 5% each year, and meeting that need requires genuine coordination between education and health.

And yet, Send was almost entirely absent from the NHS ten year plan. And when I submitted written questions on conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, the responses revealed that data is not collected individually but grouped into very broad categories, which is really not joined up government. It's fragmentation that needs to change. I want to touch briefly on the independent sector capacity, because independent schools also play an important role in relieving pressure on the system, particularly for children with complex needs.

They act as a pressure valve, and I'm aware that some characterise all independent provision as little more than private equity extracting profit. But I can tell you that the independent sector in my constituency provides excellent and comprehensive coverage and capacity. I'm fortunate enough in my constituency to have excellent specialist provision, including schools such as Holy Water, Undershaw, Moorhouse Pathways, the Abbey school and the Ridgeway School. They support children with complex needs every day and they should be supported. Madam Deputy Speaker, In conclusion, when families.

What families need is not another wholesale structural overhaul nor a decade of transition. They need a system that delivers on time, with clarity and with enforceable rights. So I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she set out the full cost of replacing EHC with individual support plans, including the transition implementation? Can she guarantee that ISPs will carry the same legal enforceable rights, including access to a tribunal? Third, when will additional staff be trained and in post? Fourth, what action will be taken against local authorities that consistently fail to meet statutory timelines? And finally, will the government publish detailed data on specific conditions and systems? Performance to the outcomes can be properly measured.

I would say this to honourable and right hon. Members across the House. This is not about defending a white paper, it is about defending the families that we represent. Families are not asking for perfection. They are just simply asking for a system that works. The question the government is simple will it strengthen what exists or will it replace it with something weaker, slower, and less certain? Because on the current trajectory, that is the risk and it is one I believe this House should not accept.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, and I will start with an immediate five minute time limit. Chair of the Select Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chair of the Select Committee. Helen Hayes. Madam Deputy. Speaker. Can I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon on securing this important debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time Committee for allocating the time for it? The support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is an area in which my disabilities is an area in which my committee has taken an intense interest. It is the single biggest challenge in our education system with far reaching consequences.

The current system is failing children, families and the professionals who work with them right across our country. It is causing deep distress, sometimes even trauma, for children and their families. The implications of the failing system for local authority finances are profound, and many professionals are put in the invidious position of being unable to deliver the education and support that children and young people require, because of impossible constraints on resources and ever increasing need. The outcomes for children with SEND are unacceptably poor, and I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, I simply do not recognise the description of the hon.

Gentleman for Farnham and Bordon that this is a system that is broadly working, a system that relies on parents having to battle every step of the way and having to go to tribunal to seek redress, is an exclusionary and inequitable system, and we need to be absolutely clear that it is failing and that the reform that is necessary to get it to work is comprehensive and far reaching. It is vital that the failures in the current system are addressed. Vital on its own terms, because no child should feel that there is no place for them in our education system, that their needs are not understood.

Or even worse, as we heard from some of our witnesses that they are the problem. No parent should have to battle at every single stage of their child's education to get the support they need. But this is also vital if we want to improve vital if we want to improve outcomes in our education system, and if we want to unleash the talent and creativity of every talent and creativity of every single young person for the benefit of our society and our economy. of our society and our economy.
19:13
Helen Hayes Portrait Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)
-
-
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. What I hear about is a real concern from parents about exclusions, as she's mentioned, and they're really concerned to understand how accountability will work in a future system, particularly around that risk that exclusions can have for for a future where where children are concerned about trauma as a result of their exclusions. I'd be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful for her thoughts on that. I thank my hon. Friend for her. Intervention and accountability is one of the areas that we highlighted in our committee report last year, which I'll come on to speak about in a moment. We speak about in a moment. We published our inquiry report last year, Solving the Send Crisis. Our report was based on 900 pieces of report was based on 900 pieces of written evidence, seven oral evidence sessions and visits to Ontario in Canada, and to schools and colleges implementing and colleges implementing innovative good practice in England in 1985.

Detailed recommendations. Our report called for comprehensive change to the Send system, with a focus on early identification of need, making mainstream schools inclusive for the children with SEND who are already in them. Increasing the accountability of the system, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests, for schools, local authorities and importantly for the NHS and involving parents and carers in every decision about the support their children receive. We have to date received only an interim response from the government to our recommendations, and we look forward to receiving the full response in due course.

But we are encouraged that the government send reform proposals reflect several of my committee's recommendations. It is very welcome that the government has committed additional resources to send support, and will effectively be running two parallel systems for a number of years to avoid sharp cliff edges between the old system and the new one. That is the right way to deliver significant reform. The decision to write off 90% of local authorities send debts. I know also comes as a huge relief. It is the right approach to prioritise early identification of need to be seeking to make mainstream schools fully inclusive for the children who are already in them, and to be expanding the availability of provision in the state sector for children who need Goodbye.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank you for giving. Where one of my constituents, Olivia, is battling for her son to stay in mainstream for her son to stay in mainstream education alongside her son's twin, who is an anchor to them. And so would my hon. Friend agree with me would my hon. Friend agree with me that we must ensure that ISP is there quickly to avoid some of that distress in the process? When

**** Possible New Speaker ****

distress in the process? When parents battle to keep their children in mainstream settings? My friend for that intervention, he speaks very well on behalf of he speaks very well on behalf of his constituent whose situation is replicated right across the country, and it gives urgency to the need to reform our system. It is the right approach to be increasing the expertise of teaching staff, and to be making specialist expertise available to schools whenever they need it. The long waiting times for diagnosis and specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, is one of the most appalling aspects of the current system.

Childhood is so short and children shouldn't be seeing years of their education pass them by without the support they need to get the most out of it. My committee is undertaking our own scrutiny of the government's proposals tomorrow, when we will hear directly in an oral evidence session from witnesses with a wide range of different perspectives and expertise, and we will write formally to the government in due course without reflections following this evidence session. But as I as I speak with parents and the organisations that represent them, there are some areas of anxiety about the government proposals that I hope the Minister will speak to today.

The proposals involve, over time, a scaling back of EHC assessments and EHC, replacing some EHC with individual support plans. Parents and carers who I've spoken to are understandably concerned about replacing a statutory plan with an ISP, which won't be on a statutory footing. The concern is about how accountability will be guaranteed if there are problems with the ISP, if their child's needs are not correctly identified. If the ISP that is drafted is not fit for purpose, or if it is not being implemented properly.

On that point, I'm afraid I won't give way because because of the time rebuilt. Parents and carers of children with sent have often been let down so much by so many different parts of the system that they simply don't trust that anything will work as it should. Their children have rights on paper, which are so often not upheld in practice in such a context. Accountability matters. Rebuilding the broken trust and confidence of parents and carers in the system will be absolutely critical to the success of the government's reforms, and it's why my committee recommended no changes to current rights and entitlements so that a new system can be built while parents still have the same access to redress to fall back on.

So I hope the Minister can speak to the ways in which her reforms are designed to ensure that trust and confidence is rebuilt, and especially that parents and carers know exactly what will happen if things go wrong. There are also concerns about the proposed reassessment of EHC in year six. The transition from primary to secondary is one of the most high risk times in a child's education, and we hear time and again from parents who say that starting at secondary school was when their child's education started to unravel.

If only they'd been able to transport what they had at primary into secondary, things might have gone better. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister for the considered and thoughtful approach that she has taken to send reform, and for the extensive listening she's undertaken with parents, carers and professionals. The current consultation on draft proposals is also an important part of the process, and I hope that if it is necessary to make adjustments to proposals in light of the feedback from the consultation, the government will be willing to do so.

It is so important that these reforms are absolutely right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They Greg Smith. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I've been contacted by a huge number of constituents raising concerns about delays to EHC, a concerns about delays to EHC, a lack of specialist placements and the struggle to secure the support their children need. Like so many their children need. Like so many in this house. SEND issues dominate my surgeries and casework, and it my surgeries and casework, and it is heartbreaking to see the delays and the pain and anguish brought to those children and families as they wait for what they deserve, an education that works for them and their specific needs.

And what troubles me even more is not just those cases that have been brought to me, but how many more there must be who have not come forward. One of the most troubling aspects of this crisis is that too many children simply do not have a suitable place at all. Children left in settings that cannot meet their needs or in some cases, out of education altogether. But this issue does not begin with placements. It begins much earlier in the system in Buckinghamshire.

Buckinghamshire Council have advised that there is a shortage of occupational therapists to carry out assessments and delays of up to 56 weeks. Just to issue an EHC that is over a year, a year where a child may be stuck in the wrong setting. A year of lost progress

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and a year of growing pressure on families. My honourable. Friend for giving way. Would he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. Would he agree with me that, as well as the harm to the children who do not receive timely support for their receive timely support for their special needs if they're in the wrong setting? There's also harm to the teachers who are not qualified the teachers who are not qualified to support those children in their setting, their normal mainstream setting. So the quicker we can do setting. So the quicker we can do the assessments and get the right support, not only help the children, but also the educationalists that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

providing the education. John Milne for that intervention. I do agree with him. And of course I do agree with him. And of course it is the whole system that suffers in the circumstance that he describes the teaching staff who do describes the teaching staff who do their absolute very best, and also every other child that is in those classes. He makes a very fair point. So before we even get to the question of school places, the question of school places, the system is already falling behind.

But in Buckinghamshire, nearby schools are already oversubscribed and mainstream schools, despite the best efforts of those heroic teaching staff, cannot always meet complex needs. And this is where we in Buckinghamshire have been most let down by this government. Back in 2024. May 24th, the Department for Education wrote to Buckinghamshire Council committing
19:21
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
to a brand new 152 place send school for Buckinghamshire. That wasn't a political pledge or a general election campaign promise. general election campaign promise. It was officially announced by the Department for Education. This Labour government have formally scrapped it. What was a £20 million spend downgraded to 8 million over three years for Buckinghamshire? three years for Buckinghamshire? That is not good enough. That school would not have solved all of our problems, but it would have gone a very long way.

And I urge the government, even at this late hour, to think again and deliver this school for my constituents, children and families in Buckinghamshire who would benefit so much from it. Now, turning to the government's proposed SEND reforms, many parents have contacted me on this and I'm concerned, as my hon. Friend for Farnham and Bordon has outlined, that the government are not even close to getting this right. One constituent wrote to me and I quote, I am concerned that the direction of SEND reform risks children and young people having to fit into whatever provision is available, or else missing out on education entirely.

I am really worried that these new proposals will leave parents having to battle directly with schools to get help for their child, and that is an important point. We need a system that works for the needs of each and every child, not a system that works for a faceless bureaucracy. My constituent continues, and again, I quote my two children both have an autism diagnosis, but are significantly different in their support needs. A one size fits all type provision will not be suitable for even these two siblings.

I would love them to be able to manage at a mainstream school, but the solution is not for schools to become more SEN friendly. The solution is a complete overhaul and reform of the schooling system. It is antiquated and not fit for purpose and I would urge the Minister. I was lucky enough to go to an event in portcullis House with parents and teachers of SEND families this afternoon, chaired by Rory Bremner. The evidence given by those parents and those teachers was quite frightening.

Many who fear that under this white Paper, brought to be their children will be excluded altogether. I urge her to get a readout from that meeting. Now, this leads on to wider concerns about the loss of individualised and as my hon. Friend put it in his own excellent speech, legally enforceable support not just the risk of children being forced into inappropriate provision, but the potential loss of legal protections and tribunal rights, and the potential loss of e o t a s packages education other than at school for children who cannot attend any school setting, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot be right. I'm very. Grateful to my hon. Friend, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my hon. Friend, and previously, when I spoke in the Select Committee debate on this in this chamber, I highlighted that this chamber, I highlighted that too many parents feel the system is done to them rather than working done to them rather than working with them. Does my hon. Friend share the concern of parents in my constituency? My concern that for constituency? My concern that for that trust to be rebuilt, there has to be some sort of individually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legally enforceable backstop for those families. My right hon. Friend, he hits

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend, he hits the nail precisely on the head, and it is in the interest of those families that motivated me to speak families that motivated me to speak in this debate this afternoon. I entirely endorse the point he makes. entirely endorse the point he makes. In the last few moments I've got. I'd like to briefly raise another specific case that I would be grateful for the minister's reflections upon in her summing up, and that is a case that brought to me by a constituent who adopted two children in 2020.

Both children experienced significantly early trauma and later received diagnoses indicating multiple and complex needs, not least foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can involve more than 400 co-occurring difficulties affecting physical health, cognition, executive functioning and behaviour, and delays in intervention have had real and significant consequences. As adoptive parents, my constituents are aware of research estimating that adoption generates significant long term and social economic value. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. Yet, paradoxically, by adopting their children, they appear to have lost priority access to some state funded support that would have been available had those children remained in foster care.

This unintended consequence is deeply concerning and more broadly, adopted children with SEND often fall between services. Responsibility frequently passed from one agency to another without the care and attention they need. And I would welcome the minister's reflections on that. But to conclude, too many families are being let down. One size fits all does not work and never will. Let's focus on the child, the needs of each child, and build a system that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

genuinely works for. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the Member for Farnham and Bordon on securing this really and Bordon on securing this really important debate. Children in West Lancashire have felt let down by Lancashire have felt let down by the sound system. People lost faith in the very system that is meant to be supporting the children in our be supporting the children in our communities who need it most, and that is the inheritance that this government took over from the last. I know how important getting this right is to the Secretary of State and the work this government has done in the past few years has not gone unnoticed by my constituents.

But it is so important that we get these changes right, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the people who write to my inbox or visit my surgeries are simply desperate for a system which treats send pupils with dignity and truly recognises them as individuals filled with all sorts of potential. There is much good in the government's plans, the vast increase in specialist places and the training and upskilling that will give our teachers more tools to help send students will make a real difference to the lives of children, but also to their families.

Some parents are no different to any other parents. Madam Deputy Speaker, Every day they fight to give their children the best start in life they possibly can. And it's so important that this government supports them to do this without them having to endlessly fight layers of bureaucracy and constantly pushing back against a computer, says no culture, which requires individuals to fit cookie cutter templates to get bespoke assistance. We must ensure that with these changes, we are giving parents respite and not just inadvertently moving the fight from one place to another.

I will briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way, and I must congratulate her. Having been a great Health Minister, I'm been a great Health Minister, I'm sorry that she stood aside, but I, in relation to the point that she's making, she is aware that, of course there is a party which isn't present this evening where the policy is and and a lot of in the media are suggesting that they will make the next government. But their make the next government. But their policy in this area is that this is a crisis of over diagnosis.

And does she not share my concern that there is an issue where where, where this debate is simply not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being properly held by the people who actually want to damage the system most? I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words, and I would agree that we can't and I would agree that we can't simply say there's an overdiagnosis. It's been referred to previously It's been referred to previously that there weren't as many people with Send before. The reality is we don't know that because for many, don't know that because for many, many, many years, diagnoses of Send simply went unnoticed. People weren't diagnosed and they were simply written off as naughty or backward.

And it is so important that we recognise how important these children are and how much
19:30
Ashley Dalton Portrait Ashley Dalton MP (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
support that they need. But parents, dozens of parents in West dozens of parents in West Lancashire have contacted me to request that I come here today to protect the rights that they have under current legislation, to enforceable provision based on a child's particular needs. We all know the deficiencies that exist know the deficiencies that exist with the current system, but we must make sure that we listen to must make sure that we listen to send parents. And I know that this government is committed to ensuring that these changes make life easier for send children and their families, not harder.

I have met twice with a constituent of mine who has a son with severe and complex special needs. He's non-verbal and has sensory challenges. Even when her son was offered a place at a special school, the local authority did not accept the place, despite it being cheaper than the local authority provision. They ignored recommendations and assessments, and my constituent son was out of education for seven months. My constituent had to use the rights that exist in current legislation to fight the most basic right for her son to have an education, and the issue was only resolved because of his legal right to legal enforceability and the tribunal power to name a school.

Had this not been the case, her son may still not be in education. My constituent agrees with the government that the system we inherited isn't working, and she's not asking us here today to scrap these reforms, but we must make sure that the changes we are making to an unfair system are supporting children and their families as much as we possibly can. Last year, reform took control of Lancashire County Council, the authority that makes decisions about SEND provision for my constituency and despite claiming they would tackle the issue, it's plainly obvious that they demonstrated no interest in it.

The National Party doesn't either. It has already been pointed out not a single one of them is present for this debate this evening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where are they? Reform led Lancashire County Council has failed to provide tailored support for children in my constituency, fail to support families in my constituency who are fighting tooth and nail for the fighting tooth and nail for the same opportunities for their children that the rest of us rightly expect as standard, and it rightly expect as standard, and it would be an abdication of my duty in in representing my constituents if I did not seek to give parents every tool in the box to defend the rights of their children to a decent education in the face of a local authority whose leadership turns its gaze and plugs its ears.

I'm proud that this government is tackling this issue in a constructive way. Parents have waited for these changes for far too long, and as part of my right hon. Friend's commitment to giving every child the best start in life possible, I would be grateful if she could give. The Minister could give a clear reassurance today that the legal right to an EHC or similar for those who need it will remain, and that the ability of families to enforce provision will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not be weakened under reforms. Speaking limit. Is now three minutes. It's highly. Unlikely that most.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unlikely that most. People will get in. Andrew George. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, I had made a number of interventions in place of my of my of my speech, but I wanted to of my speech, but I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for for West Lancashire, because she was making a very strong case in making a very strong case in relation to the need to make sure that these reforms are are forced through the the, the the issues raised by the hon. Member bringing this debate today, the three the three tests which which which he he introduced to to this to this debate, I think sort of set the template on which I really hope that the.

The Minister responds in due in due course the issues which I know that in, in, in my constituency and across Cornwall. And it's good to see members from from Cornwall here this evening causing the greatest concern in relation to the to the large number of, of of tribunals which are raised in order for parents to ensure that their children get the decent education that they they desperately deserve. I mean, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fact that yes, I will give way to the member. For giving way. Let me tell him that in London. Two there is the that in London. Two there is the same concern as my colleague from West Lancashire put out that we have to change the system, but too have to change the system, but too often it has been parents having to go to tribunal in order to be able to being heard. So any reform must support parents to continue to be heard as part of the educational system of supporting these children.
19:34
Andrew George Portrait Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Does he agree? >> I absolutely. >> Agree, and indeed, what what worries I think all of us most is, is the fact that parents have to be sharp elbowed enough to actually take on the tribunal system, which is no mean feat in itself. And what worries me indeed is, is how many other parents don't have the confidence to go forward, to use the tribunal system and to challenge the system and to actually make a complaint even to the Ombudsman, or using even local authority facilities to actually pursue those issues.

So so there are there are major issues which I think need need to be reflected upon. And certainly, certainly, you know, it shouldn't just be those, you know, down to those parents who have the self-confidence to be able to navigate their way through the system that they that their children benefit. And so many others are actually falling by the wayside. And that that does cause a great deal of concern to me. Indeed. And indeed the other the other issue which the hon.

Member, in his opening remarks I identified is that of the of the of the of the very low numbers that are actually meeting the 20 week. You know, basis, which which obviously does result in many pupils just simply not getting on and getting the, the services which they need within the education service, which they, which they do desperately need. So I mean, on that basis and the fact that I have in any case made a couple of interventions already that I feel that I should I should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually conclude my remarks now. And if others go on. Juliet Campbell. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. And I congratulate the member from Farnham and Bordon for bringing forward this debate. This bringing forward this debate. This government has set forward an ambitious plan to reform the EMS ambitious plan to reform the EMS system in this White Paper. I am proud of the commitment this government has made to ensure government has made to ensure children are supported to thrive and achieve, bringing about change, bringing about the changes parents and educators deserve and need. If you ask any parent about their experience of navigating the current system, they will tell you stories of being pushed from pillar
19:37
Juliet Campbell Portrait Juliet Campbell MP (Broxtowe, Labour)
-
-
to post and not being listened to. Because the system that we inherited from the previous government has completely government has completely undermined the trust and confidence of parents and carers in our system. of parents and carers in our system. Last Friday, my constituency of Broxtowe, I met with parents and educators who spoke of their own heartbreaking experiences. They told me of their families being traumatised and their children often excluded from education altogether. They welcome the White Paper and expressed their support for all that it seeks to do.

However, they do have concerns and those concerns are around the accountability of. The legal status of parents who seek to get support for their families. They are in particular, happy and want to support the government in the fact that the government wants to do early interventions. They provide support closer to home, and they are particularly happy that there is going to be additional occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, and that there will be upskilling for staff in every school.

All parents and educators are also seeking further detail in how we can also reform the current teacher training curriculum, so that newly qualified teachers and educators are trained with the skills and expertise that they need in every classroom, which includes dyslexic pupils and the neurodiverse. As we know, dyslexia is one of the most common forms of learning difficulties and learning differences. Yet under the current system, support is inconsistent or non-existent, or simply depends on an overstretched classroom teacher that may not have received specialist training.

It is my hope that this White Paper will be a vehicle for the development of a national dyslexia strategy, and I have confidence that this government will take this into consideration alongside all their other excellent work that they are doing to improve the education outcomes and the life chances of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those with Send. Charlie Dewhirst. Madam Deputy Speaker Now, I'm. Sure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sure. The Minister is probably sick of me banging on about the local picture up in the East Riding of picture up in the East Riding of Yorkshire and the fact that we are the lowest funded local authority for SEND roughly around £1,000 per pupil per year, versus Camden. At pupil per year, versus Camden. At the other end of the league table, the Prime Minister's constituency £3,800 per pupil. That discrepancy that inequality is, is simply I mean, it's insane. Frankly, it's a historic problem.

It's a funding formula that doesn't work for local rural authorities, for larger rural authorities. It is something that members across the House have campaigned on for many years. I know that it is one of those almost too difficult to do problems that Ministers have perhaps shied away from. On, on, on, on both on both our side and indeed on the Labour side as well. And I do ask her this opportunity, this unique opportunity to grasp it, that we are now consulting on this. And I do welcome the opportunity to meet with her next week alongside my right hon.

Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness and Goole and Pocklington, and hopefully we can find a way forward, because I think some of the highlights, the issue's already been highlighted. And thank my hon. Friend the Member
19:40
Charlie Dewhirst Portrait Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)
-
-
for Farnham and Bordon for this opportunity to debate this today. I just want to take a limited time. just want to take a limited time. I've got just to highlight a few of these particular problems that the system is throwing up. Firstly, with EHC drafting, if you can of with EHC drafting, if you can of course get an EHC in a timely manner in the first place. Often what we're seeing is, is vague what we're seeing is, is vague recognition of need, which means that actually delivery on that need and the action plan is therefore very unenforceable in a legal perspective, it's something that needs to be addressed going forward.

The routine breaches of timelines are simply outrageous. I mean, people waiting four years for an autism diagnosis. As a parent of a child with SEND, I was extremely lucky. The nursery that my son was at recognised his developmental issues age two and were very supportive in the process that we then went on. However, I then became aware of how adversarial the process can become. When you start to engage in that local authority provision situation. I found out on a Friday at 330 by an email that my son would not be able to receive the school placing the perhaps at that point was most suitable for him.

It did say that I was able to appeal that decision, but it gave me no reasons as to why the decision had been made. And of course, 330 was when they were finished for the weekend on a Friday. No option to go back. Obviously, it's that kind of thing, simple things within the system that we can address and should be addressing to ensure the journey for parents is more, less challenging and more easy because the more we get the children into the right settings, the better that will be for them.

Fewer will lose time in education, and actually the long term problems that lead to to further issues in adulthood can be avoided. We do not find a child heading into a journey for never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ending care. I would just say yes, thank you. Of course. I mean, I entirely support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, I entirely support the point he's making, and I think the idea that anyone on this side is, is wholly endorsing the current is wholly endorsing the current system, let's be frank, would be would be false in doing so. But the concerns that I have and I think concerns that I have and I think he's expressing is that the current proposals under the White Paper means that if, unfortunately, he has to go through through a has to go through through a tribunal system, currently, that tribunal can allocate a specific provision that parents and child can go.

Under the current proposals. They wouldn't that tribunal wouldn't be able to allocate a specific provision which essentially renders the whole thing null and void. So does he agree with me that what we're not, what we're asking for, the government is not to rip up what they're doing, but to listen to the concerns that parents are making about their changes and tweak them so that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can be responsive to the problems that he's raising. Yes. Thank my friend for that point. And it's about that journey, because one of the problems, of course, for the children involved is that their journey is uncertain is that their journey is uncertain and the system becomes inflexible. The reviews are not done in a timely fashion, which means a child gets stuck in a placement that may gets stuck in a placement that may not be right, and that exacerbates the problem going forward.

So we end up with these much bigger, more costly issues, not just costly in terms of local authority or central government spending, but costly, of course, for the parents and for those children. And that is one of the most challenging things, I think, as a parent is not knowing where that journey is going to go, not knowing what my son's outlook is likely to be in two years, in five years, in ten years. But if I had the confidence the system would be there to support and provide the necessary safeguard around that schooling provision, maybe that provision into adulthood in required, then I think we could start to break down some of these challenges and the barriers we've got at the moment.

I appreciate that a lot of this comes with costs, and local authorities do need more provision in certain areas. And I would plead once again to ensure that inequality in the funding gap is addressed. But I hope that this provides us with an opportunity to provision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ben Coleman. Madam Deputy Speaker. And I stand as someone who's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I stand as someone who's received, as. have. Many, many emails and messages and had many conversations with and had many conversations with parents of disabled children. And I know that everywhere across the country, these parents are fighting country, these parents are fighting battles to get children basic support that the law says they should already have. And this is the damage system, profoundly the damage system, profoundly damaged system that this government is determined to change. And I welcome that hugely. And in my view, the schools White Paper represents the most important attempt to improve life for disabled children and young people and their families.

Since the introduction of EHC in 2014 and before that, since the last Labour government's Aiming High for Disabled Children program in 2007 and I should declare an interest here. I campaigned with contact a family and Mencap and the Council for Disabled Children to build the political case for disabled children in the mid 2000, that led to aiming high and secured nearly £1 billion in new funding, plus new rights for disabled families.
19:44
Ben Coleman Portrait Ben Coleman MP (Chelsea and Fulham, Labour)
-
-
On that point, my hon. Friend. >> Give way. Yes. >> And very briefly, will you join me in welcoming the £4.8 million of extra investment that this government has put in to support government has put in to support send adaptations in Bolton, but also the recognition that came from parents at my send round table last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

week that it can't just be about extra investment into the system, but this reform is now long overdue. Thank you. I guess.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I guess. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I'm very glad his local areas received that investment. Indeed, in the two investment. Indeed, in the two boroughs of my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, they're going to be getting a 10% increase in funding for next year to support funding for next year to support new dedicated spaces in every secondary school. And this sort of thing is happening across the country, and it's absolutely right country, and it's absolutely right that it should.

These are real commitments. Seriously made the 4.8 million for nearly £4 billion for school improvements and new therapists and specialists and better teacher training. The new individual support plans for every child with Send, the ECP and tribunal rights being retained for those with the complex needs all seriously made commitments and I welcome them. But I have to say, questions do nonetheless remain. Some have been raised and I have therefore three questions. Just three questions for the Minister. The first relates to enforceability.

And if a school fails to deliver what's written in a child's individual support plan, I do think parents need a clear legal route to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resolution. A beefed up Caerphilly. Giving way. I recently hosted an open meeting with parents on these reforms, and whilst there was widespread welcoming of much of widespread welcoming of much of what was in the White Paper, certainly an absolute urging that real sustained change happened, one concern was around the enforceability and the accountability for those ISPs, and accountability for those ISPs, and what would happen if a school was not delivering what was needed to support a child, and where that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability would fall? Mr Speaker point, and I think that there's been talk about a beefed up school complaints process beefed up school complaints process during the week. I don't think that's going to be sufficient, and I'd ask the Minister to consider extending the remit of the local government and social care Ombudsman in this respect, to provide a binding statutory backstop to resolution when schools backstop to resolution when schools and other settings fall short. The second question I have is around health and social care coordination, health and social care coordination, and this is where the white paper is perhaps most silent, and also where the current system is most visibly broken.

And as we mentioned, the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I'm a member, recently examined how the health aspects of Eaps are being delivered, and the result was depressing. One of the biggest problems is that Icbs and local authorities simply don't jointly commission children's therapy services. Of course, back in 2014, a truly joined up education health care plan was exactly the ambition that was being strived towards. But health never fully showed up, and the then government allowed them for years to get away with that.

So what we have to do now is we have to tackle that. And witnesses to our committee urged that local authorities be mandated to have the government mandate local authorities to have representation on ICB decision making boards. Will the Minister be prepared to give this serious consideration? Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker children will spend most of their lives outside the classroom, of course cared for by parents who in turn receive remarkably little support. So will the Minister commit to a clear, published expectation that health and social care will provide these families with the information, guidance and practical support that they need? Madam Deputy Speaker this white paper shows a government that understands the system is broken and is prepared to invest, and success is going to depend on many things, including, as I've raised today, whether health finally shows up with our ISP properly enforced and whether families get the support, the support that they need.

I have every confidence this government is going to carry on doing the right thing, and I look forward to improving the lives of disabled children, young people and their families.
19:48
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
For Al Pinkerton. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon for calling this important debate? Like him, my important debate? Like him, my inbox has overflowed since being elected last year, with concerned parents writing to me about the parents writing to me about the state of special educational needs provision. They recognise that the system is broken, but they also recognise that the system that they experience in Surrey is perhaps more broken than almost anywhere else.

To start off with, one bit of good news and some acknowledgement of the department, I would like to thank the Department for confirming funding for the new Frimley Oak Academy. That's going to be opening in my constituency in the near future. That will cater to 170 pupils. It represents a really important step forward in addressing some vital local need in education for children with special educational needs. But the sad reality is that for too long, so many parents and children in my constituency have been failed, and I'm sorry to say.

By Surrey County Council. Surrey has the highest recorded number of Send tribunal appeals anywhere in the country for the last three consecutive years. That is a statistic. That's a symptom of systemic dysfunction and failure. And behind every one of those appeals, there are human stories. One constituent of mine recently wrote to me and her opening words were simply, our life is crumbling right now. Others describe their children being stripped of their childhood, families being physically and mentally broken, and their finances being pushed to the brink.

At one recent constituency surgery that I held, a parent came to me and described the process of navigating the system like walking the yellow brick road. With every trial and tribulation thrown in your way, and then finally getting to the Emerald City of something that might represent something a little bit better, only to pull back the curtain and find that there's nothing there and EHC with the wrong name describing the wrong child, offering an inappropriate package of support and sitting at the top of all of this in Surrey, senior leaders who say there's no problem with special educational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs in Surrey at all. There's just parents who are too articulate. Outrageous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Outrageous. Claiming outrageously that there's not a problem. There are just parents who have too inflated an idea of their children's wants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an idea of their children's wants. It's absolutely atrocious. Well. I want to. Thank my hon. Friend for. Surrey Heath for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surrey Heath for. Giving way. Him and I and other colleagues in Surrey have campaigned hard to change. Surrey County Council's appalling approach to children with special educational needs. Does he agree with me that local government reorganisation is a huge opportunity for us to change that culture and will. He urged the Minister to ensure that all new local authorities that are established put children first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend's intervention and I agree there is an opportunity here with local government reorganisation to local government reorganisation to try and get some of these processes right, but I also recognise there are enormous risks again, particularly in Surrey, where this new this new unitary authority is likely to start its life with £4 likely to start its life with £4 billion worth of debt and a £150 million per year annual shortfall million per year annual shortfall in terms of its operational Budget.

This could be a council that is in special economic measures. Section 114. From the moment of its creation and given the level of need that I see represented in my inbox, and I think other honourable and right hon. Members will feel the same thing across Surrey. I'm incredibly concerned that more parents and more generations of children are going to be let down. So whilst can I congratulate the Minister and the government for what I think is the correct intention of travel with their plans.

I'm also incredibly concerned that perhaps there aren't the necessary financial foundations in place to ensure that children are properly looked after, because ultimately this debate comes down to one simple question, and that is, will these send reforms that the government is proposing, deliver meaningful change, or simply repackage a system that continues to fail families? Judging by the state of my inbox, we cannot allow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any more families to be felled. Sarah Smith. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the Member for Farnham and Bordon for securing this debate. As the motion states, it is vital that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on continues to hold a spotlight on the same system as the government works to bring about the necessary reforms and necessary is the right reforms and necessary is the right word as this system, as the system this Labour government inherited, is not working for families, for is not working for families, for children, for local authorities, our health service or our teaching professionals.

The last government left the system close to breaking point, and it is this Labour government who are rebuilding a system that works in Lancashire. The government has increased the high needs block allocation to £223 million in 2627, which will be a 56% increase compared to the allocation they had in 20 1819. They've also committed an extra £19 million towards capital investment last year, with 23 million coming in this year, an uplift of an extra £4 million to support the capital costs.

And like councils across the country, they are benefiting from 90% of their said deficit being written off. However, my constituents in Hyndburn are still facing a lengthy wait for an EHC to be finalised. Lancashire County Council have only issued 17.3% of their plans within the 20 week requirement, so I'm interested in the minister's plans to improve the accountability for local
19:54
Sarah Smith Portrait Sarah Smith MP (Hyndburn, Labour)
-
-
authorities. I am losing count of the number of families I've had in tears in my surgeries due to the tears in my surgeries due to the failures of our county council, currently led by reform, in making sure that we meet the needs of our sure that we meet the needs of our children when they need it, and provide the certainty for parents of how they get the education that of how they get the education that they all deserve. But whilst parents and carers are desperate for a system that works with them for a system that works with them and not against them, have we? As we've heard in a number of members contributions this evening, how we do the reform is as important as the reform itself, and that is why I called for the government to ensure that they put the voices and views of parents, carers and young people at the heart of their reforms, and it is undoubtedly evident that they strengthen the plans and that help shape the government's approach positively.

And through the time that the government took to try and get this right, many of my constituents found this engagement refreshing and helpful, and I was delighted specifically to also welcome the Schools Minister to Haslingden Academy, where we had a great morning with young people and the headteacher there. Now, I'm delighted that the government's ambitious roadmap for change recognises that the reforms can't be piecemeal. It addresses the system as a whole. We don't have time to outline the many facets and focuses that the white paper outlines, but I believe that this white paper starts to provide a roadmap for how we can deliver the change for every child, wherever they live, in order to end the postcode lottery that they currently exist in.

They currently exist in a more consistent, earlier, clearer and fairer system is within reach. We need to be ambitious for our children, delivering experts and provision in every mainstream school where no child is left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. When addressing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. When addressing this subject, I think of the 16 years of surgeries I've had where parents have come in to explain their profound dissatisfaction with the way that the evaluation of their child's needs has been conducted, and one of the most conducted, and one of the most powerful examples was a constituent who came to me and said that their son has complex SEND SEND needs, including autism, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, demand avoidance, s-a-m and severe anxiety and school trauma.

They went on to tell me that for the last eight years, there have been a series of failings in terms of dealing with their situation. Inadequate and inaccurate EHC school placements and support failures, and then went on to tell me the enormous impact it had on their family. Now, I honestly believe everyone in this place wants to get to the right improvements to this broken system,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the system. Very happy to give away. Thank you very much for giving way. Two of my constituents, Tom and Emily.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Emily. They're brother. And sister. They got their CPS after tribunal fairly early because after tribunal fairly early because their parents were so robust. They then only got the suitable schools after tribunal because their parents were so robust against the will of the local authority. Does will of the local authority. Does he agree with me that any reforms Yeah.
19:57
John Glen Portrait Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)
-
-
I do, but I want to address the key point that I think we've all key point that I think we've all got to acknowledge. Between 2014 and 2023, there was 140% expansion in the number of of EHC to well over half a million. And in generating that volume of demand, we have to be honest on all sides of this House about whether given the budgets we have or with whoever's in government can actually provide solutions that meet the needs of every individual child.

And we're all trying to make the case that whether it's EHC need give us the legal backstop or whether we move to an ISP in a school based solution, that it will achieve that. What I want us to recognise is that in defining needs so much more broadly, we have created such a demand and expectation of the state. We have got to be real about what we can and what we can't provide. And this is very delicate territory because we're always concerned that we're going to be accused of denying the needs exist.

But what concerns me is that we're going to set expectations that the school is going to set up an individual definition of, of, of provision, and it will not be met in exactly the same way that we've seen the challenges of the last decade. There is a central tension in this white paper that as we move from a rights based system of statutory entitlements to a resource led system, that it will automatically improve. And it seems to me the concern that I see exists amongst the the representatives of those with unmet SEND provision and the charities is that there will be an enforceability gap.

Having set expectations in our country that EHC are legally enforceable. So with these new proposals of ISPs, while parents might have the right to a plan, they will not have the legal right to the provision it contains. And if we standardise things over individual needs and we move to a situation where we have nationally determined fixed packages of support, we risk just getting into exactly the situation that we've got to in recent years. So I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once more for giving way. He's treading this compassionate tightrope very, very delicately. I have an organisation in my constituency called Children Lead constituency called Children Lead the Way, and they take children who are struggling in the traditional setting outdoors. And there have setting outdoors. And there have been examples where some of those children have later been able to go back into the school system. So back into the school system. So rather than sort of underdiagnosing, which I think might be the end result here, if we're not careful, result here, if we're not careful, would you be willing to accept that it's possible that some children who are taken out of settings may later be reintroduced? If we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reconsider the settings? Of course I do. And I mean, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I do. And I mean, this is where the problem is, that if we have a move towards a standardised have a move towards a standardised provision that's driven by central government or a latest orthodoxy, government or a latest orthodoxy, we risk missing the flexibility that should exist and needs to exist on an individual basis. But the core point that I'm still uncomfortable about is that in a situation where in 2425 parents, 195 to 99% of tribunal cases, it appears that, you know, the system has defined needs that exist that that we cannot provide.

So we need to level with the country and with parents and say, well, what can we provide and what are we actually really not able to provide? Rather than, I won't have any more time, so I won't. So, so let's not peddle a dishonesty in saying that we are going to deliver a perfect system because frankly, you know, I think we've got to the point where we need to look at the definition of parameters and get to a more honest conversation about how we're going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to actually deal with this problem. Daniel Francis Mr Speaker. And I declare my normal interest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declare my normal interest. At my wife's a special needs coordinator in our local authority, London Borough of Bexley, and one of her children is in receipt of an of her children is in receipt of an EHC. Now, I know this journey. I know those battles like some other members in this chamber of being a parent and that position that you find yourself in, and I know as the find yourself in, and I know as the parent of twins, and I've said this before, that I've had to battle for every single aspect of one of my children's education and none of my other child's education.

Now, what we've heard today is lots of criticism about what may be coming and lots of criticism about the current system. But let's be frank, the current system is totally and utterly broken. Yeah. And, and what I the reasons why I do support the proposals is there are issues there
20:02
Daniel Francis Portrait Daniel Francis MP (Bexleyheath and Crayford, Labour)
-
-
which we can put right experts at hand, the health aspects. And I hear what my hon. Friend from Chelsea says there are things we Chelsea says there are things we still need to get right there. But with experts at hand, the health aspects currently in my local aspects currently in my local authority, when you end up as we did three years ago with an Ofsted judgement, a systemic failings in judgement, a systemic failings in our system, there was nowhere holding our local NHS provision to account on those matters, and we've account on those matters, and we've got to get that right and those experts at hand in that early intervention, there are things that you can do on the individual support plans.

Why on earth are we making young people wait a year or two until their HCP is updated, particularly for some young people who don't have the complexity that my daughter has? Well, you could get that early intervention much quicker. And that support provided at a much earlier stage. And on this issue about standardised provision, what I would say is, of course, you know, I'll mention my good friend, my remember, for your daughter's needs are very different to my daughter's needs. But what I would say within that is we do need to look at where some people need to be there in mainstream.

Some people need to be there in special school. But what do. Why do we wonder why one in young. 1 in 8 young people are NEETs and why we have had the debate we've had over welfare. When we isolate so many young people and then question why they're not available and ready to work. So the Minister knows I have three issues which I think we can get right. But where I still have concerns about transition, about getting those health aspects right, and about some support for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

professionals. About concerns with the white paper. Absolutely. I give away to my neighbour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

neighbour. Thank you. Thank you for giving away residents in Dartford who I had a roundtable with on the White had a roundtable with on the White Paper last week, whilst welcoming the greater focus of schools to provide quicker and more flexible provide quicker and more flexible support, are nervous about the level of resources that are going to be available to schools. They're also worried about the accountability of schools to parents through a new complaints procedure, and they're worried about the perceived loss of rights for families compared to the current system.

Does the does the hon. Member agree? Those are things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we do need reassurance from the government about. I absolutely agree with my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree with my hon. It literally is my neighbour in my neighbouring seat in Dartford about those issues, but we can get that those issues, but we can get that right. I do genuinely believe that. I do genuinely thank the Minister for the engagement she's had with the sector, with with backbenchers the sector, with with backbenchers like myself through this process, that we can get that right through both the consultation and the both the consultation and the legislative changes. But we need to accept, as I've said, we are dealing with a system which is totally broken.

I, like my friend, held my own consultation. I won't go into detail with it, but I heard long and hard from those parents. But when you've been through what my brother has been through, that Ofsted judgement, that safety valve, which was a ticking time bomb on so many of our families and their provision and what I've seen both as a council, as a councillor, 20 years in my patch in Bexley. So I saw the system change fundamentally. If a family like mine, where I was Leader of the Opposition the council and my wife was actually employed by the authorities, the senco couldn't get through the system.

How on earth can any parent get through the system? And that is why I do support these changes. Getting that early intervention right. We wonder why the loss of Surestart and those changes that happened in those long 14 years have inherited the system we have today for children with disability and special educational needs. So I thank the Minister. I will continue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to challenge her, but I do support these changes. Yeah. other. Colleagues to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues to speak. Speaker. Just firstly, quickly on the hon. Member for Salisbury have enormous respect for. But your underlying argument is flawed because of the same number of children now as there were in 2010 as in 1978. The question is why do as in 1978. The question is why do they form so much to 2016 and rise, which I would suggest the answer is probably something to do with probably something to do with scrapping of shortstop by my party and his.

But that's for another day.
20:06
Chris Coghlan Portrait Chris Coghlan MP (Dorking and Horley, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, One month ago, a SEN dad messaged me on Facebook about his autistic son, who'd been about his autistic son, who'd been out of school for seven years. His tribunal delayed three times. He said that his son will now be out of education and employment for the of education and employment for the rest of his life. And he said, and I quote that, that he had been left to rot. His son had been left to rot by his local authority and the NHS.

I wrote to him to say how sorry I was, suggested how he could get help and put him in touch with his MP. But then two weeks ago he wrote to me, my son is very unwell and I can no longer carry on. I am mentally and physically exhausted and I'm electing to end my life. I intend to find peace. I simply can't continue and I refuse to see my son deteriorate further. There'll be no one to care for him. So now the NHS will have to care for my son.

We called 999 immediately and emergency services sent an ambulance. We've seen too many families like this. I presented to the government and published in the times evidence that hundreds of SEND children are avoidably killing themselves due to public authority negligence. ITV has published evidence of misconduct and law breaking on SEND by 117. Local authorities now believe the government is serious about SEND reform, and I'm grateful to the Minister for coming to Dorking tomorrow to meet Surrey SEND families.

The family, after family has testified to me that the legal rights the government is seeking to reduce can be the difference between life and death. When a council officer determines that a child does not need an EHC when they know that that child does in fact need an EHC, that is serious misconduct. Yes, we know this is happening at a massive scale because families win the resulting tribunals 98% of the time. The councils are betting the families that they can save money because the families are too exhausted to take them to tribunal.

Children are killing themselves as a result. Under-resourcing is no excuse. When a when a council officer denies an under-resourced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

council officer. When he. Talks about Under-resourcing and. I would like to highlight a I would like to highlight a situation at West Sussex County Council where the Department just put an answer phone message on their system saying we are overwhelmed. We cannot take any calls today. Does he agree with me that the parents that are that the parents that are navigating that system, that often describe it as a fight, do not have the opportunity to just put their the opportunity to just put their phone on answerphone or not show up for their kids that day because they are overwhelmed.

Does he agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with me that we need to do far more for those parents? I entirely agree with my friend because an under-resourced officer can still determine the need, can still issue an EHC and be transparent about what cannot yet be delivered. That at least, is honest. Now, I know that many council officers do the right thing. When a council officer commits misconduct, that results in an avoidable death, why are they not criminally prosecuted? So here we are, pervasive local authority law breaking hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves, a government that plans to cut the rights that can save their lives.

The public will be asking members of Parliament about this scandal. What did they know? I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable. Gentleman is making a very moving and powerful speech. But moving and powerful speech. But isn't the reality that if every single EHC was properly diagnosed single EHC was properly diagnosed and the need was expressed, it would impose an honest but unachievable burden on the state? Will he acknowledge that and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will he acknowledge that and address how we come to terms with that? Chris Coghlan I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I completely disagree. Obviously, if you talk about think about the autistic boy that I was talking about at the start of my speech. So he's been out of school for seven years. His father has quit his job to look after him. That's even before he, Costa. If I were to quit his job, to look after him.

And you've lost a lifetime's earnings from that, from that person, you've got the cost of social services by the time you add that all into account, compared to if you have an effective system based on effective early intervention, rigorous accountability on local authorities, legally enforceable rights, I'm convinced it will actually be far cheaper than what we have today, and the public will be asking members of this House, what do they know about this scandal of hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves? While there's myths about overdiagnosis and everything else going out there, what do they know? When do they know? And what do they do about it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noah Law Madam Deputy Speaker. Central vision is a fraught and highly emotional issue, as we've highly emotional issue, as we've heard, because of the stakes at play education, inclusion, and above all, dignity. I'm pleased to above all, dignity. I'm pleased to see so many colleagues here today from across the House, with only a couple of exceptions from some parties. Like others, I want to share the experiences of my constituents. A few months ago, I met with the senior leadership team at Celt, the organisation that runs the majority of the primary and secondary schools in my constituency, and to their credit, they acknowledge they've not always got things right, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, but they were candid about why, and that's without any EHC.

They simply do not have the funding to support many of
20:12
Noah Law Portrait Noah Law MP (St Austell and Newquay, Labour)
-
-
the children who need it the most. And demand for EHC is incredibly high. Cornwall Council receives over 100 requests every single month. Yet in 2024, Cornwall was month. Yet in 2024, Cornwall was also ranked as the second worst local authority in the entire local authority in the entire country for issuing EHC within the 20 week required time frame. The 20 week required time frame. The causes are clear a shortage of educational psychologists, the complexity of multi-agency coordination and a system overwhelmed by this demand.

The consequences for children in my constituency have been devastating, and I want to name some of them. One of my constituents has an adopted daughter with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Her school submitted a referral for an HCP in March 2024. The council rejected it. Her father fought back through appeals through a tribunal, and the council eventually conceded an all too common farce, as we've heard, and they still failed at the end of this to produce a completed plan until 2026, that is, two years of a daughter's education lost.

Another constituent has been waiting since August 2025 for the outcome of his daughter's educational psychologist assessment. They are still waiting. His daughter remains without suitable provision. A third constituent son hasn't had appropriate education for a significant period of time. His school cannot meet his needs. He is not attending. His family are waiting for an EHC p three families, three children, all failed by a system that was supposed to protect them. The government's White Paper promises a £1.8 billion investment in specialist support, including educational psychologists, and commits to training over 200 more psychologists per year from 2026, putting mental health support in every school, reducing the postcode lottery and the attainment gap.

I welcome that ambition, but I say to Ministers, the consultation closes on the 18th of May. Families cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wait until 2029 for legislative change. Charlotte Cane thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charlotte Cane thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the things that shocked me most of the things that shocked me most when I got elected was how much we are failing children with special are failing children with special educational needs. We all get the emails in our inbox that are absolutely heart rending, and when absolutely heart rending, and when you meet those parents, you can see the stress and the strain etched in their faces, and you can only imagine what it's like for the child to be in a school where they feel they're not understood and they're not supported.

It is really shocking how we are treating these people at the moment. So I really welcome that the government is trying to do something to change this and make it better. I worry, though, that we need to make sure there are the resources there to
20:15
Charlotte Cane Portrait Charlotte Cane MP (Ely and East Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
deliver what these families deserve. Obviously that's money, but it's Obviously that's money, but it's also the educational psychologists. The other expertise that we need, having all the staff at the school having all the staff at the school properly trained so they know how to deal with the various needs of the children in their school at the children in their school at that time. And I also worry that that time. And I also worry that parents cannot, cannot, must not lose the ability to to take action, to fight for their children's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rights. And yes, I'll give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. And does she agree that giving way. And does she agree that strengthening inclusion in mainstream schools and maintaining legally enforceable protections for legally enforceable protections for children and young people should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not be competing games? Yeah. I agree, we mustn't set things up in competition. So I would like up in competition. So I would like to ask the Minister three particular questions. One, what are you going to do to make sure that every area really has the specialist resources? Sorry. What what is the Minister going to do to make sure that every, every school in the area has the resources they need to deliver for for their children? How are you going to help make sure that rural areas like mine in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have access to these resources for all the schools and all the children, because it does take longer.

It therefore does cost more to get those across the area. And what are you going to put in place to make sure that parents really retain the rights to fight and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforce for their children's rights? I didn't want to intervene. Because I could see that the the member was going to speak very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member was going to speak very briefly. Interventions aren't helping other members in the chamber. Alex McIntyre thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. For too long, Deputy Speaker. For too long, parents and carers in Gloucester have had to fight a broken system that was not delivering the best that was not delivering the best chance in life for their children. This government inherited a system that did not include parents and that did not include parents and carers in the conversation, that did not value their children, and led to a complete breakdown of trust between families and the system that was meant to support them.

And I'm pleased that this government has made fixing the
20:18
Alex McIntyre Portrait Alex McIntyre MP (Gloucester, Labour)
-
-
system a top priority. As Gloucester MP. I've always believed that every child in my city deserves the best start in life, deserves the best start in life, and I hope that these reforms will restore trust in the system and ensure that every child gets the ensure that every child gets the support they deserve. Madam Deputy Speaker, When I talk to constituents about Send, they often make the same reflection. The make the same reflection. The previous government never listened to them. They didn't include them in those discussions and they in those discussions and they didn't take them seriously.

And I know that Ministers have been really clear. These reforms had to be done with parents and carers and families, and I'm really pleased to see they've made good on that promise and continue to do so, and I hope they continue that approach through the latest consultation. And in my city of Gloucester, I have been listening to parents and carers too. I've met with dozens of parents in my surgeries. I run a community consultation for families to say what they wanted to see in the white paper, and I hosted a brilliant parent and carers round table in the city centre and from this I was pleased to produce my sending Gloucester report, which I presented to the Minister earlier this year.

In that report, residents made several recommendations. A really important one was about more support. Early on, parents and carers felt that they often spotted the signs of additional need early. But it took years for any formal support to be introduced and often the support would only come at a crisis point when early intervention could have prevented the crisis in the first place. I also visited Dingley's Promise Early Years Centre in Coney Hill, which shows the benefits of early intervention and the importance of targeted support at an early years level, and I was pleased to see the government listened to the recommendations of Gloucester residents on early intervention by putting more money into early years.

As part of these reforms. Madam Deputy Speaker. Another key takeaway from the report was a lack of funding and capacity for school. Sencos parents and carers repeatedly highlighted that many Sencos are working tirelessly but are fighting that broken system. They felt that making Sencos full time, providing high levels of specialist training and giving them a more senior role in schools can have a big impact. If there is one ask I can make to the Minister today, it would be whether they can consider extending this government's commitment to providing the best possible school experience for children with Sen by providing for a full time, fully qualified senco in every Gloucester school.

Finally, I spoke with many residents since these reforms have been announced. While the reaction has been mostly positive, I know that the concerns remain in communities across my city, particularly those families whose children are receiving a notice package. I understand that, and I'll continue to raise their voices with Ministers, and I hope she may be able to give some reassurance today. But I want to again underline the importance of this moment. We must give our schools and our teachers the resources they need to deliver for our children.

We must rebuild trust with families who have been so badly let down in the past. And we must get these reforms right so that every child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with Send can have the best chance in life. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate the Member for Farnham and Bordon on securing this debate? We've heard in terms of demand, we've heard a number of varying views, some people saying varying views, some people saying the demand hasn't gone up at all and that others saying it has. I and that others saying it has. I have relied on the House of Commons Library to tell me that since 2015, demand for EHC has ballooned by 140% and that in 20 2513 it was taken.

There were 13 times more people waiting for an autism assessment than there were in 2019. Hon. Members across the House have described very effectively, so I won't replay the tape. This
20:21
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
extraordinary diagnosis of a system that has not been able to meet that has not been able to meet demand, and the 98% tribunal demand, and the 98% tribunal success rate is symptomatic of that. And it is it is pretty shocking. It And it is it is pretty shocking. It shows that a system which is having to be fought against systemically, to be fought against systemically, and it's deeply worrying. Hon. Members from across the House have been replaying their own case studies and inboxes, and I haven't got time to go into child Y and child L and child F and child D, and so many others, all of whom have finally come to their Member of Parliament because they have seen no way through.

And the computer has said no, and it has taken that, and that shouldn't be the case. I do just want, in the time remaining to take a strategic approach and and look upstream, because in March last year, the Secretary of State for health said that he was sold on the idea that overdiagnosis was at the root cause of mental health illness in the. On the 1st of June, I asked the Secretary of State for education whether there was any work being done between her Department and the Health Department on what was causing increased demand for special educational needs.

Children, and she gave me she said she was very concerned about it, very concerned indeed. I then waited until the 1st of December last year and said, so what did you and the Health Secretary do in the intervening seven months? And I think it was the Minister who kindly said that she was very concerned about it. And five days later, the Health Secretary announced that there was going to be a six month study into the causes of the increase in demand for special educational needs, and that will report in the summer.

So I don't think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. And but I do think that we do need as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nation to increase our understanding of this phenomenon that we are experiencing in order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Jen Craft Deputy Speaker I'd like to declare an interest as a like to declare an interest as a member of the SEND APPG and also a parent of a child with an H, C, p and to congratulate the Member for and to congratulate the Member for Farnham and Bordon for securing this debate today. This is a deeply important subject and one I am. important subject and one I am. Like many members across this House, my inbox is full of SEND parents who struggle under the current system.

And let's be clear, it is absolutely broken, and there's been quite a lot of discussion today about whether or not the current system or indeed our society as a whole has the ability to to meet all presenting needs. And I'd just like to clarify something. Unmet need does not magically disappear. It doesn't just go away. What it does is it festers and it grows, which is what we see under this current system. We see children's needs not met at the earliest opportunity.

We only see them being met when they reach an absolute crisis point. By and large, that is what happens. And what we end up with is a system that ultimately lets down children. And I want to
20:24
Jen Craft Portrait Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)
-
-
say the need for SEND reform and the work that the Minister has undertaken on the White Paper speaks to the heart. I think, of speaks to the heart. I think, of who we are on these benches as a party, equitable and equal party, equitable and equal education for everyone goes to the heart of socialist, progressive politics, and that is who we are. politics, and that is who we are. And it's absolutely crucial that just because the child is disabled or has an additional needs, that or has an additional needs, that they are not excluded from education on the same basis as their able bodied peers, it's completely unacceptable if they continue to be so.

The system we have at the moment is antagonistic. It is adversarial. It puts fight and struggle at the heart of what should be just the norm for every parent, which is attaining a decent education for their children. But I would like to speak to some of the concerns I notice have very short amount of time left around the white paper, because some do remain. There needs to be accountability in the system if it is going to work. Parents, schools and councils have to trust that the system will work.

Accountability, understanding. If my child's school hypothetically and realistically do not do what they are supposed to do, how do I make them do it? Whether what is the recourse that I have to make sure they do so? The other huge, absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Extremely grateful. Would she deal with the challenge of. If we deal with the challenge of. If we are now in a more sophisticated understanding of an individual's need and the provision of meeting that need has reached a cost and a that need has reached a cost and a breadth across society such that the actual needs to meet are so significant. How do we provide for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significant. How do we provide for that, given the finite budgets that exist. How do you provide for it is by meeting need at the earliest. Opportunity is addressing it. Reaching crisis point is addressing it. Getting to the situation we are in now. You wouldn't do this in any other situation. You wouldn't say, hey, there's too many people out there with cancer. We should stop diagnosing cancer. It wouldn't work like that. You don't turn around and say, hey, there's too many people that are presenting in need.

You meet it. And if we look at this as we do with all, I just for a second imagine that a typical parent that we address the education system as a whole, as we address education as a problem to be solved and not an opportunity that exists to create young people that are willing, equipped, and able to go out into the world and to shape our future society and indeed our place, you know, on a global scale as well. So why do we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not look at that for SEND children as we do for the wider school population? My I will do. I thank Honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Honourable. Lady for giving way. And does she agree with me that there's also so much untapped potential in the parents that are currently trapped parents that are currently trapped at home, trying to support their children that are not being supported into schools? When I hosted a recent roundtable with hosted a recent roundtable with parents in my constituency, I had X teachers, teaching assistants and educational psychologist, and none

**** Possible New Speaker ****

educational psychologist, and none of them are at work because they're not being supported. I agree with that 100%. You know, if you can do a lifetime cost of a parent being out of work to care for their child who should be in education or who should be in a suitable school, even a parent having to, you know, draw back from working a certain amount of hours or reaching where they could be able to go in their career because of the stress that it puts on them.

And that does lead to some of the concerns that I have in the White Paper. This has to work. I think we I want to start from that basis. This white paper has to work for families like mine, for people that are struggling, that see the current system as failing for them, it has to work and it is in danger of not working on a few points. Number one is trust, which I mentioned. The second one is workforce. Now, this cannot be solved by the Department for Education on its own.

A real crucial part of that workforce comes from the Department for Health and Social Care. The Secretary of State for health must publish a statement as to how he is going to deliver the SEND workforce, particularly the paediatric paediatric allied healthcare workforce. Otherwise, this plan, I'm really sorry to say, really will struggle to get off the ground. And finally, if there is something in this plan that can be brought to change the current system for how it works, and the stress and the strain that it puts on parents is to support parents.

Quite often, parents feel like they're under attack. If your child receives a diagnosis of SEND and you know you feel like your parenting method, who you are and the benefits that you bring to your family is constantly questioned and you don't know where to go for support. If we can support parents to care for their to implement the same intervention measures at home, as well as giving them the respite that they need, the support to know that they're not alone and to actually be able to properly support their child through education, then this white paper

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can truly deliver on the promise that it holds. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful for the opportunity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this profoundly important debate, which I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon for securing. As with all members across this House, this is one of the most common and most urgent the most common and most urgent issues raised by struggling families and overstretched schools within Dewsbury and Batley, and
20:30
Iqbal Mohamed Portrait Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)
-
-
within Dewsbury and Batley, and this cannot be allowed to continue. We all agree that the system is broken and needs to be improved, and I welcome the fact that the government has recognised the scale of the crisis and is attempting to bring forward wide ranging reform, but good intentions must be matched by good policy. Consequently, there are a number of concerns that I believe must be addressed with urgency if these reforms are to succeed. Firstly, on consultation, we've been told by the government that it's new that its new framework is being shaped in partnership with families, schools and other stakeholders.

But serious questions remain about the adequacy and scope of that consultation. Recent reports show that members have been effectively guided by the Department of Education on how they should respond to the consultation, risk, fatally undermining confidence in the process. Consultation must be genuine and transparent. Secondly, on implementation, it is concerning that local authorities are already being instructed to begin reforming their systems by developing local plans and reshaping provision, before the consultation has even concluded. That risks creating confusion, inconsistency and instability in a system that is already under immense strain, and it risks the perception of treating public consultation and the consent for vital policy proposals as an afterthought, rather than being central to policy making process itself.

Thirdly, on capacity, ambitious reforms require the workforce to deliver them. We need clarity on how many trained professionals will be required, how initiatives such as the proposed experts Al Carns service will be staffed, and how training for teachers will be delivered. Without that detail, we run the risk that expectations will outstrip reality. And finally, on accountability, any changes to tribunal arrangements must not weaken the ability of families to challenge decisions, not least because they have been so successful in appealing these decisions.

And we've heard about the 99% figure. For many parents, the tribunal system is not an optional preference, but a safeguard of last resort that must be preserved. So my asked to the Minister are these will the government ensure that the ongoing consultation genuinely, genuinely reflects the voices of families, schools and experts? Will it provide clarity on workforce training and funding? Will it protect the rights of families to challenge decisions, and will it ensure that reforms are implemented in a way that is transparent, evidence led, properly resourced, with built in accountability? Because if we get this right, we can transform the lives for better.

But if we get it wrong, it is the children and their futures who will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bear the cost for years to come. Rachael Maskell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We know the stories, Deputy Speaker. We know the stories, we know the concerns, we have heard the trauma, and we know of the battles and the fights and of battles and the fights and of course, the embedded inequality within the system where parents with little agency have little with little agency have little voice. But what's so important is that we recognise the 2014 Children's Families Act ultimately Children's Families Act ultimately never came with the funding, the staffing, resourcing that was needed as well as a culture change.

And there are three things that I really want to focus on today. One is culture. Second is resulting in funding and third is governance. With regards to culture, whilst we
20:33
Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )
-
-
have heard about the rising of attainment for so many children, we attainment for so many children, we know that other children just never get that opportunity. Their right to an education is denied and we've to an education is denied and we've got to change the pedagogy within the education system to make it an inclusive environment, but also to ensure that the high stakes behaviourist approach is ended. behaviourist approach is ended. Because that for children who are neurotypical means that they are being denied an education.

We must address this clash, which is still being driven by a results based system, and look at a child more holistically and about their long term future. And I certainly would encourage the Minister to look at the work of Sir Ken Robinson in understanding that the system needs to be built around a child as opposed to a child fitting into the system and also developing a nurturing environment. And in York, we talk about belonging, going beyond nurturing needs to look at how we address that security of child needs in order to thrive in any environment, and to ensure that that framing is put around a child, ensuring that we're integrating that with a trauma informed approach as well.

Many we've heard about adoption today and the trauma that those children experience, but we know so many children experience adverse childhood experiences, violence and neglect in the home, and have had challenging pasts intersected with their SEND needs. So we need to ensure that is put in place briefly on funding. If we can move resources in this place to fund our national security, we can move funding to secure the child's security as well. And therefore, we do need to resource the system and to resource it, not only financially, because without it, this will never succeed, but also to ensure in.

Many have made this point about having a workforce plan and within that, integrating that with the NHS workforce plan, knowing the timing in which resources will come on stream. And thirdly, this brings me very briefly to governance, the governance of where risk and responsibility sits in the system is in the wrong place, and that's why we really need to have a look at the impact of the Academisation programme on where those lines of accountability are. When holding schools to account, it is virtually impossible in the system we've got,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I certainly want to extend those discussions with the Minister when I get the opportunity. Although we've run out of time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Although we've run out of time for backbench contributions, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Caroline Voaden. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon and Maldon for bringing this debate. It's really clear from the passionate clear from the passionate contributions how widespread the problems are with the same system that is completely broken. And that is completely broken. And we've heard the all heard the anguish of parents, and we have read the dreadful stories of desperate children who have lost their lives because of failures in this system. So in that context, I want to welcome the government's recent white paper as an important step in the right direction.

We have to address the growing need.
20:36
Caroline Voaden Portrait Caroline Voaden MP (South Devon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And as the Member for Thurrock said so passionately, we cannot limit provision because there is too much need. The earlier we identify, need and start addressing it, the better the outcomes will be for children, the outcomes will be for children, for parents, for families and for society as a whole. We have had to wait for this White Paper, but putting the delays to one side, we're here now and the central focus on inclusion through improving support in mainstream improving support in mainstream settings is an approach that the Liberal Democrats welcome.

If children with SEND can attend a local school, they can stay connected with their friends, be part of their local community, and their family can engage better with their school inclusion bases, like the one being opened at King Edward VI Community College in my constituency are welcome, with a focus on bringing children back into school after they dropped out following a difficult transition into year seven and helping them become part of the school community again. And this model has a good potential to to succeed if it's properly resourced.

However, many questions remain about funding children's rights and staffing on funding the £4.4 billion pledge to accompany the upcoming reforms, plus capital spending and the council debt write off, are welcome, but we are worried that the government is holding councils to ransom by tying this debt relief to restrictions on special school expansion. The government must also provide clarity on where the new funding, including the council deficit write off, is coming from. The Liberal Democrats are very concerned that other areas of the wider schools Budget may be cut, even though there is nothing left to give, and the government has introduced some good policies but has failed to fully fund them, like breakfast clubs, the expansion of free school meals, even teacher pay rises, and today the healthy school standards.

Will that be fully funded for schools because it will be more expensive? I won't give way because I don't have enough time. I'm sorry. Schools and local authorities are already at breaking point and are now being asked to deliver even more, including running two Cen systems in parallel during the transition period on parental rights, parents have expressed deep concern about changes to the tribunal system, removing power from tribunals to direct a local authority to name a specific setting will give parents even less opportunity to choose a setting that suits their child.

And given that currently 99% of tribunal cases are won by families against the local authority, how can we trust that local authorities will suddenly start getting it right? Under the new system, the Liberal Democrats are clear that stripping back parents ability to challenge the system is unacceptable, and their anxiety is understandable. Many parents are worried their child will lose existing support or not receive the support they need under the new system. So will the Minister guarantee that legal rights will not be stripped away, that settled placements will not be disrupted and that accountability, including meaningful routes of appeal, will remain strong and effective? It is absolutely vital that children and families remain at the heart of these reforms, and retain the few rights they have on staffing.

We welcome the experts at hand service to embed specialists like speech and language therapists and educational psychologists into mainstream schools, but we need to see a credible workforce plan to see how the government is going to recruit and train all the staff needed, and encourage trained specialists back into the profession. I'm concerned, though, about the need for more learning, support staff, the people who are absolutely crucial to delivering these reforms and ensuring mainstream inclusion works effectively. Schools are being forced to cut learning support staff due to the financial pressures they are facing, and a send system focussed on inclusion simply cannot be done without them.

So I'd like to hear further detail from the Minister on how the government believes schools can deliver an inclusive approach for all children without funding more support staff away from budgets and staffing. There are, of course, other changes we can make in the way we run our schools that would make them accessible for all children. Curriculum reform is vital to inclusion, learning how to express and process emotion through music, drama, creative arts, sport and outdoor play is vital not just for children's mental health but their emotional development.

It simply must be given more space, so we believe the current direction of travel is the right one. But all these reforms must be fully funded, fully staffed and fully consulted with those who will be impacted most by the changes the parents and the children with SEND who are so often not heard.
20:40
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you for the Shadow Minister Saqib Bhatti. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by thanking members from across the House for what was a across the House for what was a wide ranging and passionate debate about an issue that affects each and every one of us and many of our constituents. And I want to start constituents. And I want to start by thanking my hon. Friend for Farnham and Bordon for securing this important debate. He's been a passionate and determined champion for parents of children with special educational needs, and I thank him for all his hard work in this area.

He was pragmatic, constructive and he reflected what I've also heard back from many, many parents, teachers and council leaders. I also want to say thank you to all the people who contributed, but specifically those parents who've reached out to have their voices heard today. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an issue that affects each and every one of us. And while I will focus on the much delayed white paper, let me be clear to the Minister. His Majesty's opposition will work constructively with the government where we see meaningful progress can be made.

And I acknowledge I acknowledge, the system is creaking under its own weight almost weekly. Since I was first elected in 2019, I've met parents who are tired of fighting the system that was designed to help them, one that enshrines their rights in law but has instead become a barrier to supporting their children. I've campaigned for those parents, so I want these reforms to work. But I say to the Minister, we on this side of the House won't shy away from asking questions that are difficult for the government to answer, and we won't allow the government to spin their way out of this, because too much is at stake.

And I hope she can work constructively with me in that questions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Minister for giving way. And, of course, across Keighley and the wider Bradford district, I'm inundated with correspondence from constituents challenging the quality of EHC and the diagnosis procedure. But one of the big concerns that I have is with the White Paper reforms, and it will lead to a standardised approach lead to a standardised approach associated with many of those roll outs of the I. PS and I was wondering if the shadow Minister agrees with me in the direction that these reforms are going in under this Labour government.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and the point that's been made to me by many that's been made to me by many parents about the one size fits all approach of these reforms. And I look, I want to give the Minister an opportunity to try and reassure an opportunity to try and reassure some of those parents because parents do want answers, and the children and the families that are affected do deserve them. And I've affected do deserve them. And I've spoken to many, many parents and representative groups, and there's a huge amount of anxiety about these reforms.

And it's a view these reforms. And it's a view shared by many parent carer forums. And it wasn't helped by the delays to the White Paper, nor the drip drip briefing suggesting EHC would simply be scrapped. And let me be very clear, the conservative position is very clear. Any reforms that come forward must enshrine parental rights in law. They must not water them down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know. You. You've just stumbled into the chamber. I don't think so, Saqib

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bhatti. I take your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will say, look, I Speaker, but I will say, look, I there is very little detail around the deliverability in this white paper. It's a concern that's been paper. It's a concern that's been raised by me, to me, by a number of council leaders, head teachers and parents alike, and even the OBR, the government's own independent the government's own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains uncertain. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty then, not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gaps and look, the government, when it was in opposition, had 14 years to think about what they wanted to do.

So I hope the Minister can provide some of those answers today. The issue of timelines was raised today, and I agree with that. We all agree that this is urgent, but full implementation is not expected until 2829 at the earliest. Changes to EHC will not begin until around September 2030. So for a family with a six year old today, that child will be 10 or 11 before they feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time.

It was a point made by the hon. Member for Saint Austell and Newquay. So can the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHC reform takes effect? I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ben Coleman one of the key issues that parents of my constituents, who have been within constituents, who have been within the same system are really fearful of now is that there will be the White Paper more change proposed, but the key element to that is in delivery is local councils. And the problem is it is so patchy. Some problem is it is so patchy. Some councils are absolutely appalling on mine in area has had an excoriating report, other ones managed.

Nobody's brilliant, but they try and get by, they try and do the piece. So I would simply say, how are we going to tackle that patchy delivery, which at the end of the day, these reforms will still have to rely on?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Saqib Bhatti? I thank my right hon. Friend, I think it makes a really valid point, and I will come on to councils and their funding shortly, but I think he makes a really valid point, and I hope the Minister heard that and I hope the Minister heard that and will be able to answer. I've had a number of parents write to me asking to put their questions directly to the Minister. Natasha directly to the Minister. Natasha and Lindi wanted to know why there's been a dilution of parental rights proposed.

Why is the government removing the legal right government removing the legal right to appeal, especially when 98% of cases are currently won by parents and carers? And I say to the Minister my right hon. Friend for Salisbury made this point very eloquently. If the logic is to reduce the cost of provision by removing some of those rights, then the Minister should say so plainly. I think they need those parents need that clarity and that level of honesty. Look, there are some points we welcome.

We welcome the principles of support in schools and evidence led packages and the idea of more speech and language therapists. There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is essential, and a statement of intent on this is most welcome. But I do want to just focus on speech and language therapists very quickly, because I campaigned on this as a backbench MP with my constituent Mike UQs, Chris Kamara, the famous footballer, and we met with the relevant health Minister more than a year ago, and there was an explicit promise for a speech and language therapy action plan.

There still hasn't been one. And in March 24th and Mikey said in March 24th, I met with the Minister for care, the Member for Aberafan Maesteg, who promised an action plan for speech and language therapy. And one year on, we still have not seen anything. So has the Minister, and this point has been raised about liaising with the health Department. Has she spoken to Health Minister and has there been any progress on that? The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has been very clear.

Delivering the experts at hand service will require SLT and SLT workforce to be incorporated into the ten year workforce plan, with funding ring fenced. And I did ask the Minister a very written question, a written question in March about how many speech and language therapists will be required to deliver experts. And she gave a great answer, I will say, but she avoided to give me the answer I needed around numbers. I hope she can answer that. So how many specialists will be needed and where will they come from? The question from the British Dyslexia Association was also posed to me, because 1 in 3 children in our classrooms need support for dyslexia.

Can the Minister confirm whether the experts at hand service will include support for children with dyslexia, and whether specialist dyslexia teachers will form part of that workforce? I want to just turn to inclusion in mainstream because at a recent meeting with Solihull school leaders last month, I had serious concerns about the capacity pressures the government's approach could place on mainstream schools. There was consensus around the principles, but there was. There was also consensus that far more detail is needed on what inclusion actually means in policy terms, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how gaps in staff training and funding will be. Very briefly. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency. Neighbour for giving way. I was in the same meeting and one of the big concerns was the loss of the big concerns was the loss of the special school that was planned for Tamworth Lane. Does he agree with me that not only does that detract

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from parents and pupils who would benefit, but it puts additional pressures on mainstream schools? Saqib Bhatti I couldn't have said it better myself. And of said it better myself. And of course that's a one in my borough. But the truth is, there are special schools across the country that are where the funding has been taken away, and it is going to be essential because you cannot have a one size fits all. Can the Minister also explain for those teachers how mainstream schools will be supported in terms of capacity, funding and training, as these reforms are rolled out? I want to just get to very quickly, Madam Speaker, to ISPs, because, of course, as the founder of North Solihull Sports Group, asked whether there will be a legal backing for those ISPs.

It's a point that's been made by a number of members, but of course around enforceability and I want to get straight to the funding point and that's where I'm going to end my remarks. The OBR at the Budget identified a £6 billion fund funding black hole. When the Minister was asked about this before, she used the word scaremongering. But these were not our figures. They were figures based from the OBR, based on what the government had provided. Can the Minister now confirm how large the shortfall now is? I think having looked at numbers, it's shortened.

Maybe she'll be able to give a bit more clarity. But if that money is not provided, if the gap were funded, this according to the OBR. By the way, if the gap were funded entirely from within the DfE £69 billion Budget, it would imply a 4.9% real fall in mainstream schools spending per pupil. And there is no spending review till 2829. So maybe she can give me some clarity on that. Let me repeat, there's no new funding till 2829. Can she give clarity which departments may be giving up their money for these reforms? I hope she can provide some of the answers to those questions I wasn't able to ask.

I'll be writing to her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Georgia Gould. Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful for the huge interest showed across this chamber in this critically important issue. in this critically important issue. And I think tonight we heard the voices of children and families voices of children and families from so many different MPs. And I really thank the efforts of of members of Parliament to, to listen
20:50
Georgia Gould Portrait Georgia Gould MP, Minister of State (Education) (Queen's Park and Maida Vale, Labour)
-
-
members of Parliament to, to listen to, to children and families, to bring their voices to me personally and into into the chamber. And I appreciate the Member for Farnham and Bordon for bringing this important debate and their long standing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I think we all heard the depth and strength of concern and the the agreement that the system at the moment is broken and not working for so many families. I don't have much time, so I'm not going to take interventions because I want to be able to answer these, these the points that have been put to me.

Too many children left without provision trying to. Parents trying to explain to their children what it feels like to to why they're not at school alongside their friends. Too many parents having to battle. And we've heard the phrase fight time and time again in this conversation. And I say to the hon. Member opposite and to to everyone in the chamber that I am really committed to working constructively and cross-party on this issue. It is too important to not take all views and to to work together.

So I really welcome opportunities to come and to talk to to individuals about the issues that have been raised in this debate, but I don't I won't apologise for taking longer to develop these reforms, because that time was spent talking to thousands of parents, young people, teachers around the country, and to make sure that their voices were embedded in what we put out for, for consultation. And I also make no apology for for taking time to transition into these reforms, as we heard from so many around this chamber, trust is low and it is really important we build this new system with children and families, but that doesn't mean that we are not acting now.

The investment that we have been talking about is going into our communities straight away, whether that's the 3.7 billion that we're already starting to invest in specialist places around the country, whether that's the 4 billion that we're investing into, the services we've talked about today, experts at hand. The educational psychologists, the speech and language therapists that will that will now be available to to local schools, or whether it's the inclusion mainstream fund that will be going directly into schools.

These are huge investments that this government is making. And to answer directly the point about the OBR, the OBR made those projections before they'd seen our reform plans, before they'd seen these these huge investments we're making, including new investment going in in 28, 29, as I know the hon. Member will have seen, and I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who's raised the importance of early intervention, making sure that we're putting as much support in as quickly as possible. So many families have told me if support had been available much quicker, their needs would not have escalated.

They wouldn't be out of education. They wouldn't have have needed to to leave their local schools. And also the importance of inclusion. And I've so powerfully heard from the member from Thurrock who who talked about why it's so critical that children with special educational needs and disabilities are at the heart of our education system. They have so much to offer, and every school should be an inclusive school. But that doesn't mean that we don't also need special schools. And that 3.7 billion I've talked about will be investing in new specialist places.

So to take the points from the the hon. Member for Farnham and boredom, which I think the first and most important is our intention in these reforms is to improve outcomes for children. That is our guiding principle. That is our. That is our number one outcome. He met the honourable mention hon. Member, mentioned the long waiting list that so many families are exposed to. And that is the point of these reforms putting in place educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and so many others that schools can draw down on and give children access to without a lengthy wait.

A battle for an EHC P, a diagnosis that support will be available as part of the mainstream system under our reform plans and really critically, education healthcare plans will remain and they will be available for for, for children who need them. But we know that too many children are forced to to apply to get an EHC because their needs are not being met in mainstream schools. And the vast majority or the majority of children with special educational needs and disabilities in our school system don't have any HCP.

They're on the register, and those are the children who are often being badly let down. And our reforms will extend rights for those children, including new statutory duties on schools to develop inclusion plans to develop individual support plans, new layers of support, targeted and targeted, plus plus new national standards and new duties on teacher training. And the hon. Member for Broxtowe talked powerfully about the importance of teacher training. Every single teacher trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Every class is accessible. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood talked, as ever, expertly about this issue, and we are really grateful for the the work of the committee and the huge amount of time they put in to to their report, and I wanted to address the the points that she raised about transition and accountability within the transition. So some safeguards that I think can reassure parents is that every child who is in a special school will remain in a special school, that we will build the new system before anyone transitions into that new system, and that somebody with an existing EHC if would either move on to an HCP or to an individual support plan, and that would be backed by the the tribunal.

There are lots of questions about individual support plans and and accountability. So Ofsted will be looking at individual support plans, will be developing a new complaints process with an independent role. And really importantly, if a family doesn't feel their needs are being met by the mainstream system, they will still be able to request a needs assessment and that will be backed by the tribunal. So there will still be that access to the tribunal, and the tribunal will remain an important part of the system.

But we don't want families to have to go to a tribunal. We want to deliver a system that really works, where their voices are put at the heart of decision making and where accountability doesn't sit on the shoulders of families, but it sits on us as the DfE, as the Department for health, as government, to hold local authorities to account. And there was a question about why are we going ahead with local and reform plans and asking councils to develop those plans? Because we are absolutely clear that councils need to deliver for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Today, as we heard from this chamber, there is too much failure and we are determined to hold councils to account. We are absolutely committed to a full consultation. We welcome comments on every aspect of these proposals, and I would really ask everyone in this chamber to to make sure that you're holding events, talking to your constituents, pointing them towards the the consultation, because this is a generational opportunity to change this system is families have been failed for too long, and it's only by listening to them that we will get this right.
20:57
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
Far too many of you and yours.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People need to check how the language they use Gregory Stafford to wind up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm sure you would agree with me that the speeches that we've heard today speeches that we've heard today have been wide ranging and passionate, and I want to thank all those who have spoken, all those those who have spoken, all those who unfortunately didn't manage to speak, but also the many members who supported this debate. I'm who supported this debate. I'm leading it, but plenty of members across the House supported this debate, and thanks to the backbench Business committee for doing so.

I think the one thing that united every speaker in this House was a clear desire to improve a system that currently is not working for young people in our constituencies, and we may disagree about the exact process to get there. But I think what I would say to the Minister is that there is nobody in this House who was expressing anything other than what they had heard from their own constituents, and that may be in some cases where they supported the government's proposals.

But I think we have to be honest that many, many of our constituents are raising the concerns that they have. And I say to the Minister, do not squander the opportunity that this government has to bring all of those people who raise the concerns. And I know there are antibodies from other members of the opposite. Whenever I open my mouth about anything. But I am passionate, I'm passionate about this issue. And I think together we on all sides of the House can improve what the government is doing and ensure that the legal protections remain whilst improving the system.

So I do hope that the Minister is able to. One answer a number of the many of the questions that hon. Members raised across the House on this issue that she wasn't able to answer at Dispatch Box in writing, but two, that she comes to assess the responses to the white paper with an open mind, looking to make sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that every child has a legal right to the education that he or she deserves. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion, say Paper as many of that opinion, say I and my own opinion say I of the contrary, no the ayes have it, the contrary, no the ayes have it, the ayes have it. If the front benches want to quickly shuffle over, they should do so now. should do so now. And should do so now. And colleagues could keep their private conversations outside the chamber.

We now come to motion number three relating to Business and Trade Committee Jessica Morden.
21:00
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the order papers that say I, I of the contrary, no the ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, no the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I now come to motion number four relating to Foreign Affairs Committee Jessica Morden. I beg.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many say, I. I I've gotten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper as many say, I. I I've gotten to know the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this house do now adjourn and I come to Steve Yemm on experiences and outcomes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for young people with cancer. Steve Yemm thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very grateful for the. Opportunity to secure this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opportunity to secure this important debate on the experiences and outcomes for young people with cancer. This is a subject that matters deeply to me in my role as parliamentary champion for the parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust and as an officer of the APPG for Cancer in Children and Young people, and as an issue that matters profoundly to my constituents in Mansfield, I'm regularly contacted by young people, by parents and by families whose lives have been turned upside down by a cancer diagnosis.

They write to me not just about treatment, but about their wider experience the fear, the uncertainty, the disruption to education and work and relationships. And they write because they want to be heard. And today, I hope that this House and indeed the government, will listen every few hours in the UK, a young person hears the words you have cancer, mostly with blood cancer, which includes leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma being the most common cancers amongst children, teenagers and young adults in the UK.

And the reality is stark more young people are getting. Cancer rates have risen by a quarter since the early 1990s, and they're projected to continue. Increase in cancer remains the leading cause of disease related death amongst teenagers and young adults in the UK. But even for those who survive, the impact can be lifelong, physically, emotionally and socially, especially when the right support is not there. And this is happening at a time when life is already tough for young people.

Many are facing economic uncertainty, struggling with mental health issues, worrying about their futures, a cancer diagnosis compounds all of that, often at the most formative stage in life. This month marks Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month, and it's right that we use this moment to shine a light on a group that is too often overlooked young people who fall between children's and adult services and whose needs are too often not fully recognised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're delighted to take an Gentleman. Madam Deputy Speaker First of all, can I commend the hon.
21:04
21:04
Steve Yemm Portrait Steve Yemm MP (Mansfield, Labour)
-
-
And I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, Before 1990, young people with cancer were treated either on a children's ward or alongside much older adults with very little recognition of their distinct needs. The Teenage Cancer Trust changed that. They pioneered specialist care for 13 to 24 year olds, creating dedicated units within the NHS, staffed by expert nurses and youth workers, and designed to support not just treatment but the whole person.

And today there are 28 units across the UK helping young people receive that care alongside others of their own age in environments that protect their independence, their dignity and their mental health. Because cancer at that age is not just a medical condition, it disrupts their education, relationships, identity, and plans for the future. And as we know that when young people receive this kind of age appropriate care, their experiences and outcomes improve significantly. But only around half of young people currently benefit from this type of specialist support.

And one of the most critical issues facing young people with cancer is the speed of diagnosis. Unlike many adult cancers, those affecting young people are often rare. They cannot be prevented, and blood cancers, as mentioned earlier, is the most common cancer for young people. It doesn't have the same focus or understanding as other types of cancers. That means that early diagnosis is absolutely crucial. Yet too many young people face delays, awareness of cancer symptoms among young people also remains worryingly low.

Fewer than half of 18 to 24 year olds can identify key warning signs. Things like unexplained lumps, pain, tiredness or significant weight changes. And in Mansfield, I've heard directly from families about the consequences of that lack of awareness. Multiple GP visits, uncertainty, delays before being referred for diagnosis. Indeed, nearly half of young young people with cancer report attending three or more GP appointments before being referred. This experience was echoed by the family of 11 year old Joel from Mansfield, who in 2024 sadly passed away after a nine month battle with acute myeloid leukaemia.

In his case, he made four initial GP visits, presenting a range of symptoms which were dismissed as simply bruising from football or a laundry detergent allergy. After the symptoms worsened, it took a second opinion from another GP and an emergency A&E visit before being diagnosed correctly. It's important also to recognise that these delays are not just clinical, they're often psychological. Evidence shows that waiting two months or more for a diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of anxiety and depression.

So I want to ask the Minister, how will the government ensure that teenagers and young adults are not simply funnelled through paediatric diagnostic pathways, but are recognised as a distinct group with distinct needs, and what steps will be taken to raise awareness, both amongst young people themselves and across primary care of the signs and symptoms of cancer. In this particular age group. The second issue I want to address is psychological support. A cancer diagnosis at any age is devastating, but for a young person, it's often overwhelming.

They face fears about survival, about treatment, about their futures, their education is interrupted, their friendships are disrupted, their sense of identity can be shaken. It's deeply concerning. And studies, including research from young Lives versus cancer who provide specialist social care support, show that 90% of young people undergoing cancer treatment experience anxiety, 83% report loneliness, 70% experience

**** Possible New Speaker ****

depression and nearly half experience panic attacks. When I get where.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I get where. I'm going to continue, if you don't mind, in view of the time, don't mind, in view of the time, they're not marginal figures. It's an overwhelming majority. And yet, an overwhelming majority. And yet, despite clear NHS commitments that every young person should have every young person should have access to mental health support, provision remains inconsistent. It's in effect a postcode lottery. Five years ago, the Teenage Cancer Trust warned of this in their not OK report.

But today progress remains limited and in Mansfield, families have raised with me the difficulties of accessing timely mental health support during and after treatment. The family of Aly, a 23 year old from Mansfield who was diagnosed with a rare lung cancer at the age of 20 after initially being reassured that nothing was wrong, made this point to me, she underwent the removal of an entire lung, but what followed was a lack of clear aftercare and support, no structured rehabilitation and limited guidance on recovery and ongoing difficulty navigating care.

Her experience highlights not just the physical impact of cancer treatment, but the confusion, anxiety and gaps in support that too many young people face once treatment ends. And so I'd also like to ask the Minister what funding and timelines are in place to ensure that every young person with cancer can access specialist psychological support not just during treatment, but for at least two years afterwards. The third issue is access to clinical trials. Clinical trials are essential to improving outcomes and developing new treatments, but teenagers and young adults are significantly less likely to take part compared to other age groups.

This is not because they do not wish to. It's because the system doesn't work for them. They're often excluded due to age restrictions. Too old for paediatric trials and too young for adult ones. They're more likely to have rare cancers, meaning that fewer trials are available. And referring again to Joel from Mansfield, the family asked his doctors about opportunities to participate in a clinical trial. But we're told that they weren't any. And even when trials do exist, information can be difficult to find, both for clinicians and for parents.

The ambition has been clear 50% participation by 2025, but again, progress has been slow. No young person should miss out on a potentially life saving opportunity just because of their age. So I'd also like to ask the Minister, how will the government measure and report progress on improving access to clinical trials for young people, and what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure delivery? And finally, I want to address the issue of data. Too often, young people with cancer are effectively invisible in the system.

Data is not consistently collected, not consistently reported, and not always broken down in a way that allows us to understand their experiences. Without good data, it's hard to identify inequalities. Without it, we cannot target improvements, and without it, we cannot ensure accountability. So I'd also like to ask what steps the Minister might take to improve the collection and publication of age specific data on cancer outcomes for teenagers and young adults. Madam Deputy Speaker, As I begin to conclude the issues I've spoken about today mattered deeply to my constituents in Mansfield.

They matter to the young people facing cancer today across the country. They matter also to the families supporting them, and they matter to all of us who believe that no young person should face this disease without the care and support that they deserve. The evidence is clear when young people receive timely diagnosis, age appropriate care, access to psychological support and opportunities to participate in clinical trials, their outcomes improve. Teenage Cancer Trust has shown what's possible, but they cannot do it alone.

If we're serious about improving outcomes, then the commitment to the National Cancer Plan must be delivered with urgency, with funding and with accountability. And we need to improve awareness, we need to remove barriers, and we must ensure that young people are no longer overlooked or underserved. So I'll close with a simple request to the Minister. Would she commit alongside the Secretary of State, who promised me personally he'd do so to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit, to hear directly from young people, to understand their experiences, and to see firsthand the difference that specialist age appropriate care can make.

Because I think if we truly listen to these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people, we'll know exactly what needs to change. Thank you. I call the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the. Minister Sharon Hodgson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I want to start by thanking my hon. Friend, the Member for Mansfield for securing this very Mansfield for securing this very important debate. As we heard, this is during the awareness month for teenage and young adults with teenage and young adults with cancer, and I want to thank him for his very important work on the all party group on cancer in children and young people, as well as his role as the parliamentary champion for Teenage Cancer Trust.

And I'm also grateful for my hon. Friend for his invitation. And he's just made for me to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit, which I would be
21:17
Sharon Hodgson Portrait Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Washington and Gateshead South, Labour)
-
-
very pleased to accept. I also want to pay tribute to some of the to pay tribute to some of the fantastic charities that he and I have both worked with Teenage Cancer Trust, as he's mentioned, Cancer Trust, as he's mentioned, but also young lives versus Cancer and Children with cancer UK, to name just a few. They supported us name just a few. They supported us to write the National Cancer Plan and now the plan is published. They will play a vital role in its delivery.

Madam Deputy Speaker, cancer remains a leading cause of death for young people under the age of 14, and I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for those children and young people who have their whole life ahead of them to hear the words you have cancer. And not to mention those mums and dads who go through the nightmare of seeing their child suffer. It is true that 78% of children with cancer between 8 and 15 said they were very well looked after by the NHS, but I won't be satisfied until that number reaches 100%.

There are so many areas we must do better, particularly when it comes to patient experience and the hon. Member laid out quite clearly. I feel in his opening remarks what some of those areas were. So I will go through them. One at a time. So thanks to my predecessor, my excellent predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, we now have a plan that includes a dedicated chapter on children and young people setting out how the government will address their unique needs, and we will begin to shift the dial on detecting, diagnosing and treating cancers in young people.

And we will continue to listen to young people and their families through our Patient Experience panel. Ensuring lived experience sits at the heart of everything that we do. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate the Member for Mansfield for securing this important debate. He's been a champion on this issue since he came to this place. The Minister mentioned patient experience, and one of the things that has been one of the things that has been brought to me and my surgeries is after the often intensive clinical process of a young person going process of a young person going through a cancer diagnosis, getting treatment and getting through the other side.

That period of post of other side. That period of post of the all clear is an intense period of social isolation, isolation and significant mental health support is required to get them back into integrated into school or college or work. Would you be prepared to meet with me and and those young people that have been through that experiences, how we can improve the system so that they can integrate into normal life as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I want to thank the hon. Member for Redditch for that very important intervention. And I will also commit to meeting with him and the young people he mentions. Perhaps we could do it in coordination with. When I meet with coordination with. When I meet with the Teenage Cancer Trust and do a visit to the Teenage Cancer Trust, visit to the Teenage Cancer Trust, I hope that there would be plenty of opportunity to meet with young people during that visit.

So yes, to both of those requests. So one of the things that we heard from the children and Young People's Cancer Taskforce was about how many parents have been forced to cut back on food and other expenses to pay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For their travel to treatment. But when a child is diagnosed with cancer, their families only focus cancer, their families only focus should be on helping them recover and getting them well, not on whether they can afford the petrol or the bus fare to get to their or the bus fare to get to their next appointment. And that is why, through the plan, we are investing up to £10 million a year to support with travel costs, and this fund will make the world of difference will make the world of difference to to parents because it doesn't matter what you earn, if your child needs treatment, we will help you to get them there.

We are also transforming the experience of care in hospital, making sure that every child and young person with cancer has access to high quality, age appropriate psychological support and. And the hon. Member for Mansfield and Redditch have both asked questions on that. So that support should be from diagnosis, through treatment and beyond. And I'll take on board the honourable, my hon. Friend from Mansfield for his request for that to be for up to two years and post treatment as well.

So this includes early referrals. He spoke about how important it is to have those early referrals to teenage and young adult multidisciplinary teams, with youth support coordinators on hand to help young people navigate this huge journey that they're going to have to go on the emotional impact of cancer alongside challenges around education, perhaps fertility and their long term wellbeing. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to diagnosing cancer in children and young people faster to ensure that they get the treatment and care that they need as soon as possible.

As my hon. Friend set out in his speech, this speed is of the utmost importance. So we will remove the barriers that stand in the way of timely diagnosis by making sure young people's needs are embedded into the design of neighbourhood health services. Just before recess, my hon. Friend the Minister for state for care announced the first 27 of 251 stop health shops that will be up and running next year, with 120 planned by the end of this Parliament.

These offer a new model of care, as set out in our ten year plan for health, with better access to specialist support and the safe rollout of AI. Many colleagues, not least my hon. Friend for Mitcham and Morden, have been pushing the government for a long time to go further on research. That is why we are making research into improving outcomes for children, especially into kinder and more gentle treatments and national research priority. So the department will take a more joined up, joined up approach to research priorities using data as my hon.

Friend. Urged us to do so. Efforts are focussed where they can make the greatest difference, and we will break down the barriers that prevent young people from accessing clinical trials, particularly those who do not often qualify for paediatric or adult trials. By requiring clinical justifications for age limits and while we strengthen data collection across the cancer pathway, also, Madam Deputy Speaker, In the next few months, the department will establish a reformed National Cancer Board once a co-chair has been appointed to oversee and monitor the implementation of our cancer plan, and the board will include a dedicated lead for children and young people's cancer, ensuring that this work is driven forward with clear accountability and focus.

They will make sure we are staying on track, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will play his part in that too, because we on these benches believe all children and young people, no matter their circumstances, deserve support to achieve the very best outcomes in life, but most importantly, to live fulfilling and happy lives. So alongside our work on cancer, this government is combating the drivers of ill health in children's lives such as poor diets, damp homes, dirty air and a lack of opportunity.

We've abolished the two child benefit cap, taking half a million children out of destitution, shame and hunger. We've brought in free breakfast clubs and extended free school meals, so kids start school with hungry minds, not hungry bellies. Also, the soft drinks industry levy a warm home discount that reaches millions more. Generational ban on smoking Awaabs law. Cutting pollution and cleaning up the air that our children breathe. And this year I'm determined to do everything I can for children and young people with cancer.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have my foot on the accelerator, and I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend in the months ahead on this work. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Here. Here, here. The question is, is house do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, is house do now adjourn. As many say, I. I the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order,
13:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-

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