Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We begin with a Select Committee statement. Alex Sobel will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill”, HC 789, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members will put questions on the subject of the statement and Alex Sobel will respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.

The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.

Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.

Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that

“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—

physical or psychological—

“to, another person.”

The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.

The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.

Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.

Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.

Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.

The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.

Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.

The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.

The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.

Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

Free School Meals

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

The new entitlement is fully funded and will support schools to deliver nutritious, high-quality meals that meet school food standards to over half a million additional pupils. As I said, we will set out further details on funding as part of the child poverty strategy to be published later this year.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I notice that not one Reform MP has turned up to hear an announcement that benefits so many working-class kids. I first joined a governing body of a primary school in my constituency in 1986 and served for 37 years. From Thatcher to Sunak, I saw what was going on in our schools, and I never saw need like that under the last Conservative Government, so this is a very welcome statement indeed. But even this measure and all the other measures that I understand the Government are considering will not result in fewer children being in poverty in 2029 than are in poverty now unless we remove the two-child benefit cap. I want to add my voice to those who have already asked the Minister to assure us that the cap is being looked at.

[Stephen Morgan]

We know that too many life chances are scarred by poverty, which affects children up and down our country. Levels of poverty have increased by 900,000 since 2010. It is worth saying that this initiative is extra money above and beyond what already goes into schools. As I mentioned, the child poverty strategy will be published later this year and may conclude on the issues that my hon. Friend describes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

If we are to improve the situation that far too many children face in relation to special educational needs and disabilities, and to meet demand, which we know is outstripping supply, it is vital that areas work together in partnership. That is why we very much recommend that local authorities work together with health partners and local schools to solve some of those challenges together. The Department for Education will work closely with them to make sure that every child gets the education they deserve.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

A National Audit Office report published in October highlights that special educational needs places in independent schools can cost two and a half times as much as in state schools. Does the Minister agree that if we are to ensure that children get the support they need in future, we will have to assist local authorities in expanding their number of special needs places?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We know that the situation needs reform, and that we need much greater capacity within mainstream schools so that children with special educational needs and disabilities can be educated alongside their peers where that is the appropriate place for them to be, but also so that special school places are available where needed. That is why we have put in £740 million of additional investment to support mainstream schools to expand their specialist provision.

SEND Provision: East of England

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[James Wild]

No; the point I am making is that there are children in schools who will be hit with a very unfair tax of 20%—a charge that their parents will have to pay. That seems to be completely disregarded by the Labour party, which is disappointing, to say the least.

To conclude, the last Government set out a comprehensive package of reform, after a lot of work with the sector. During a debate here in September, the Minister said that the Labour Government were determined to fix the SEND system—alleluia to that. I hope that we will hear much more today about the Minister’s plans for practical action to be taken, rather than her talking about the last 14 years.

The Minister also referred on that occasion to the importance of working together. I will abuse my position to remind her of an invitation that has gone to her and the Education Secretary to join Norfolk MPs and members of Norfolk County Council who are coming to Westminster tomorrow, specifically to talk about SEND. I helped to push for that meeting and I hope that the Minister might be able to come along, even briefly, to hear about some of the challenges that we face. Ultimately, every Member here wants to ensure that children and families in their constituency get the support to realise their potential. I look forward to hearing her comments.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I would like to call the mover of the motion at two minutes to 4. If you can remember that, Minister, you will do me a big favour.

SEND Provision: Somerset

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I will call Sarah Dyke to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be the opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND services in Somerset.

I do apologise for being late, Mr Efford. I am slightly out of breath, but it is an honour to serve under you in the Chair. Before I start, I draw my fellow Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a sitting Somerset councillor.

The current special educational needs and disabilities system is broken. Those with experience all report that it is far too adversarial, pitting families against councils and schools. The recent Isos Partnership report, produced in partnership with the County Councils Network and the Local Government Association, found that all stakeholders are acting reasonably, but are being failed by the system.

It is important to set out why the system is broken and the challenges that it faces. More children are being identified as having SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—than ever before. In January 2022, 14,000 children in Somerset were identified as having SEND; 4,000 of those children had education, health and care plans and the other 10,000 had some form of SEND support. Somerset is far from unique; SEND numbers have risen nationally. Since reforms to the system under the Children and Families Act 2014, the number of EHCPs has risen by 140%. More children have also had their needs left unmet in mainstream educational settings, a fact that places more emphasis on specialist schools.

Between 2014-15 and 2023-24, there has been a 60% increase in SEND placements in state-funded schools. Somerset Council officials have told me that the linchpin for the system failing has been the inability of mainstream education to cope with the sheer increase in demand within such a short time. The reality is that under the previous Conservative Government, schools and councils faced a huge real-terms cut in funding, which has undoubtedly had a negative impact on the provision that mainstream schools can provide.

The reliance on independent specialist schools has also increased pressure on councils. Somerset Council funding for children with EHCPs in mainstream settings is about £12 million a year and, despite having a quarter as many children in independent schools, the cost is more than double and, in addition, costs the council over £30 million per year. The difference in expenditure between children with EHCPs in independent schools and those in state-funded schools is vast. A typical child assessed as band 3 in a mainstream school will get £13,359 of total funding, whereas an independent school place can cost up to £100,000, plus £50,000 in transport costs. That is more than 10 times what a child with similar needs in a mainstream school is getting.

That brings me on to another element of failure. Even though the Government are investing more than ever in SEND provision, it is still significantly less than the actual spend by local authorities. Government funding in the high needs block allocation has risen from £4.8 billion in 2014-15 to £9.2 billion in 2024-25, but analysis has shown that the actual figure for high needs spending by local authorities is £890 million more in 2023-24 and could rise to more than £1 billion over the next two years. Somerset Council’s high needs forecast was evaluated by Newton Europe, which concluded that by 2027-28 the council would be carrying a formal deficit of £160 million. The statutory override on the debts means that they are kept off the books, but half of council leaders surveyed recently said that they would be insolvent in three years if that was removed.

The funding is also unequal across the country, leading to a postcode lottery in provision. Somerset Council is part of the f40 group, which includes the poorest funded councils in the country. Somerset will receive less than £8,000 gross dedicated grant funding per mainstream pupil in 2024-25—more than £5,000 less than the best-funded local authority in England, illustrating a massive disparity.

Rural areas such as Somerset also face huge costs in home to school transport due to the sheer size of the county. The average cost to Somerset Council of transport for a child with SEND is £10,000 per year, while some individual transport arrangements cost the council over £60,000 a year. Despite that investment and support, the outcomes for children with SEND have failed to improve over the last decade since the reforms in 2014.

I am inundated with casework from desperate parents who are at breaking point over their child’s being unable to receive the education they deserve. One parent from Wincanton told me that their bright, intelligent child deserves to be cared for rather than ignored by the system following what was a harrowing experience. Even though their child has gone through the SEND system and has a placement in a specialist school, their needs are still not being met properly. To summarise, there is more demand than ever before and the system is costing more than ever before, but it is failing to deliver for some of the country’s most vulnerable children.

I turn my attention now to a consequence of the failure of SEND services in Somerset. About 2,000 children in Somerset receive a home education. Although the council believes some of the children are receiving a home education for an entirely legitimate reason, many are being forced into home schooling as the child could not cope in school. Issues arising from a forced home education are twofold.

When a child moves to receive education at a place other than a school, they are automatically deleted from the school roll, resulting in the council’s being unable to receive the dedicated grant funding for that child. Somerset Council estimates that that is costing the education system between £8 million and £10 million a year. It is almost impossible to retrieve that money to create space for the child in the system once they are off-rolled. That then creates a one-way exit from the system unless an EHCP is granted for the child at some point in the future. In any case, it would be a very slow and arduous process, because we know that nearly half of EHCPs take longer than the 20-week statutory period to be granted.

The tribunal system is far too traumatic and stressful for parents. While 98% of tribunal cases find in the parents’ favour, that does not change the reality that councils are struggling to provide sufficient and appropriate services. For parents who do not know how to navigate the tribunal process, it can be even more turbulent for them and their child. Somerset is struggling with the issue more than many other places across the country.

Somerset has the third-highest rate of school exclusions and the second highest rate of suspensions in England for children with SEND. Those exclusions and suspensions are primarily for persistent disruptive behaviour. Even where a child has not been identified with SEND, it has often subsequently been discovered that there is an undiagnosed need. That leaves them excluded from the system and fighting for a diagnosis and an EHCP in order to get back to school, where they should be, and receive the education that they deserve.

It is not surprising to learn that there is also a detrimental impact on parents. There are around 60,000 economically inactive adults in Somerset, and the council has reason to believe that at least some of those people have been forced to give up work because they care for their child at home. We can often forget the important childcare aspect of education. The impact of a breakdown in a child’s education can have a wide range of consequences; sadly, in some cases, it can lead to a family breakdown. We need to undertake work on a national level to get to grips with the scale of the problem. I know the Government are proposing a register of children not in school, to understand the issues better, but we still need to create better routes to get children back into school.

Somerset council is supporting efforts to bring in a more flexible education system that would work to support children at home and to rebuild their ability to enter the system, but they need national support.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate to Westminster Hall. I have only been the Member for Bridgwater for two months and already have many letters from parents concerned about the system in Somerset for SEND. It is clear that the system is too adversarial and not working correctly. I support her plea for Somerset to be more generously funded—not more than others, but brought up to the average of the country.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Is this an intervention on the hon. Member or a speech?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the most pressing problem is delays in the system, particularly in making decisions, in creating an EHC plan and in assessing what the contents of that plan would be?

Funded Childcare

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston]

Yes, and I hope that the hon. Lady will do so. We have taken an extra-cautious approach on this. A particular group of parents were affected and rather than just write to them, we have written to a much broader group of parents: everybody whose reconfirmation window goes from middle of February to the end of March. So no parent should lose out as a result of this issue and she should get in touch with me immediately if those parents are encountering any problems.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The businesses involved in providing childcare need to be able to plan ahead. The Minister may say, “Everything will be fine in April. There may be some problems down the road, but we are confident we can iron them out,” but that really is not going to be get people to invest in leases from premises and all sorts of things that those who run childcare businesses are going to need to commit to, so will he give us a bit more detail? He says he is confident that this is going to meet the need, but 700,000 children are going to join the scheme, according to the Government’s own figures. Where are those childcare providers going to get the information they need in order to be confident that they can invest to go forward?

[David Johnston]

We are in monthly contact with local authorities and at least monthly contact with providers about this. Some local authorities do take a long time to publish their rates. We are looking at that, because we have provided the information and the funding that we need to, and we do not think it is right for providers in the sector to be waiting right up until 31 March to get that information. So we are looking at what we can do on that. Having said that, some local authorities have already confirmed their rates and the vast majority will do so in the coming weeks.

School Building Closures

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I am delighted that St Leonard’s now has a mix of face-to-face and remote learning—it has done a fantastic job to enable that, working with local partners. On school rebuilding, we are making those decisions with the project directors we have on site at St Leonard’s. We will consider first the short-term and medium-term mitigations, and then when we should do the rebuilding. We have an MPs surgery later for anybody in the House to raise specific cases that they are interested in; I shall be there with my Ministers and officials, and we are happy to go into detail on any case and give Members the latest. It is still an evolving situation, but we will be there and will support St Leonard’s as much as possible to ensure that children are safely educated there.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I am sure that all the people the Secretary of State told to get off their backsides will be very sympathetic to the fact that she needed to go on holiday while this crisis was in progress.

On revenue and costs, the Secretary of State has itemised a number of things that the Government will cover, but schools face a vast range of potential revenue costs, including surveyors and other costs. Is she saying that all costs relating to RAAC will be covered?

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes, all the costs that the hon. Gentleman mentions are reasonable costs. Also, I am sure that he is delighted that all the pupils at St Thomas More Catholic Comprehensive School are in face-to-face education.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about my working, I am always happy to work, no matter where I am, and I always have been throughout my very long career.

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Education Settings

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. To put the scale into context, there are 22,500 schools in the country and 156 have been confirmed with RAAC. Of those that are suspected, which will go through the survey process, probably a third or less will be confirmed with RAAC. So it is important that we put that into context. We have taken tough decisions and the right action. The vast majority of parents, teachers and children will not be impacted by RAAC in our schools.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

What has been exposed is how close the Government were prepared to go to catastrophe in one of our schools before they took last-minute action this summer, just before schools went back. A school in my constituency has had to close substantial parts of its buildings. A letter from the DFE, following their discussions, says:

“As officials discussed with”

the trust

“the immediate actions should be treated as a short-term measure and you should already be developing a long-term plan for remediation of RAAC panels in your building.”

The next paragraph goes on:

“Please note the building survey in June 2023 was carried out as part of the DFE’s central RAAC Assessment Programme. As such, it should be considered in addition to, rather than in place of, any professional advice that you seek.”

Just exactly how will the Government determine what they will pay for? What work will they accept? Will it be the professional judgment of the people the schools engage, or will it be the surveyors from the eight companies that the Secretary of State has just spoken about? How will these matters be resolved going forward, because the devil in these things is always in the detail?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State answers, we are not doing very well on the short short questions, are we? Of course, it is up to colleagues. If the House decides that it wants to vote at midnight tonight, that is fine by me, but I think that it is probably not the consensus, so please let us take some action now: everybody look at what they have written down and cut it in half.

Pupil Roll Numbers and School Closures: London

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) not just on securing this debate, but on her outstanding opening speech.

I will start with some local pleading. The Minister may be aware of the Avery Hill site, the former university campus in my constituency that was purchased to build the new Harris Academy school. The Minister’s officials do not need to rush; I am not expecting answers today. [Interruption.] Oh, they came prepared—well done! The Minister will recall—I may have written to him in the past—that my concern is about the provision of places, but the Government decided to go ahead with the scheme. It is now on hold, because we lost the contractor for whatever reason—we need not go into that today. I understand that the Department is reviewing schemes such as the Harris Academy. School rolls suggest that we have surplus places for the foreseeable future in Greenwich. My council reports a 10% surplus in year 7 places, and London Councils predicts that between now and 2027, demand for those places will go down by another 2.5%. If the Government are minded not to go ahead with that scheme, may I please have a discussion with the Minister about the future of the site? It is a very important one for my constituency.

On the issue of school rolls generally, I make the same points as everybody else. Because we fund schools by headcount, the impact of falling school rolls can be considerable; as hon. Members have said, it still costs the same to run the school. As one of my headteachers, who does not have a falling roll but has financial difficulties over the next three years, wrote to me:

“This is mainly due to increased salary and pension contributions of all staff, a significant increase in the number of pupils with complex needs who require additional adult support. We have over 20 children out of 400 who have Education Health Care Plans”.

That number is increasing and the needs of those children are becoming more acute. Schools are therefore facing financial difficulties because of factors other than falling rolls.

When a school roll falls, it is not necessarily the case that the costs for the school fall, and we need to have some flexibility around that. I will not elaborate on that, because many people have made excellent points on the issue; what I want to mention is that a big proportion of schools’ costs is staffing costs, which makes it difficult to be flexible when school rolls fall. The Government should not ignore that.

The other, wider issue for us in London is the cost of housing. Affordable housing that families can live in is being hollowed out in central London. That is an issue not just for school rolls, but for the economy. There are people being priced out of London who are essential for certain types of job. We have to address the issue of creating truly affordable rented social housing back where it used to exist, in places such as Southwark where I used to live. I used to play football with friends who went to Archbishop Tenison’s, because Lambeth is not far from Walworth. I remember those schools well, but the places we used to live in no longer exist.

That is the problem that we are facing in central London. We have privatised the provision of social housing. We have relied on private developers to deliver on social housing through planning gain. When we stopped local authorities building houses, we slowed the provision of social houses. Against the loss of those houses being sold, we have hollowed out large parts of London, which has very high land values for social housing. It is a problem not just for schools but for our economy, and it is something that we must address.

The Mayor is doing everything he can. Local authorities are trying to do as much as they can with the resources they have, but this requires a Government willing to step in and make the serious change we need if we are to address population decline in central London. The birth rate is down in London, but it is not down in the rest of the country; I urge the Government to look at the reasons behind that.

I will finish by urging the Government to consider the facts that everyone has set out in this excellent debate. I also ask the Minister to contact me about the Avery Hill site, if he is not going to go ahead with the school.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I welcome the Murphy family—hello! Co-production is incredibly important; that is how we have designed our response to the SEN paper. We will continue to consult at every opportunity.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We know from leaked Government documents that there is a £13 billion backlog in school repairs. Some cases are deemed to pose a risk to life. Is the Schools Minister aware of any school buildings that are at risk of collapse?

[Nick Gibb]

We have been conducting some of the biggest surveys of the fabric of school buildings in this country, which is why we are able to identify risks in our schools. Whenever we are informed about a risk to a school, we take immediate action, which can mean that certain buildings in a school are no longer used. We then send in surveyors, specialists and experts, and remedial action is put in place. We take these issues extremely seriously.