Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9 July 2025

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.

When we come to this place as representatives of our communities, it is our job to hold the Government to account for things that really matter. I must admit that when I entered Parliament I never thought that planning would be something I would lead on, but for my community it is so important because it impacts their daily lives all the time. I do not go through a week without someone raising a planning concern with me, so I thought it would be useful to have a debate yet again on the importance of neighbourhood plans. First, I will say a little about the national context of neighbourhood plans and their roles and why they matter to me and my community.

As a country, we know we need to deliver more housing—both sides of the House believe that. The Conservatives and Labour pledged 150,000 houses in their manifestos and Liberal Democrats pledged 180,000. But the Liberal Democrats who campaigned against me locally have blamed the Government under both the Conservatives and now Labour for a build, build, build agenda, campaigning against local housing despite the figure in their manifesto being far higher. Here is where the national divides from the local, which is really important.

Before the Minister makes his prepared speech about 14 years of what the last Government could or should have done, I should say that since I was elected I have raised many planning issues, had debates on this topic and lobbied from the Back Benches to try to deliver change, because the planning system does need to change. Despite a change in Government, we are still struggling to deliver the houses—we have only to look at what the Chancellor said in her Budget speech:

“Changes to the national planning policy framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the next five years, taking us within touching distance of…1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 951.]

I am no mathematician, but that is 200,000 short and deals only with the UK when the Labour manifesto was to deliver in England.

On top of that, the Government have brought in changes, but they make my community feel hard done by. The national statistics and changes to the national planning policy framework show that Hinckley and Bosworth’s housing target has to rise by 59%. With the boundary changes, I take in some of north-west Leicestershire, which has to rise by 74%. We are prepared to build our fair share of houses, but it sticks in the throat when we see Leicester city dropping by 31%.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because that is not just happening in his local community. Does he agree that we see the same thing right across the country? The same is happening in Birmingham, where the housing target is going down, yet in places such as Aldridge-Brownhills it is going up by some 27%, with no infrastructure and no brownfield remediation funding to support it.

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. That is why I wanted this debate, and many colleagues are here to raise that exact point.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south-west the house building target for Somerset has risen by 41%, but in nearby Bristol, recently controlled by the Labour party, it has gone down by 11%?

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising yet another point. I am sure we could go round the House and get examples of city areas having housing targets go down, whereas countryside areas have them go up. We know we need more houses, and everyone must take their fair share, but we have brownfield sites that need redevelopment and already have the infrastructure in place. The last Government chose to prioritise those sites for housing, because they are connected and have the amenities that the local population needs. That makes a lot of sense. I look forward to this Government explaining their decision.

Neighbourhood plans were brought in under the Localism Act 2011, to give local communities the chance to shape what their community looks like.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Neighbourhood plans give local communities a voice. They know their areas better than anybody else. With this withdrawal of funding, the Government are basically saying that they know better. People will no longer have a voice or a say in their area, which is devastating for local communities.

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is spot on. In the planning system, there is a constant feeling that things are being done to people, not with them. The idea of localism and neighbourhood plans was to fight that. We know that local plans deliver more housing with neighbourhood plans, because the neighbourhood chooses where it goes, so it is in keeping with what the local village or parish wants. I will come on to that, because that is the key point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I told him beforehand that I am not speaking today and will only make an intervention because neighbourhood plans specifically apply to England. In Northern Ireland, community planning partnerships bring together public services, residents and businesses, but they do not directly determine specific planning decisions. Does he agree that planning applications could be passed quicker through greater integration with the public and that we should look at a UK-wide strategy? He has lots of wisdom and knowledge, and he has explained this issue for all our benefit today. Does he agree that that might be a way forward?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Can I check the hon. Gentleman’s wellbeing, as he is not making a speech today? Is he fine and dandy? [Laughter.]

[Dr Evans]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For someone who is not speaking, he articulates his point very well. He makes a really important point: different parts of the UK have a different approach, and there should be shared learning. Joining up community hubs is really important, especially in rural areas, where there are limited numbers of sports fields, doctors, shops and schools. The ability to bring businesses and the community together is good not only for the Government, so that they can deliver the housing, but for the local populace, to better understand and buy into what is being delivered. That is the whole point of neighbourhood plans.

At the end of March 2025, the Government were aware of 1,800 neighbourhood plans being in place. The Locality website states that over 2,400 communities have initiated neighbourhood plans and over 1,000 plans have been successful at referendum. CPRE says that 5,800 local green spaces have been designated in neighbourhood plans, showing that local communities are deciding what is best for them. That is all well and good, but why are these plans important and are they making any tangible difference? An assessment of the impact of neighbourhood plans in England for the University of Reading in May 2020 showed that

“Neighbourhood planning’s contribution to housing supply can be significant. Neighbourhood plans which are allocating housing sites are providing sites for an average additional to local plan allocation 39 units per neighbourhood plan.”

I like to think of this in terms of percentage gains, as the Sky cycling team did. These are huge percentage gains in local communities, which go on to choose to have this housing. We know that these plans will deliver about 11% more houses, and they have community buy-in, which is fundamental to getting people on board to say they will take more housing. That is why we need these plans. However, the Government announced last month that the funding is stopping.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The village of London Colney in my constituency is under siege from top-down housing targets, with a huge development being dumped on the border by the neighbouring local authority and an enormous rail freight terminal the size of 480 football pitches. My local residents in London Colney want their voice to be heard on the location and type of homes, but after three years of having access to the locality budget in developing a neighbourhood plan, the parish council has been told that there is no funding left to finish that plan. Does the hon. Member agree that where local parishes have made significant progress, funding should be reinstated so that they can complete those plans?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Lady makes a vociferous defence of her area; actually, she could have been speaking about my constituency in Leicestershire, which suffers all those things. The only thing I would say is that in my constituency we fought the national rail freight hub, won and pushed it back. The population was very pleased about that, but that speaks to people’s engagement and what they can do. The concern that we have to raise with the Government is about what happens when the funding stops. As I will say later, we need to understand where the Government stand on neighbourhood plans. Do they support them? Do they want them to be taken away? Do they want to see them wither? Will they strengthen them? The Opposition’s argument is that strengthening them would deliver the housing that people want in the way they want it.

On the funding that is stopping, Locality—the membership organisation that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned to deliver support services to neighbourhood forums to prepare their neighbourhood plans—has announced that it cannot proceed with new neighbourhood planning support services from 2025, and it has until the end of March 2026 to complete all existing technical support packages agreed with MHCLG. It believes that

“it will be difficult for some groups to progress their plans…we are not able to support the Champions Network and other learning and development opportunities”.

The National Association of Local Councils said:

“We are bitterly disappointed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) decision to stop funding for the neighbourhood planning support programme…This decision is a significant setback for localism and the highly successful neighbourhood planning initiative”.

CPRE nationally says that that it is

“concerned about the government’s decision to end support for preparing and updating neighbourhood plans, as this is likely to lead to planning decisions becoming less responsive to the needs and aspirations of local communities.”

That is the rub: it feels like a slap in the face for local communities that want to take on the responsibility of making change. That is often done by volunteers who do not have technical experience but aspire to change their area for the better. That is why it hurts.

This is not just some nebulous concept that we discuss down here in Whitehall and Westminster. My constituency is a primary example that is living this out. We do not have an up-to-date local plan under the Liberal Democrat borough council—this has been ongoing for six years—or an up-to-date five-year land supply. The Liberal Democrats’ local campaign says, “Stop building,” but the national campaign says, “We need to go even further than the Labour and Conservative pledges.”

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the housing debate is about not just the number of homes but who determines where they should be built. He continues to point to the Liberal Democrats, but I gently remind him that our policy is not just about numbers, but about having a bottom-up approach whereby local authorities work out the homes they need in their local area, in contrast to the top-down approach pursued by his former Government and the current Labour Government.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out; I hope she will get in contact with her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to make that exact point. They could take more control if they had an up-to-date local plan and learned from their neighbours in North West Leicestershire—part of which is now in my constituency—which does have a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, and is making the best of that because it is able to take in business rates and turn that into a positive. The community chooses where development goes and has control over it. The mechanism is there, and I have been raising this issue with the last Government and this Government.

I am keen to ensure that the Government are able to kick local decision making in the right direction to prevent failings. Neighbourhood plans are the protective mechanism that can deal with that. I argued with the last Government, and will argue with this Government, that neighbourhood plans should have more weight, especially where there is no up-to-date local plan, because that would do exactly what the hon. Lady is asking for. They allow communities to have infrastructure and amenities, in keeping with the their heritage and environment, without top-down speculative developments that place 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 houses on top of them. Communities just will not swallow that. That is the key and why I secured this debate.

Let me continue with the example of my constituency. We now have the prospect of devolution, with 21 councils getting a legal invite to change the way in which they structure themselves. I am not sure about other Members, but if I got a “legal invite” from the court, I would not ignore it. This is being imposed on local governments. In my area, we have at least three different versions of what devolution will look like. This will have a drastic impact on planning, yet we have no idea of what the neighbourhood plans or planning authorities will look like, especially if we are divided into one, two or three different unitaries.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the devolved issue, which is slightly different in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of GB, there has been a planning proposal in my area for about seven years to develop a good-quality hotel close to where the Open golf championship will take place next week. That has been delayed not by problems, complaints or objections from local residents, but by a politically inspired complaint extraneous to the constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to address the issue in a more holistic way, to try to get development that most people can agree with and want to see progressed as quickly and effectively as possible?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. It is about getting that balance. There will always be nimbys, but I find that many of my constituents understand that we need more housing for the young and for older people to downsize into, and more businesses and infrastructure for jobs and creating wealth. The question is their involvement and the understanding of the community, and being plugged into decision making.

The whole idea of localism is that local communities know best. The Government cannot do everything, so we should empower the people at the bottom to make choices, and they will do. The evidence backs that up, which is why I would like to know why the Government seem to be reneging on localism. In response to parliamentary questions, the Government’s answers have been ambivalent:

“Government remains of the view that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in the planning system. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider that doing so is in their best interests.”

The Government believe:

“Support for neighbourhood planning groups should be possible without further Government funding.”

They also state:

“The Government has no target for neighbourhood plan take-up.”

This is why I secured this debate: do the Government want to scrap neighbourhood plans, or simply phase them out? If they believe in neighbourhood plans, why are they taking away the funding? How do they expect volunteers to deliver the change that the Government and the Opposition want to see, without the means to deliver it?

What protections can be put in place for villages and parishes that are using neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no up-to-date local plan? How can we hold to account local councils, such as Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, for not delivering a local plan? The plans were almost designated under the previous Government, but that would be a big step to take. Fortunately, we have seen progress in planning improved, but at the end of the day we are open to speculative development, and there does not appear to be a mechanism to hold local councils to account.

Finally, what does the Minister say in response to the thousands of plans, with likely tens of thousands of volunteers who have given hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver on a vision for their community that brings the houses that the Government need and of which local people can be proud? Westminster might write the targets, but it is our neighbourhoods that deliver the homes. If the Government cut the lifeline in neighbourhood planning, they sever the link that turns policy into places and houses into homes. We must not lose sight of their value or ignore the warning signs.

09:49

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this valuable debate.

Let me take you, Ms McVey, and the Minister to my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, in the beautiful county of Wiltshire, where many villages have worked to develop neighbourhood plans over the years. The plans have allowed for good consultation with communities over what developments they want to see and where. For the most part, they have worked—when not disrupted by the lack of housing supply from the previous Conservative Administration.

The village of Holt is a perfect example of what can be done when local people have the tools to shape their future. A parish councillor in Holt recently reminded me of the success of Holt’s first neighbourhood plan, which was created in 2016. That plan shaped the development of a derelict tannery site into an award-winning mixed-use development that combines homes and commercial space while preserving the village’s distinctive character and history.

Nearly a decade on, Holt is now updating its plan to address residents’ current concerns, such as traffic, road safety and local infrastructure. As the councillor put it to me:

“The neighbourhood plan process is a part of local democracy.”

She is right. It empowers communities, gives residents a unified voice and ensures that developments do not just reflect the needs and priorities of developers.

The withdrawal of funding for neighbourhood plans means that we are heading towards a two-tier planning system. In one tier, more affluent areas, where the parish councils can afford to fund expensive plans, will continue to have a say in their futures. In the other tier, the less affluent areas that lack such resources will be left vulnerable to speculative development, with little say and even less resource.

[Wendy Morton]

On that point, some of us do not have parish councils, but the local voice in neighbourhood planning is still important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this insistence on top-down targets is driving out any space for local communities and the local voice? That is deeply damaging if we want to create sustainable communities.

[Brian Mathew]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision. Local democracy should not be a luxury available only to those who can afford to pay for it.

09:52

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to our whole country, and certainly to my constituency.

Neighbourhood plans are a vital component of a fair, balanced and genuinely democratic planning system. They are a testament to the principle that local people should not simply be told how their community will look by central Government, but be empowered to shape the future of the places they call home. Neighbourhood plans should guarantee that development happens with the consent of those who live there, and is not forced on them by speculative developers or bureaucrats in Whitehall, who too often view our villages and market towns as blank canvases.

In Buckinghamshire, a clear framework is taking shape. The new Buckinghamshire plan is being developed right now to set out how many homes we need in the county and, broadly, where they should go, building on the local plans of the legacy councils before we went unitary in 2021. However, it is our neighbourhood plans that give meaning to that strategy on the ground. They provide certainty to my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire. They reflect the unique character, constraints and aspirations of each parish, village and town. They tell developers, planners and councillors alike where development is acceptable and, just as importantly, where it is not acceptable.

In Mid Buckinghamshire, I have seen how the plans work when they are respected and, sadly, what happens when they are not. In Marsh Gibbon, for example, the parish’s neighbourhood plan, backed by a local referendum, capped the number of new homes in that small village at 25 until 2031, yet we now face an attempt by a speculative developer to push through 90 homes, all on farmland—nearly four times what the community had previously agreed to. Such proposals do not simply test the robustness of local policy; they erode trust in the entire planning system if they succeed.

We see similar disregard for local issues elsewhere. In Waddesdon, a proposal has come forward for more than 500 homes and a solar installation—far beyond what local people had planned for. In Stoke Mandeville, a 650-home scheme threatens to overwhelm local roads, schools, drainage and other infrastructure. In Longwick, the parish council produced a neighbourhood plan with the clear backing of the local community, yet despite that plan, and despite the village having nearly doubled in size already, Longwick continues to receive speculative applications for yet more housing. Sometimes we simply have to say enough is enough.

Labour’s stated aim to build, build, build, no matter the consequences or cumulative impact of development on our rural communities, in reality means destroy, destroy, destroy. Consent from constituents is crucial to protect the rural identity of communities throughout Mid Buckinghamshire and right across the country. Under the last Government, we rightly strengthened neighbourhood planning powers, because we recognised that development must be rooted in local consent. We wanted to see homes built where they were genuinely needed and wanted, while protecting the green fields, rural lanes and historic character that make our villages so special. We knew that communities are more likely to support plans when they have real control over scale and location, not when that is dictated from Westminster.

I am proud that in my constituency so many parish councils and volunteers in the villages I have mentioned—Marsh Gibbon, Waddesdon, Stoke Mandeville, Longwick and beyond—have done the hard graft of surveys, consultations and draft policies. They have balanced the need for new homes with the reality of local infrastructure and the natural environment and beauty. They have played their part in delivering homes, but on terms that respect the countryside and the unique Buckinghamshire character that makes these places attractive and worth living in.

Neighbourhood plans are not optional extras. They are not tick-box exercises. They carry legal weight and must be defended robustly by planning authorities, inspectors and Ministers, even if this Government have never quite grasped that concept or shown any interest in doing so. If we truly want to build the right homes in the right places, we must stand with our constituents, communities, hamlets, villages and towns. We must back local people, who have done the hard work of saying, “Yes, here, but not there.” If we do not, we risk not just bad development but a total breakdown in trust between residents and the system that is meant to serve them. That is what we in this place are meant to uphold.

Although the current Labour Government, particularly with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, want to ravage natural landscapes across our country, I will remain staunch in seeking to protect our neighbourhoods and my hamlets, villages and towns from this reckless agenda. I very much hope the Minister is able to give the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood plans and, as others have said, ensure that the funding can remain to produce them.

09:59

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.

I have been struck when listening to all the speeches so far by the fact that so often when we talk about planning, we speak in terms of bricks and mortar and targets, but we are actually talking about the neighbourhoods that we want to live in—the places where our children can be near their grandparents, where working families can afford a home, where older people can remain in the communities that they helped to build.

In West Dorset, the system too often delivers not the homes we need, but the ones that developers choose to build—homes that are almost empty, unaffordable or ill-suited to the needs of local communities. We are told that planning holds up development, but many sites already have planning permission and are sitting unused. Far too often, the problem is not the approval of homes but the delivery of what is already agreed.

I often joke when I am talking to residents that there are only two things in politics that everyone agrees on: that we need more homes and that we need them somewhere else. Let me be very clear: Dorset needs new homes, but they must be the right homes, in the right places, for the people who actually need them, supported by proper infrastructure, guided by good planning and with water management built in from the start.

Neighbourhood plans are a crucial part of the solution. They are developed by communities, who know their areas best and understand where homes can go and where they should not, what infrastructure is needed, what characteristics must be preserved and what kinds of homes are actually required.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Appropriate and adequate housing is key to the growth of any area. A lack of housing is a very real problem in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency. While we have a different planning system, our issues are the same. The hon. Member mentioned the lack of investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. Does he agree that, in the round of this planning discussion, we need to get the water services at the table to ensure that they are investing in areas so that the housing can be built when it is approved?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%. I will come on to the campaign that the Liberal Democrats have been running to make water companies statutory consultees, and the importance of their involvement.

In West Dorset, we need genuinely affordable social housing, affordable homes for key workers and smaller homes for older people who want to downsize but remain in their communities. In my constituency, nearly 80% of homes are under-occupied. Many residents, especially the half of the population over 55, are trapped in houses that are too large for their current needs, with no smaller suitable alternatives locally. Meanwhile, young families are priced out of the villages that they grew up in. Neighbourhood plans offer us a way forward, but they must be given real weight in planning decisions. Local voices must not be sidelined by arbitrary targets, and local planners must be given the tools and support to do the job properly and shape developments that fit our communities.

Planning should not just be about housing; it should be about protecting the natural environment and ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to support new developments. In West Dorset, more than 70% of our land is designated as a protected natural landscape. These landscapes are not only part of our heritage, but vital to our local economy; tourism brings in more than £320 million a year and supports more than 5,000 jobs. People come to Dorset for the natural beauty. If we lose that, we lose more than the countryside; we lose our livelihoods and our communities. That is why I believe that National Landscapes must be made a statutory consultee in the planning process and have a guaranteed seat at the table when decisions are made that could permanently alter the characteristics of our protected areas.

The same must be done with water companies, as mentioned. At present, they are not statutory consultees on new housing developments, despite the fact that every flush, every sink and every shower adds pressure to an already overstretched system. In 2024 alone, West Dorset saw more than 4,200 sewage spills, equating to a staggering 48,000 hours of sewage discharge. It is not just a planning issue; it is a public health crisis and an environmental disaster. When homes are built without the pipes and the run-off systems to support them, everyone pays the price. Water companies must be statutory consultees, so that new development does not simply add to the pollution burden and we can hold water companies accountable if the pollution continues. The planning system must build in environmental accountability from the start.

Neighbourhood plans should not just be maps of where homes go; they should be binding frameworks that connect housing with infrastructure, nature, transport and water. They must have teeth and they must be respected. We must also tackle the backlog of permissions already granted. Developers must not be allowed to sit on land when communities go without. “Use it or lose it” measures must be implemented to ensure that approved developments are built or planning permission is withdrawn.

Dorset will soon be consulting on its new local plan and I urge residents to get involved. Housing targets may be set by Whitehall, but homes are lived in by people, and people deserve a system that listens to local communities, delivers the right kind of housing and provides the infrastructure needed to make those homes liveable.

10:04

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. It is really timely, not least because the Planning and Infrastructure Bill continues to make progress down the other end of this place. I hope that it continues to receive the scrutiny that such a huge piece of legislation requires.

Neighbourhood plans were designed to give local people a meaningful say in shaping development in their communities; as democratically elected Members of Parliament, we must never forget that. They are a crucial tool for ensuring local input and accountability. There has to be a place for local voices when it comes to planning. Even where there are no parish councils, as in my constituency, local residents expect a voice; they expect to be heard. Just the other week, I was out on site at Barr Lakes common with a group of residents regarding a specific planning application.

I fear that the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill risks undermining progress by centralising decision-making power and reducing the influence of local councillors and neighbourhood forums in planning decisions. That is why the funding for the NALC is so vital. If the Bill is allowed to pass, the resulting democratic deficit will risk elected councillors having only a limited role in scrutinising developments and—this is really worrying—denying them a meaningful voice in deciding applications, including those guided by neighbourhood plans. If neighbourhood plans are to remain relevant, the Bill must ensure that they have real weight and that local representatives retain genuine decision-making power.

We all know that neighbourhood plans are crucial in helping communities to protect valued local green belt. Many people in this place will know that I bang on a lot about the green belt and I am happy to continue to do so, because it is vital to the integrity of the communities I represent. We are not anti-housing, but I want to see housing that is not only in the right place but has the right infrastructure, and housing that meets the needs of local communities. It is local residents who understand the environmental and social importance of making sure that spaces are developed appropriately. Often, they understand that so much better than central planners here in Westminster and in Government.

The Bill risks expediting development and sidelining the protections provided by neighbourhood plans. The threat of piecemeal “grey belt” erosion will just grow further if we do not firmly embed green-belt protections in planning reforms. We are seeing that in my constituency, particularly down at Chapel Lane. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that neighbourhood plans can effectively safeguard the environment, which I think we care about on both sides of the House; to prioritise brownfield development as a first step, which I thought we all broadly agreed on as well; and to respect the clear wishes of local residents—and that is the bit where I feel there is an increasing divide in this place.

That is evident as I look around the Chamber: it is Members from Opposition parties who have come to speak in the debate and raise local issues. Apart from the Minister—and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but of course he is not allowed to speak—there is nobody on the Government side of the Chamber. The Minister is a good man, so I do not want to refer to him as Billy No Mates, but he is a little bit lonely sitting there on his own early on a Wednesday morning.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably half of Labour Members are pleased with the enormous reductions in housing totals in their urban constituencies and those who represent rural constituencies are just too embarrassed to show their faces?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The west midlands is heavily dominated by Labour MPs, but none of them are here today. Their housing targets have come tumbling down. My constituency is not technically a rural constituency; actually, I have challenged the Government to define whether my seat is rural or not, and there seems to be some ambiguity. Those of us on the periphery of the conurbations, where the green belt provides huge protection from urban sprawl, are really concerned about the Government’s approach.

The Government’s approach to housing targets is deeply flawed, as we have seen. Targets are imposed from the top down, with insufficient regard for local circumstances or infrastructure capacity. We need to see planning reforms that give neighbourhood plans real power, to help to balance that important housing supply with local realities. I have spoken a lot about the need to continue championing brownfield sites, and when it comes to neighbourhood plans, that must be seen as a credible alternative, but we need sufficient brownfield remediation funding to make that happen. Otherwise, it is almost unfair on developers, because if they are facing a choice of brownfield or greenfield development, often it is so much cheaper and quicker to develop that housing by going down the greenfield route, as we all know.

There must be adequate funding, and in the west midlands, under the leadership of the previous mayor, Andy Street, we absolutely demonstrated what can be done. He worked with Walsall council on the development of the Caparo and Harvestime sites, showing that these sort of town centre and urban edge sites can be delivered. That has to be a win-win. If we are serious about regeneration, let us develop the brownfield sites; then we will get footfall back into our town centres and communities working together again, and there is often some infrastructure in place. It just seems to be common sense, but we seem to be failing in that regard now.

One of the biggest concerns of local people is about infrastructure: “Where am I going to send my children to school?”, “Where’s the nearest school?”, “Where’s the nearest hospital?”, “Where’s the healthcare?”, “Where are the jobs?”, “Where’s the transport?”—do not worry, I am not going to talk about Aldridge train station today; I will save that for another day. This is about having joined-up thinking. We had an opportunity with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to really make a difference, but I think that opportunity is gone. We need to build communities and houses, but we need to do more than that. We need to build sustainable neighbourhoods. We need to take communities with us, not leave them behind. Otherwise, I fear that we are not creating communities; in the worst-case scenario, we are creating the sink estates of the future. They have no heart and no soul, and they are not really homes; they are just houses plonked in an open space.

To me, all politics is local. It centres on the people we represent. Some of us will have friends or colleagues who serve on parish councils, district councils or county councils. We choose to serve here, but we must never, ever lose sight of the importance of that local voice.

10:13

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate.

The Localism Act 2011 gave parish and town councils the ability to produce neighbourhood plans, which formed policies to make decisions on planning applications alongside a wider local plan. That was strengthened by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to such plans when it came to planning decisions. That is because Conservatives believe that planning decisions should, to the greatest extent possible, be made with the consent of local communities. We believe that local residents know best what they need. Neighbourhood plans are an important way to allow residents to shape development in their area in a way that reflects local needs and priorities.

There are several such neighbourhood plans in effect in my constituency, in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, in Nether Stowey, in Puriton, and in Wembdon. There is even a referendum on a neighbourhood plan in Cannington going on tomorrow. I am sure there will be many hundreds of people in Cannington watching this debate at this very moment. I urge them to turn out and vote tomorrow. Neighbourhood plans are particularly important in my constituency, where Liberal Democrat-led Somerset council says it will take at least another four years to come up with a local plan that applies across the whole county. I would like to criticise it, but I understand it is fairly normal for a unitary authority to develop a new local plan.

The previous Government provided funding for groups that wanted to create their own neighbourhood plan. It is very disappointing that the Government have now stopped that funding with no warning at all. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that decision? It is the latest in a series of decisions by the Government to take planning powers away from local people and give them to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for instance, seems designed to allow central Government to impose huge amounts of building in rural communities, especially those that do not vote Labour. A crucial element of the Bill is to reduce the power of planning committees, which will mean that there is less democratic accountability for development. No doubt the Minister will disagree with me, but I wonder whether he will reflect on why Somerset has had a 41% increase in its house building target while Bristol has had an 11% reduction.

I am not against development. We need houses so that our children can afford a place of their own, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure, such as GPs, schools, transport links and parks. I want us to build beautifully, and in line with the character of the local area. According to a report by the University of Reading, almost 90% of neighbourhood development plans seek to improve the quality of development in their area. That is often done through policies and guidelines to influence new building design or alterations to existing buildings. My message to the Government is simple: we must support local people to properly engage in the planning process and have their say over development in their communities.

10:16

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for drawing attention to this often-neglected area. For many years, planning has been the subject of intense argument and dispute, both locally and nationally. Part of that argument is around environmental protection, but in particular there have been battles over the need to find ever more housing sites. The Government are clearly approaching neighbourhood plans from that perspective.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe that the starting point for any planning reform should be public consent. That cannot mean a right of veto in every circumstance, because the needs of society as a whole may outweigh local considerations. However, the best results can be obtained when we go as far as possible to allow local residents genuine involvement in their own future.

Neighbourhood plans were brought in following the Localism Act 2011 under the coalition Government. As such, Liberal Democrats have always supported them. At their best, they represent the strongest form of community involvement, control and consent in local development. They are a unique co-production between ordinary members of the public and planning professionals. Judging by the number that have been undertaken over the years, they have been very successful, especially in rural areas. When one considers the amount of voluntary work that residents have to put in, they are a remarkable exhibition of people power. I pay tribute to all the residents in my own constituency of Horsham who have sacrificed so much for their communities.

Cutting locals out of the process, as the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill does in so many ways, is a violent break with this past. The main strategic goals for an area need to be set by professionals, but alongside them, ideally in genuine partnership, residents bring a unique local knowledge and emotional commitment in a way that can never be replaced by professional planning officers. As such, it is disappointing to see that this role has been entirely ignored in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that is currently making its way into law.

In July 2024, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked the Secretary of State,

“could she confirm that where local residents have complied with her mandatory targets through a neighbourhood plan, rather than a local plan, the neighbourhood plan will reign supreme and will not be trampled over by planning inspectors subsequently?”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.]

The Secretary of State replied:

“I can confirm that neighbourhood plans and the protections will remain, which is really important.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.]

Now that the full text of the Bill has come to light, exactly how true was that statement? Neighbourhood plans are usually created on completely different timelines to local plans. They are usually adopted at different stages and they allocate housing for different periods. Although a neighbourhood plan can meet a housing target at the time it is approved, if a subsequent local plan sets a higher target, the neighbourhood plan will be overruled. That was already a problem under the previous Government. The introduction of the standard method for calculating local housing targets created a parallel but contradictory process for deciding house building, and that has caused endless confusion and dispute ever since. I say to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that the real cause of the problems with his local council is the standard method. That is the source of the top-down targets. The standard method is not a solution to the housing crisis, but it is a major contributory factor. It is very disappointing—

[Dr Evans]

That was the argument made to me when I solely represented Hinckley and Bosworth, but stepping across and taking in north-west Leicestershire, when they are able to deliver a local plan that has the five-year land supply that brings in the business rates, there is chalk and cheese to be seen. Everyone can see that. So I am not so sure that the targets are the problem. There is the local accountability. The Government need to step in to say that where councils are failing on delivery, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, what happens is that people come to their MP to say, “What are you going to do to sort it out?”, when of course it is councils that deliver the plan. They just need to be held accountable. Does the hon. Member agree?

[John Milne]

Not entirely, although I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The standard method was intended as an objective way to calculate local housing targets. It is objective in the sense that it is mathematical. However, the question has to be asked: does it give appropriate targets? I would say it very much does not. The reason for the pressure on the green belt—there could be 1,000 reasons—is that the mathematical calculation does not actually calculate housing need; it is a proxy for housing need, which is completely inaccurate and has been the cause of many problems. So it is very disappointing to see that the standard method has been retained by the current Government, and in fact made even worse by another round of mathematical jiggery-pokery that has very little to do with calculating genuine housing need.

The policy of reducing house prices by sheer number of planning permissions did not work for the last Government, and it will not work for the current one. It will do irreversible damage along the way to local communities before it will inevitably be changed again. An extra layer of difficulty has been added by local government reorganisation. In many areas, such as my constituency of Horsham in West Sussex, the forthcoming abolition of district and borough planning authorities means that the local plan process will be even more remote from the community.

It really is hard to see what role, if any, remains for neighbourhood plans in future. Why would anyone bother with all that work when they do not have any obvious statutory role? Neighbourhood plans can take years to draw up, and most of that is unpaid. The only clear benefit seems to be as a way of securing the higher rate of CIL, or community infrastructure levy payments, but to me it no longer makes sense to incentivise neighbourhood plan making in this way. Perhaps the Government should simply remove that hurdle and make the higher rate automatic.

It is extraordinary to see the complete absence of any mention of neighbourhood plans and their role in the new legislation. We can draw no other conclusion than to assume that the Government’s intention is to let them wither away altogether by a gradual process of neglect. To repeat: at their best, neighbour plans are a remarkable demonstration of people power—but not the people this Government want to listen to, apparently.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to get Britain building the housing infrastructure we need and bring down costs is to give local communities a real voice and a real stake. To do so we want to ensure that strategic planning authorities consult on a statement of community involvement, which guarantees the right to be heard at an examination; that the Secretary of State takes this consultation into account when deciding an application for development consent; and that parliamentary approval is required for the removal of statutory consultees from the planning process. The Liberal Democrats would also like to see planning committees retain their current powers. When we look at this alongside the emasculation of neighbourhood plans and all the measures that take away or compress local consultation, it is clear that this Government believe that local residents are just a nuisance who need to be locked out of the room while the grown-ups make all the decisions.

We are deeply disappointed by the Government’s lack of commitment to boost nature’s recovery and tackle climate change in the planning process, despite promising in their manifesto that changes to the planning system would create places that increased climate resilience and promoted nature recovery. Neighbourhood plans have played a particularly effective role in identifying and protecting existing green spaces, which often have unclear legal status—lost in the mists of time—and are now under threat from the rapacious development industry.

Overall, the sidelining of neighbourhood plans in new legislation fits into a pattern of diminishing local power and representation. The Government believe that it is a sacrifice worth making for the sake of pushing faster house building, but all it will do in practice is to pile on more unbuilt planning permissions to the 1.4 million that we already have. It has been demonstrated plainly that permissions by themselves do not bring down prices. Developers simply stop building any time prices start to fall.

Mandating an ambitious annual delivery of social housing would be a faster and more effective, environmentally friendly and, above all, consensual way to achieve results. That is why the Liberal Democrats are asking for a guaranteed 150,000 new social houses a year. Neighbourhood plans should be retained and strengthened as a key part of the drive to build consensus in development—not compulsion.

10:26

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. He is a champion for his community, and I know that his constituents will be grateful to him for standing up for them.

Both my hon. Friend and I are in an unenviable position as two examples of MPs whose constituencies are set to be paved over under Labour’s new house building algorithm. He and I both have a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that his council has lacked an updated local plan since 2019. His council may not be engaged in speculative development itself, but my council has given developers a blank cheque in Hinckley and Bosworth to build at will, while nearby Labour-run Leicester city will be spared for their failures by having their brownfield site targets cut. My hon. Friend is right to pick up on what is, as I have called it in this House before, a politically gerrymandering algorithm put forward by this Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said, I find it really surprising that there are no Labour Back Benchers here today. We have seen housing targets being massively increased in rural areas, but in urban centres where the infrastructure already exists, housing numbers and requirements are going down. I think that shows that colleagues in the Minister’s party who represent rural areas, as my hon. Friend said, are staying quiet because of the housing boom that they will have to explain to their constituents, while Labour MPs in urban centres are celebrating, or quite frankly embarrassed by, the reduction that this Government are allowing their councils to get away with.

I know of some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has with his Lib Dem council. Like me, I am sure that he will recognise that in many Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflets going out on people’s doorsteps there is an excuse as to why development is going forward in his constituency. But it is not the fault of the Lib Dem council, who make the decisions in the first place to grant planning permission; it is either the Tory county or the national Government at the time forcing them to make this huge sacrifice—that is why they are building across my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine.

The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), was a living embodiment of that example today by saying that it was not the national housing targets that were forcing our councils to build, and then excusing his own councils for not putting forward local plans that would stop that speculative development in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth will know that Liberal Democrat councils are in themselves speculative, which is one of the reasons they are failing their residents in planning going forward across this country.

[John Milne]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I thought that might come, so I will give way.

[John Milne]

The targets are centrally driven and set by the standard method. In many areas, they are extremely difficult to fulfil, and that is why we get pressure on the green belt or protected conservation areas. That is the fundamental cause. Across the country, many councils of many different persuasions all face the same problem. That can break councils, because they are forced to allocate housing in areas where they really do not want to. The fundamental issue is the standard method, and we will never solve the issue of building on brownfield or greenfield sites until we properly replace it.

[Paul Holmes]

Again, the Liberal Democrats need to be clear about what they are promising the country. The hon. Gentleman again says that targets are the problem and that councils have difficulty in meeting them, but in the main Chamber his party is calling for more national housing targets. With all due respect, if a Liberal council in Hinckley and Bosworth is not delivering on a local plan, that is his party’s responsibility. Doing so would protect that constituency from the very targets that Liberal Democrats are bemoaning. The Liberal Democrats need to be clear on where they stand on national targets versus delivering locally for the people they claim to represent.

[Edward Morello]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will briefly, but I must make some progress.

[Edward Morello]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s concerns over that Liberal Democrat-run council, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to join me in applauding Liberal Democrat-run Dorset council, which is currently opening up its local plan to public consultation, so that communities can get involved in shaping the plan and we can deliver the homes that we need.

[Paul Holmes]

I am happy to congratulate any council controlled by any party if it has a local plan process going through, but the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham, who just said that local plans cannot be delivered because of housing targets that put pressure on local councils. Dorset is an example of a Lib Dem council that has taken its responsibilities seriously, so I suggest that the Lib Dem spokesman has a meeting with the leader of that council.

[John Milne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Very briefly, and then I really must make some progress.

[John Milne]

That is a gross generalisation. There are local factors everywhere. The hon. Gentleman really cannot make generalisations like that.

[Paul Holmes]

We have probably exhausted this line of debate, but, again, we have an example on the record of a Liberal council, Hinckley and Bosworth, that has not delivered on a local plan. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber are asking for more national housing targets, but here in Westminster Hall they are claiming that targets are the reason why Lib Dem administrations cannot deliver local plans. We will let the record stand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were proud to serve under the previous Conservative Government, which built on the coalition’s achievements in introducing the Localism Act 2011. In that landmark legislation, we took bold and progressive steps to empower local communities. We made it a statutory requirement for local authorities to support and advise communities on neighbourhood planning. That was not just a policy, but a principle that local people should have a direct say in shaping the future of their towns, villages and neighbourhoods.

As I am sure colleagues are aware, schedule 9 to the Act created a framework through which parish and town councils, neighbourhood forums and community organisations—in other words, local voices—could lead the charge in designating local development plans, not as spectators, but as active participants in the planning system. District and county councils may hold formal planning powers—as Conservatives, we rightly believe that power should be delegated to the local level—but, if we are to build places that people are proud to live in, we must also make sure that the views of residents are heard, respected and acted on.

Parish and town councils should never be relegated to the role of rubber-stamping planning decisions; they must be central to shaping the development of their local areas. Villages know best. All my hon. Friends have talked about how villages in their constituencies want to build and want an active say in how their villages are shaped. I say to the Minister that this Government’s long-standing position has eroded planning committees, the rights of local councillors at parish, district and county level, and the ability of councillors to make decisions on behalf of local people.

I, like many others, welcomed the strengthening of neighbourhood planning in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to those plans in decision making. The introduction of neighbourhood priority statements was a practical and positive step forward, giving parish councils and neighbourhood forums another mechanism to shape local policy, with a duty on local authorities to listen.

Sadly, that progress has been halted. Since taking office just over a year ago, this Government has made their mission clear: to sideline local people and centralise control. Through changes to the national planning policy framework, their smoke-and-mirrors “grey belt” policy and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, they are systematically removing local voices from the process. This is not reform—it is a power grab, and the message is clear: the future of our towns, villages and green spaces is being determined in Whitehall, not in our communities. That is a betrayal of the very principle of localism. When local voices are ignored and planning decisions are imposed from the centre, trust in the system is eroded and disillusionment grows.

We are becoming accustomed to disappointment when it comes to this Government, but to see, without so much as a ministerial statement, that Ministers have pulled funding for neighbourhood plans is another mark on their scorecard. This decision poses a serious setback for the principle of localism and undermines a widely celebrated initiative that has empowered more than 2,500 communities, with over 1,000 neighbourhood plans successfully passed at referendum. Parish and town councils have historically played a vital role in this process, driving forward locally led planning that reflects the needs and aspirations of their communities.

Neighbourhood plans have been a massively successful policy. Across the country, from small villages to growing towns, communities have embraced the opportunity to shape their future, but the Government’s plans threaten to undo these successes. Not only are they centralising power, but, with looming unitarisation, we will see even more erosion of these local voices, as these bigger local government councils will not have the time—nor, likely, the inclination—to bother with designating development areas, leaving already overdeveloped communities at risk of yet more reckless building.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has been a consistent and passionate advocate for neighbourhood planning. He has highlighted the benefits of the process in this Chamber on many occasions, and rightly so. I commend him for his speech today, in which he outlined many of the problems that local councils face and the pressure they are under. This erosion of the right and responsibility of local people to have a say over local decisions must stop. We will continue to be a constructive but challenging Opposition on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State about giving back power to local communities.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave Dr Luke Evans a couple of minutes to wind up.

09:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing the debate; thanks to the way he set us off, this has been an excellent way to start the parliamentary day. Throughout his time in Parliament, he has been—and will remain, no doubt, for the rest of his time here—a champion of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning and a consistent advocate for a locally led planning system.

The interest from hon. Members shows that, with many neighbourhood plans having been developed across England—indeed, with interest from beyond England; I was flicking through my notes to try to identify what I might have missed there—neighbourhood planning is a topic of interest across the House. Likewise, the future role for neighbourhood plans in the planning system will be closely watched by communities who have invested time and energy to participate in neighbourhood planning. Once we get beyond the politics, we are at risk of one of the most dangerous things in this place: vicious agreement. It is no secret that we as a Government believe in a plan-led system. The plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) talked about the neighbourhood plan referendum in Cannington tomorrow. I want to underline for any Cannington residents watching that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure so that the development proceeds in a sustainable manner, in exactly the way the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) described.

We have to end the uncertainty that plagues development across so much of the country by putting local plans back in their proper place as the foundation of the planning system. I hope I can give a degree of comfort to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is not as they characterise it. The foundation of the planning system is those local plans and those local communities. We have talked about democracy and local say, and they are the anchor for that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman runs a paragraph or two ahead in my speech; I promise I will address that point shortly. I was talking about local plans, but I will turn to neighbourhood plans shortly.

To help us achieve our ambition of universal coverage of up-to-date local plans, which I think is a shared ambition, not least because of comments made by hon. Members today, we intend to introduce a new system for plan making later this year. In February, we responded to the plan-making consultation, which confirmed our vision for that new system. We will provide further details soon, in line with our commitment to provide a reasonable familiarisation period.

On neighbourhood plans, evidence shows that they work best where they build on the foundation of the local plan to meet the priorities and preferences of the community. In a planning system that is all too often antagonistic, neighbourhood planning can bring the community together in support of development, often resulting, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, in more housing for the area and additional benefits to the local community. If we are to hit our target of building 1.5 million homes within this Parliament, the community support that neighbourhood planning attracts will be a very important component. I can give assurance of that.

[Wendy Morton]

On meeting targets, would the Government undertake to ensure sufficient funding for the brownfield remediation process, to unlock sites across the country? All of us in the House acknowledge the importance of unlocking those sites, because the regeneration opportunities would be massive, but it needs funding from central Government.

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate that point and share that view. I stare at a site, and probably, I will retire still staring at it—I should not make that commitment to my constituents, as they would encourage me to—in my old council ward, Johnsons dye works, that has been brownfield and vacant for three decades. The site is of complex ownership. We need those sites developed because they are a blight on the community. I completely accept that point. I think we made clear in the spending review our significant commitment as central Government to making funding available to get sites going. I hope that gives the right hon. Lady a degree of comfort about the Government’s direction.

[Dr Evans]

Just before he took the previous intervention, the Minister was talking about the power of neighbourhood plans and the community coming together. My worry is that, if there is no funding, why would volunteers step forward for such a big undertaking, requiring legal prowess? That is a big worry, and the Government do not seem to have explained how they have filled that void. At the end of the day, this is volunteers working hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver for their communities.

[Alex Norris]

I accept that point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will show a degree of forbearance, as I will come to that point shortly—I make that commitment to him and to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.

Neighbourhood planning is a well-established part of our planning system, and we want that to remain the case. Our Department is aware of more than 1,800 plans in place and 3,150 designated neighbourhood areas. I believe that in the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth’s constituency alone, there are seven made plans, with five more actively progressing, which reflects brilliantly on his constituents. I too express my admiration for those who join neighbourhood planning groups: they could be doing anything else with their lives, but they choose to put their shoes on, go out and have difficult conversations with their neighbours in the interest of the community. That is a very British and wonderful thing. I hope that, on reflection, the people of Cannington come out in their droves tomorrow to play their part in that process.

I turn now to our announcement following the spending review that we are unable to commission further funded support for neighbourhood planning groups. It was not a decision taken lightly, and I recognise the concerns it has prompted among groups, local planning authorities and hon. Members. I pay tribute to Locality, the National Association of Local Councils and other organisations that played their part in that process. I worked on it very closely with Locality, an excellent organisation that is very good at making community voice heard. We want to be clear, however, that that is not an abolition of neighbourhood planning. We believe that neighbourhood planning is an important part of the planning system.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked two questions. Do the Government intend to end neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Do we intend or wish secretly for the phasing out of neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider doing so is in their best interests.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. From his language—he said that this was not a decision taken lightly—this is clearly another victim of the Prime Minister’s U-turn on welfare and the Chancellor now having to find money. Can he not see that there will be a problem? The simple logistics of getting together a local neighbourhood plan with no funding, including consultation—parish councils are not paid, but are often the most trusted of the councils—will mean a reduction in the number of neighbourhood plans and consultations. Does he not see that that is a bad thing for our villages across this country?

[Alex Norris]

On the point about the nation’s finances, it is the hon. Gentleman’s job to point the finger at the Government, but he and his party will continue to struggle until and unless they accept their role in that. At the end of the day, that inability to grasp the legacy of their 14 years in government will not help their fortunes in the future—but that is a matter for him, not me.

Difficult decisions have to be made. We have to weigh up where to put taxpayers’ money. Our analysis is that after more than a decade of taxpayer support, neighbourhood planning should be possible without further Government funding. Since 2013, more than £71 million of support has gone into this area. That speaks to the points made by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). There has been a significant period of work in this area. There is a network of planners and groups with skills and expertise in preparing neighbourhood plans, who can help others to do so. I hope that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) about access.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister makes an important point about the level of expertise needed by local parishes and town councils to prepare their evidence base and documentation. However, if there is no funding from central Government, the only way I can see for a parish council or town council to find the funding is by raising the precept, which would be tantamount to Labour increasing the taxes of local people. Does the Minister agree, or is there an alternative?

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Lady will know, despite not having any parish councils, that the precept is a matter for local authorities. That is a decision that they will have to make. We recognise the concern on resourcing, and it will depend on the area. However, even though national structured support is ending, there is now expertise and know-how within the market for local groups to tap into, which should help to develop their ability. Hopefully, some of that combined support can help to lower costs.

[Brian Mathew]

As I tried to make out in my speech, the worry of a two-tier system, where some communities can afford a neighbourhood plan and others simply cannot, will be important. The only way out that I can think of would be a simplification of the neighbourhood planning process, which would allow communities to get on and do it themselves without the need for expensive consultants to be involved, as there is at the moment. Is something the Minister would consider?

[Alex Norris]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman succour on that point, but I hope that I can offer something in lieu. I accept that these things can become complex, but sometimes things are complex because they are complex. I do not think that we can wish that away and simplify a process in way that would mean taking away the fundamentals that require complex organisation and preparation. I think he is speaking to a wider point that also came up in the debate: complex planning matters ought to be the purview of local plans. If local plans are done properly, a lot of that complexity and difficulty will fall out and leave space for neighbourhood plans to operate as designed, rather than having to backfill the failures of local authorities.

I could not help but get the sense from the contribution of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that a lot of the issues are due to the absence of a local plan in his community. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about speculative development. The story, as he put it, in his part of the world seemed to be developing, but that is clearly a risk until the process is finished. I cannot help but think that the issue there is the same. Similarly, the point that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made about infrastructure falls within the purview of the local plan. We have to get the balance right.

I turn to local planning authorities, which have not been a feature of this debate, but have been a feature of the public debate. The end of funding for neighbourhood planning groups has created a misconception that our commitment to funding local planning authorities for their neighbourhood planning function will be affected. I want to be clear to anybody watching and to hon. Members in the Chamber that that is not the case. That again speaks to the point about the interrelationship between the local and neighbourhood planning functions. We will make announcements about the arrangements for this financial year in due course.

I turn to where neighbourhood plans sit in decision making, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). It has never been the case that neighbourhood plans are determinative in every case, always. National policy is clear that an application contrary to an up-to-date neighbourhood plan should not usually be approved. I totally accept and understand the frustration that people would feel if they are approved, but we have to be honest: under the system as it stands—this does not result from any changes that we have made—when the balance of considerations in the case outweighs the neighbourhood plan, the development can take place. That is the world as it is today. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, we are not planning to make changes to that. Again, the best thing that communities can do is have neighbourhood plans sitting underneath a local plan for their community.

Before I finish, I turn to the points that hon. Members made about local government reorganisation and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 reforms. I hold the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in very high regard, but I know that to be in his company is to expect a degree of impudence, so I was not surprised that he trumpeted provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that his Government did not turn on. There is no point in the powers being on the statute book if they are not turned on—that does not help—so I chafe a little at the characterisation that that is somehow our failure, rather than Conservatives’. Surely, they are at least equally complicit.

I want to give clarity to colleagues and those watching that no local government reorganisation will affect the status of neighbourhood plans; they will continue to have effect and will form part of the development plan for their area.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The way I see it, under devolution, more powers will be devolved down to parish councils, so indirectly they will have more responsibilities by the very nature of what the Government are trying to do in creating unitaries. Do the Government really believe that a volunteer on a parish council, which will have more responsibilities under devolution, will turn their attention to neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no funding, given the responsibility that goes with them? My concern is that there are competing issues for parish councillors.

[Alex Norris]

There are a couple of points there. I noted this and decided not to say anything about it because it might look like I was trying to be rude, and I am not. The hon. Gentleman should not conflate local government reorganisation and devolution. Although they are, of course, related to some degree, they are different. Local government reorganisation is about changing local authorities’ boundaries so that they have the right size and heft to function. The power conversation is slightly different.

I have to say that, in my experience, parish and town councillors are generally excellent, so I believe that they are able to balance competing interests. I do not accept that planning would not be seen as a priority; that is not an option for any politician in any role. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hope I can assure him that local government reorganisation is not likely to drive material change in this space, not least because the plans will continue unaffected. The most important thing will be, as the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, that the new authorities get into the local plan process to ensure they have the cover and that good organisation and order.

Neighbourhood plans can play an important part in planning decision making across the country, and we want communities to continue to prepare them if they wish to do so. We want to encourage more constructive engagement across the whole planning system. Neighbourhood planning has shown that communities are willing and eager to embrace development when given the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said. I congratulate him on the case that he made and on securing this debate. I thank all colleagues for their contributions.

10:54

[Dr Luke Evans]

I thank the Minister. I know that this is not his brief, and that he fought eagerly to respond to this debate. I appreciate his constructive tone. He heard Members say that neighbourhood plans are not a luxury, that they are about local concern and that things should not be forced on communities. Members said that we want neighbourhoods that we want to live in, that local people should have a meaningful say, that we want scrutiny and, to the greatest extent possible, that they should be done with local residents. Those are the key sentiments behind neighbourhood plans.

Neighbourhood plans are not obstacles to progress; they are the architects of local consent. In fact, they are the granular centre of local democracy. To dismantle them is to forget that true planning begins not in Whitehall but in the beating hearts of our communities, which call these places home.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.

10:55

Sitting suspended.

Sport England: Tackling Racism

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of Sport England in tackling racism in sport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to have been granted this debate, because this is an issue I have been dealing with for over seven years now. We know that racism exists within sports across the country, but what we do not talk about enough is when it impacts at a grassroots level—in local clubs that work and are situated in marginalised communities. This is not an issue exclusive to my constituency of Bradford West.

Although I will make mention of wider racism in sport, my focus today is Onna Ju-Jitsu, a multi-award-winning martial arts club based in my constituency. For several years, I have had the privilege of supporting the club, which delivers self-defence and ju-jitsu training to children and adults from all backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths. Its membership includes students and individuals from disadvantaged communities, and I have witnessed at first hand the dedication and excellence this club brings, not just to the sport of ju-jitsu, but to our diverse communities.

Impressively, the club has achieved a 50:50 male-to-female participation ratio and is led by a strong, accomplished female coaching team under Sensei Mumtaz Khan, a 7th degree black belt with over 32 years of experience. I would not want to get on the wrong side of Mumtaz.

Almost seven years since I raised this issue directly with Sport England—it was on 29 November 2018, to be exact—I am raising this matter in Parliament because, despite Mumtaz’s best efforts to seek justice for her students who have been wronged, Sport England has failed. It has not only failed the club and those individuals; it has failed to uphold its own policies, and has engaged in what I can clearly see are—and I am clear in calling out as—textbook attempts to cover up that failure.

The tragedy is that the very students who Mumtaz tried to seek justice for have now left British ju-jitsu without the justice they deserved. Any ambition they may have had for a future in sport ended the moment that accountability and justice were not provided by the very organisations that could have taken action.

During a competition bout at the British Ju-Jitsu Association National Championships in Birmingham on 1 September 2018, a competitor from Onna Ju-Jitsu was injured by a kick to the face and head. The impact was significant; it was caught on video, and required attention from the event’s first aider and qualified paramedic. According to the accident report, the paramedic advised the competitor not to carry on the round due to the pain. The competitor accepted this reluctantly. That instruction was clearly conveyed on the accident report and verbally to the competitor and to Mumtaz. Despite this being directly attributed to an uncontrolled kick to the head—a move that would ordinarily receive a red card and disqualification—the bout was then awarded to the opponent.

At the same championships, Ruqayyah Latif was moved up a weight category and missed out on a guaranteed gold or silver. Safa Zahid clearly won her match, but had her win go to another opponent. In fact, in one BJJ competition—not the championships—Safa Zahid was entered into a category to fight boys. She still managed to win a bronze, fighting boys with her two long plaits.

Ismail Ghani fought someone whose dad refereed the final. He was told that he lost by one point to make him feel better, even though referees are not allowed to disclose scores. His brother, Eessa also suffered the same fate, losing his match by, again, apparently one single point. At the 2017 nationals, Eessa clearly won his final match. Even his competitor and the competitor’s father apologised to him, because they believed he had won. That match is all on video and recorded, by the way. Between them, those two brothers missed out on three gold medals.

Another boy at the club was moved to a higher weight category and fought boys weighing up to 10 kg more than him, which was a serious safeguarding risk. The Minister responded yesterday in the main Chamber to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) regarding Alex Eastwood’s tragic death, and the same safety issues apply in this case.

Going back to Onna Ju-Jitsu, when Halah, a young girl at the club, clearly won her match but was still handed a loss, that was when things erupted. This was not just one student fighting in one competition alone; the club competed for the first time at the British Ju-Jitsu Association national championships in 2014. During that competition, and subsequently at the championships of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the club experienced numerous questionable decisions that denied its competitors gold medals and national championship status.

We arrive here today as the result of literally years of systemic discrimination and bias faced by these competitors of ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these students decided to leave the sport and never competed again, due to the blatant bias and discrimination that they faced. For that reason, Mumtaz lodged an official complaint with Martin Dickson, chairperson of the BJJA, regarding the award in one fight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady; she has outlined a number of very serious issues and will deliberate upon them shortly. Does she agree that sports are a real equaliser and that we must use this tool effectively with our children to bring friendships and other bonds into a natural setting? It is not just about having regulation to ensure that these things do not happen again; it is about ensuring the essential funding to help clubs to become attractive to people of all classes, all creeds and all cultures.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I will come on to the role that sport plays in bringing communities together and why it is so important.

Just as its institutional nature was to pass off bias and discriminatory results in tournaments, so the BJJA dismissed Mumtaz’s requests, using improper processes and technical committees made up of the very same people who are embedded in the very same institutional culture—people marking their own homework, so to speak. It is an organisation that lacks constitutional clarity, organisational transparency and democratic credibility. No information about its governance structures or democratic procedures is publicly available, and there are no minutes of annual general meetings, committee meetings or executive meetings publicly available.

To top things off, Mumtaz’s complaints were never going to be heard, because the very person overseeing the process and in control of the BJJA, the chairperson Martin Dixon, and the BJJA’s secretary were themselves promoting openly racist, Islamophobic and homophobic content online on their social media pages. I was going to quote some of it, but I thought it best to leave people to see it for themselves.

Having no confidence in the BJJA, I supported Mumtaz to raise her complaint formally with Sport England, an organisation funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that exists to help to bridge the gap between under-represented communities and sport. It is meant to help to remove barriers and increase participation. Sport England does not directly fund the BJJA, but it provides it with recognition, and as such holds the power to de-recognise it and ensure accountability.

This evidence of racism was forwarded to Sport England on 29 November 2018. It is worth noting that, despite Onna Ju-Jitsu having previously won Sport England’s Satellite Club of the Year award, Sport England, instead of looking into the complaint, proceeded to engage in a phishing expedition and decided to

“chase up Sensei Mumtaz Khan’s coaching qualifications”,

claiming that was standard procedure for high-risk sports. I note that Sport England did not do that when it awarded Onna Ju-Jitsu its Satellite Club of the Year award, and the same yardstick is not applied to other clubs across the country. Sport England subsequently deemed that Mumtaz Khan’s coaching was invalid, to quash her complaint about the BJJA. That is a textbook example of trying to cover things up.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case about the racism that exists in the sport, which of course none of us should tolerate. For me, tackling this racism in sport must also mean improving representation in decision making, which is important. Does she agree?

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree, because often sporting bodies do not reflect the diversity of those playing sport within their structures and systems. That is absolutely the case at senior management levels, and that must be addressed as well.

Coming back to qualifications, in comparison, sportscotland, Sport Wales and Sport Northern Ireland all confirmed—I have go this in writing—that they do not chase up qualifications.

Let me address the issue of Mumtaz Khan’s qualification allegedly being invalid, with these important details. In September 2018, a complaint was raised with the BJJA. In November 2018, a complaint was raised with Sport England. In March 2019, less than four months later, the BJJA did not send Onna Ju-Jitsu the annual forms to renew membership, bearing in mind that it has been a member since 2013.

In June 2019, Sport England makes an offer of mediation with Mumtaz, which she accepts. In July 2019, the following month, Sport England tells Mumtaz Khan that the need for mediation is being removed, because the BJJA said Mumtaz Khan had resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer, which she had never sent in. Sport England accepted, and recorded with its permission, a meeting at which the BJJA chair confessed that that did not happen. Mumtaz never resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer. It was said someone else had been appointed, but that was not true. That is a catalogue of BJJA telling Sport England: “This isn’t true,” “This isn’t right,” “These are confessions,” and that something that was clearly homophobic and racist is now just offensive. The list goes on.

In October 2019, Sport England decided to chase qualifications, which include being a member of a national body. That is where the contradictions start. Where I come from in Yorkshire, someone is either pregnant or not. No one can be both or a bit pregnant. No one can pick and choose measuring yardsticks when it suits, as Sport England has done. Sport England has said to Mumtaz, “Well, because you’re not a member of this organisation, you can’t make a formal complaint,” yet she can run a ju-jitsu club, and she needs to have all these qualifications, she needs to be insured and she needs to meet all these criteria. But when it comes to a complaint about racism and homophobia: “D’you know what? You don’t meet the criteria.” Which is it? Sport England needs to get its head round this. It needs to sort itself out and get its house in order. When Mumtaz raised a formal complaint against the BJJA, it removed her as a diversity officer.

I agree with Mumtaz Khan that she was targeted and victimised by Sport England for whistleblowing and raising concerns. It was only after my intervention as an MP that Sport England committed to even looking at the conduct of the BJJA. At first, when Mumtaz presented evidence of openly racist and homophobic slurs, they were judged merely just offensive. Someone put up a post saying, “I have found a cure for lesbians…Trycoxagain.” That is the kind of post we are talking about; they were homophobic and not just offensive. I am sorry, but I do not agree with that judgment.

Later, despite recognising clearly racist evidence, an attempt was made to squash the issue by asking the chair to send a letter of apology to Mumtaz, rather than taking action to hold people to account. Evidence of the BJJA breaching all seven examples listed in section 64 of the sports council’s recognition review policy of 2017 was sent by Mumtaz to Sport England in October 2022. Again, it was left to Mumtaz to point out to Sport England how to do its job.

Combined with the previous admission of racism, Mumtaz felt that that led to Sport England finally agreeing to take the matter to the other sports councils to gain agreement to derecognise the BJJA. After huge pressure, Sport England started a process to derecognise the BJJA, but never did; it gave the BJJA time to meet the criteria to get continued recognition. The BJJA did not meet the criteria in another six months, but Sport England did not go on derecognise it.

When Sport England made a statement, it was reviewing the information submitted by the BJJA, so any decision about derecognition never happened. On 21 May 2024, Sport England released a statement suggesting it was continuing the association’s recognition, subject to a number of conditions, despite the deadline of meeting the original conditions being eight months earlier. In my eyes, Sport England was clearly taking action to avoid derecognising or implementing serious changes in the BJJA.

Losing all hope in Sport England, Mumtaz Khan asked it to provide all the data. It was not just a cover up—it gets better! Sport England has accepted that it had, on her last attempt to make a subject access request and a freedom of information request, 4,763 emails, letters and documents relating to Sensei Mumtaz Khan and her club, but it will not give her any of them. I have even been to the Information Commissioner and we have done subject access requests. What is Sport England hiding? What is it trying to cover up? Why is it not releasing that information? That is an alarmingly high number of mentions for one individual and a small, local club, but we still do not have the information.

I ask the Minister: how can these students or others expect fairness through the BJJA when the issues are institutional and directly linked to the chairman, Martin Dixon, who promotes homophobia and racism, and when there is no accountability? We do not know what is in those papers; it reminds me of the Azeem Rafiq case all over again.

Martin Dixon has served as the chairman of the BJJA since 1992, a tenure spanning more than 33 years and counting. Although he has no doubt made many positive contributions to the BJJA over the years, this is a national governing body for a recognised sport in this country, not a fiefdom. If we do not get institutional change, including for those at the very top of the organisation, how can these students or others have any faith in competing in British jiu-jitsu?

Let me summarise the issue: an award-winning, British jiu-jitsu sensei, Mumtaz Khan, who competed and was an asset to the BJJA, established a club and allowed younger generations, many of whom were from ethnic minority backgrounds, to break barriers and enter the sport. Despite years of direct discrimination and bias against students in her club, all she wanted to do was ensure a fair playing field for all competitors in the sport. No one was asking for special treatment—just fairness and equality. After all, fair play, transparency and good competition are the nature of sporting success. Instead, the governing body and established national entities that were supposed to step in and take action to ensure that real accountability was in place resorted to denial, inaction and a cover-up.

This issue is about not just racism, racist sentiments or poor choices of words, but young people who face barriers to entry into sport due to the colour of their skin, their gender, their faith or their sexual orientation. When that happens, we are all worse off. This is an issue not just with the BJJA, but across all sports and across this country. I know at first hand the level of discrimination and racism faced by grassroots football clubs in my constituency.

We are regularly told by Sport England, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and every major sporting body that there is “No room for racism”, that we must “Kick it out” and that we must “Change the game”. These are all commendable slogans, but that is the problem—they remain slogans. In this House, we know that it is not slogans but consistent, deliberate action that brings about real and lasting change in sports and in society. The only way to ensure ethical practice in sports is through accountability and transparency. Those are not optional extras; they are essential principles.

In 2021, ex-cricketer Azeem Rafiq gave evidence to the then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee detailing his experiences after a report found that he was a victim of racial harassment and bullying. From that case, we know the level of institutional racism in a sport such as cricket where we would expect better. The Minister will also be aware that, in 2023, Prince William wrote to Alpha United Juniors, a junior football club in my constituency, with concerns about almost 60 cases of racism that those juniors had faced in grassroots football. Children as young as seven years old had been the victim of racial slurs and threats of violence.

The challenge, as we witnessed with Azeem Rafiq and now Sensei Mumtaz Khan, is that those who speak out about the evidence of bias, discrimination and racism are often subject to attacks themselves for merely raising the issue. When we look at those representing Britain at a global level in sports—Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury or the likes of Amir Khan in boxing; Mo Farah, Kelly Holmes and others in the Olympics; Adil Rashid from Bradford or Moeen Ali in the England cricket team; and the likes of Marcus Rashford, Saka and others in football—we should recognise that allowing barriers to be broken enables the very best of us to compete and represent Britain at the highest level, which helps us to be the very best at sport across the globe.

[Afzal Khan]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I want to share an example from the Greater Manchester combined authority, which has, in partnership, launched a cricket strategy aimed at creating inclusive cricket, from encouraging young people to play cricket to creating a network of south Asian women to widen the reach of cricket in our community. Does my hon. Friend agree that such initiatives play a vital role in tackling inequality and racism and in strengthening community cohesion throughout the sport?

[Naz Shah]

I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about this issue in his constituency. I absolutely agree that we need such opportunities, because that is what it leads to. When we fail at the grassroots level due to institutional issues, we fail at success.

There is growing concern that Sport England continues to fund and legitimise governing bodies that are consistently weak on equality, diversity and inclusion. What is being done to move beyond policy paperwork and enforce meaningful standards for inclusion, not just box ticking? It is time for Sport England to explain how it holds funded organisations accountable on issues of equality and diversity, because recognition without results undermines trust.

What safeguards does Sport England have in place when repeated concerns about racism or exclusion are raised not just in jiu-jitsu but in other governing bodies? Has Sport England commissioned an independent review into ensuring transparency and accountability where patterns of exclusion emerge? We need to ensure that Sport England’s inclusion policies do not just exist on paper, but deliver a measurable change at every level of the sport. Although Sport England supports equality and diversity on paper, how is it measuring the real world impact across sport, particularly for marginalised communities? If we take the issue at the club I am talking about, it is clearly failing drastically.

Grassroots and ethnically diverse-led organisations often feel under-looked. How will Sport England ensure that their voices shape future priorities? Ultimately it is taxpayers’ money that funds the institution. I am grateful to the Minister for taking time out and meeting me when I raised concerns with her Department. I would like the Government to act to ensure that Sport England immediately derecognises the BJJA. I want the Government to conduct a full independent investigation into the leading national governing body and ensure the establishment of a new body that can provide confidence in the sport.

The Government should also arrange a full independent inquiry into Sport England’s handling of Mumtaz Khan’s complaint regarding the BJJA national governing body, and instruct Sport England to immediately release all the data held, unredacted, to Mumtaz Khan regarding her and her club from 29 November 2018 to date. I urge the Minister to take those matters seriously—no doubt she will. I also urge her to meet Mumtaz Khan and to hold Sport England and the BJJA to account. If we want British sport to reflect the values of fairness, respect and inclusion, we must ensure that those words are backed with real action.

11:23

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing this important debate. She outlined the huge contribution that Onna Ju-Jitsu has made to her area. I join her in thanking that organisation for the contribution that it has made to Bradford and the young people that it works with. I want to say from the outset how awful, concerning and unacceptable the experience is that my hon. Friend has outlined to the House today. I will encourage Sport England to learn and develop processes as a result, and I will go into more detail in the very short time that I have. I am happy to meet her if I cannot cover it all in the time I have left.

Sport unites us all. It transcends boundaries, fosters camaraderie and instils values of fairness, respect and perseverance. It is a mirror to our society, reflecting its strengths and at times its challenges. It is one of the most pressing challenges—racism—that we are discussing today. The Government’s stance is unequivocal: racism has absolutely no place in our society and no place in sport and activity. We are committed to stamping it out, from the elite level to the grassroots, ensuring that sport is truly for everyone, regardless of their background or ethnicity.

My hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to Sport England and its handling of a specific case relating to the British Ju-Jitsu Association. Given the issues raised, I have met Sport England to talk about the specifics of the case and how it addressed it. I want to start by saying that I recognise and appreciate the concerns raised by my hon. Friend on behalf of her constituent. National governing bodies are central to our sporting system, and are responsible for the management, administration and regulation of their sports. As such, they should rightly be held to high standards. In this case, it is clear that the British Ju-Jitsu Association fell short of those standards.

My hon. Friend spoke about how there has been an extensive process over a number of years, which initially led to beginning the process of derecognition of the governing body. As part of that process, and in line with the criteria, the British Ju-Jitsu Association was given a deadline to submit relevant evidence and information showing that it was capable of meeting set policy criteria in order to maintain its NGB status. Following a review in May 2024, the home country sports councils agreed to the continued recognition of the British Ju-Jitsu Association providing it complied with agreed conditions.

It is worth pausing on those conditions, as they remain extremely relevant. First, the governing body needed to publish a commitment to cultural change. Secondly, it needed to establish an equality, diversity and inclusion working group, and monitor processes. Thirdly, it needed to move to being a more inclusive organisation through a plan agreed with Sport England.

I completely appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns that the change has not been comprehensive. The approach taken by Sport England has given the best chance of delivering long-term change by trying to keep the British Ju-Jitsu Association within its scope rather than cutting it adrift. However, I strongly believe that culture change means action as well as words, so I will be paying close attention to how the British Ju-Jitsu Association rebuilds the confidence of those who take part in the sport, which it has clearly lost.

I will say at this stage that those conditions must be ongoing. It is clear that there remain concerns about the culture at the British Ju-Jitsu Association. I know that Sport England takes its role very seriously in supporting an inclusive environment where participants have confidence in the leadership of sport, so I will continue to engage with it to make sure that scrutiny is maintained, and that action is taken when the British Ju-Jitsu Association does not meet the standards required.

I also want to address the wider situation of sport governance within this context. As a Government, we want to see as many sports clubs and organisations affiliated with their recognised governing bodies as possible. For participants, that is vital information to be aware of. The recognition process ensures that the home country sports councils, including Sport England, have the ability to change behaviour and drive progress. It also allows clubs and other affiliated organisations to apply for public funding. I refer hon. Members to the Adjournment debate last night on safeguarding in combat sports, which shows precisely why we need to use recognition to improve sport and sport safety.

In the case that my hon. Friend has raised, it is entirely right that Sport England continues to use all available levers to drive culture change within the British Ju-Jitsu Association, while maintaining its ability to take all possible actions, including derecognition should that change not be taken forward. In her speech, my hon. Friend raised concerns with how Sport England has handled the case. I recognise that it is always difficult to reach a conclusion that satisfies all parties in such cases, but I have been assured by Sport England that it takes the allegations seriously. I also recognise that, when it comes to assessing individual cases, its powers are limited.

As a result of this case, Sport England is in the process of reviewing the current recognition policy. At the moment, the criteria are very factual and based on whether a governing body has the right policies in place. That does not allow the sports councils to take into account wider factors that are clearly relevant to the confidence that individuals have in the leadership of their sport. The current review will look at those wider issues, including whether the sport has been brought into disrepute. That will allow sports councils to take a broader look at whether it is appropriate for governing bodies to continue to be recognised. A review of that nature, and the ability to consider the leadership and culture of a governing body, is something that I wholeheartedly support and strongly encourage.

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding the sharing of information, and I know that she has been speaking to the Information Commissioner’s Office about those concerns. As Sport England is a public body, it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take an independent view on what needs to happen, but I am sure that those at Sport England will have heard the issues in this debate.

I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituent can take from this debate just how important this issue is to me and the Government. I will be keeping a close eye on developments in British jiu-jitsu, but I am also taking steps to ensure that everyone who participates in sport feels included and welcome. It is a sad fact that racism continues to plague our society, and we must do more to tackle it.

Sport England is at the heart of our sporting system. It is therefore essential that it sets an example and creates the right culture in sport. I have heard at first hand Sport England’s commitment to do so, but given this debate, I will continue to discuss it with the organisation and ensure that it remains a central priority, as there is clearly more to do.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Early Years Providers: Government Support

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

14:30

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for early years providers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I requested today’s debate on Government support for early years providers because too often the early years are left out of the discussion on education, and the impacts that they have on children’s lives and futures are not always given the respect that they deserve. I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during Monday’s statement when she called early years providers

“the hidden heroes of our communities.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 682.]

I am determined to see them hidden no longer.

Just over a year ago, I made the decision to stand to be a Member of Parliament because I believe that where people start in life should not determine where they end and what opportunities they should have. I spent many years in Nottinghamshire and Derby setting up Sure Start centres under the previous Labour Government. Then I had to watch Sure Start centres being dismantled and the most disadvantaged children having their support ripped away from them. That is the very thing that drove me to stand to be a Member of Parliament.

The injustice should never have been allowed to happen, and it is time to deal with the legacy of 14 years of a Conservative Government. In the UK, 4.5 million children are living in poverty; there are more than 4,000 in my constituency of Sherwood Forest. Almost 2.2 million children are on free school meals—just over one in four children in England. Half of those children will not reach a good level of development by the age of five. According to the Sutton Trust, the attainment gap between children on free school meals and their peers has widened to 20%.

Before I was elected, I worked with vulnerable children and I saw day in and day out how influential a child’s start in life can be on their future. I also saw how incredible Sure Start centres were in changing the lives of families in disadvantaged communities. I cannot express how excited I am to learn that the Government will be modelling their family hubs in a similar way and that they will be rooted in disadvantaged communities.

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

Ellie from Wincanton in my constituency has autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a specific learning disability. She was not diagnosed during her early education and did not have the support framework around her, so I am really pleased that the Government’s Best Start family hub expansion could help early identification, particularly of special educational needs and disabilities, but does the hon. Member agree that the strategy must be matched with sufficient funding, especially after the Tories trashed early years provision?

[Michelle Welsh]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. What happens on SEND in early years is vital. I actually saw that and how it happens. Some of it is about funding, but a lot of it is also about changing how we work. At the moment, how we work is not for the benefit of the child and the family. Services that surrounded families and children for years and years were taken away and dismantled, and now parents and children are left in a very lonely position, especially when they have SEND.

We have to look more broadly. We could throw as much money as possible at this, but actually we have to fundamentally change how we work and think about what support services we really need to surround the child. I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister might be able to confirm whether any of the family hubs might be in my constituency of Sherwood Forest—a little cheeky question there.

It is well established that the first few years of a child’s life are critical in supporting their physical, mental and emotional development in the long term. Children’s brains grow and adapt so quickly, particularly in the first few years. The experiences that they have can have lifelong effects, which is why interventions at that stage of life are crucial, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

One of the most key elements of a Sure Start centre was the pathway from birth to childhood. Ensuring that families had access to midwifery and maternity services and health visitors meant that families were prepared and equipped with essential skills and even basics such as how to feed their child. At a time when maternity services across the country are under immense pressure, ensuring that families and children are supported in the community by these hubs is vital. I hope that under this Government and the new “best start in life” strategy, there will be a clear pathway from birth and that the Department for Education will link up with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that.

I was particularly excited to see childminders included in the strategy, as my mum was a childminder for many years. For too long, childminders have been treated separately and not taken as seriously as more formal educational settings. Growing up watching my mum, I have seen at first hand the impact that childminders can have on a child’s life and how important they are to supporting families. Would the Minister reassure me on the role that childminders will play in the Best Start programme?

Early years also impacts a child’s future through school readiness. Attending an early years provider, whether a private nursery, a school nursery, a childminder or something else, can prepare children for not only the academic side of school but the social element. Allowing children to meet and interact with others of the same age helps them to socialise and it supports their ability to engage with structured learning environments. It also helps children to build confidence, curiosity and resilience, which are all strengths needed for later education and life. By addressing developmental needs early on, early years education can reduce disparities in achievement and promote more equitable outcomes for all children.

A key element of early years provision, which I feel is often left out, is the power of play: 20% of a child’s week is spent in the playground. Play is so important for a child’s imagination, creativity and confidence in interacting with other children. I want to highlight the OPAL—outdoor play and learning—programme, which is a mentor-supported school improvement programme that aims to help schools to improve the quality of play. By ensuring that early years providers have the necessary equipment and staff training, children have time to play, which is effectively utilised to build skills in language, problem solving and teamwork. It can be as simple as giving children the blocks to build their own fort or a bucket and spade for a sandcastle.

Preparing children with as many skills as possible, as soon as possible, only increases their opportunities in school and, ultimately, their opportunities when they are adults, yet access to high-quality early years provision is not equal for all children across the UK. Disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs and disabilities are more likely to struggle to access early years provision in England. The Education Policy Institute found that, for children in reception with an education, health and care plan, the attainment gap in 2023 was 19.9 months compared with children without one. That is more than a whole school year. The gap only widens. The gap for pupils at the end of primary school is around 27 months, and by the end of secondary school, the gap reaches almost 40 months. That is over three years. If we do not attempt to address that gap at the earliest stage, children with SEND will always be on the back foot, and that is not right or fair.

I am concerned about the rising costs of childcare and the impact that it will have on children who are already starting from behind. Childcare must be affordable for both families and providers. The Government’s decision to deliver an entitlement of 30 hours’ funded childcare a week for working families will be key to driving children out of poverty and it will massively improve their outcomes in life.

I was pleased that two nurseries in Sherwood Forest were among the 300 schools that the Government announced are to receive the school-based nursery grant: Samuel Barlow primary academy in Clipstone and Lake View primary and nursery school in Rainworth. However, I have heard concerns from some private nurseries in Sherwood Forest that the Government funding does not cover the costs of the free days of care. That leaves nurseries no choice but to pass those costs on to paying parents; in the worst cases it means that they must close entirely. It is vital that providers are able to stay open at a time when we so desperately need them. Have the Government investigated concerns that the funding from Government does not go far enough to cover the costs faced by nurseries?

Investment into our early years providers makes a difference; there is no doubt about that. Little Elms in my constituency provides a fantastic early years learning environment to children in the Dover Beck and Lowdham wards, and it has recently been granted permission and capital funding by the council to expand and build an extra building, allowing it to offer 17 more spaces for children in the community. That extra space will mean they can employ more early years workers, too. It will make an incredible difference in just one community in Sherwood Forest.

Across the country, there are so many providers doing incredible work for our children, including Busy Bees in Vicar Water in Clipstone, which was rated outstanding by Ofsted. I want to say a heartfelt thanks to all those workers in Sherwood Forest and across the country. As we push forward with ensuring every child has the best start in life, I remind the Government of the importance of taking early years providers with us and urge them to give providers the support and tools they need to succeed.

14:40

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. High-quality early years education is one of the most important investments we can make in not just children’s development but the future of our society. The early years shape everything that follows, laying the foundations for learning, wellbeing and opportunity, but too many children are still starting school without the basic skills they need to thrive. Gaps in communication, language and social development are showing up early, and for too many they persist throughout their education and beyond.

We cannot accept a system where a child’s background determines their chances in life, as the hon. Member set out so clearly. That is why well-supported, high-quality early years settings are so important, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Those environments can transform life chances. They give children the stability, stimulation and support they need to grow, learn and thrive.

The evidence is clear: the earlier we act, the greater the impact. The extension of free childcare to younger children has huge potential, and I welcome two new school-based nurseries in my constituency in Paignton and at Furzeham primary in Brixham, but to truly benefit families and children, this must be about quality, not just hours. That means supporting the people at the heart of this system: the early years workforce. Nursery staff, childminders and early years professionals play a vital role in children’s lives, often forming their first important relationships outside the home. They are educators, role models and a lifeline for many families. We must invest in their training, development and career progression. If we are serious about addressing the SEND crisis, additional training is crucial, as is support from qualified professionals in early years settings such as speech and language therapists.

To tackle recruitment and retention challenges, the Liberal Democrats would introduce a career strategy for nursery staff, ensuring that most people working with two to four-year-olds hold, or are training for, relevant early years qualifications. We would also restore childminding as a valued part of the system by creating a single streamlined childcare register and commissioning a practitioner-led review to simplify regulation, cut red tape and attract new childminders, while keeping high standards.

Of course, families themselves also need support. That is why the Government’s commitment to family hubs has such promise, and I welcome it. These hubs have the potential to spot emerging needs early and provide parents with the tools and confidence to give their children the best start in life, whether that is understanding the importance of reading and play, managing screen time, supporting good nutrition or sleep, or simply helping parents to feel more confident. Family hubs can be transformative.

This is a moment of real opportunity. With the right focus, investment and support for our workforce and families, we can build a high-quality, inclusive early years system that will change children’s lives for the better.

14:43

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. I welcome the Government’s efforts to make early years provision more accessible, and I am proud that they have taken the necessary steps to better support young families and give every child the best start in life.

The importance of early years providers is well understood. Studies have shown that high-quality early years support influences later wellbeing for both mental and physical health, as well as building resilience. We know that high-quality early years support affects attainment during the early years and future education. However, families in disadvantaged areas tend not to access early years services as frequently as families in more affluent areas. Currently, only 36% of families in the lower income bracket use formal childcare services during the early years, compared with 73% of those from higher earning families.

Children who do not receive early years education and support can be significantly disadvantaged. They are more likely to experience developmental deficiencies and deficits, leaving them lagging behind. That should not be the case. The economic gap in accessing early years provision can mean that some children begin primary school or early education without the necessary skills they need to effectively transition to that stage.

The early years foundation stage statutory framework sets out the specific skills that children should have developed by the time they arrive at school, including being toilet trained, simple letter recognition, and socialising with their peers. Children who do not access early years provision are less likely to be equipped with those skills, which means that teachers face increased pressure to bring those children up to the required standard.

When children arrive without the necessary skills, teachers are forced into the role of parent in an environment where their role is to be an educator. That can reduce the quality of teaching for the whole classroom, and the delivery of the curriculum is slowed down. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that every child has the best start in life. That involves providing support to parents, and children, from pregnancy to age five, and making early years services more accessible to lower-income families. To echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest, someone’s background should not determine their outcome.

However, there is still work to be done. For example, I would like to see dedicated outreach efforts in areas of deprivation to help close the inequality gap between those who access early years services and those who do not. Every child should arrive on their first day of primary school with the skills that they need to thrive. Will the Minister therefore commit to implementing dedicated outreach and parenting programmes for the most deprived areas, as an essential part of making sure that support reaches families who need it the most? In doing so, we help both parents and teachers provide the best start in life for every child.

14:46

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate and on her speech, much of which I really agreed with. High-quality early years education is the foundation of young people’s learning and makes an enormous difference to how they settle into primary school and to the rest of their time in formal education settings. There is so much evidence of the role of the first 1,000 days in the lives of all children.

I recently had a great time when I visited Brown Bear nursery and pre-school at Great Moor in my constituency. As well as having a really fun session creating art with some of the little learners, I spent time talking with the nursery’s highly experienced director, Wendy, about the impact of the ongoing challenges faced by nurseries across the UK. Staffing costs make up 70% of the nursery’s outgoings, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions has led to substantial staffing cost increases—and that is before taking into account the changes to business rates. Wendy described the cumulative impact as absolutely crippling. As a Liberal Democrat, I of course supported the calls for the Government to exempt early years education and care providers from the rise in employer national insurance contributions, the result of which has been, as expected, even more strain on nurseries like Brown Bear that are already under enormous pressure.

In 2019, Wendy helped to set up a network for private providers in Stockport, which has since been going from strength to strength. The Stockport private providers network now includes 63 day nurseries, 22 pre-schools, 220 childminders and eight independent nurseries. The early years sector is primarily led by women, and it is worth us all reflecting on the way our society looks at women-led sectors, whether that is early years, care or even the multibillion-pound hair and beauty industry. It is important that we look at how we value those sectors.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Does she have any thoughts on how we could attract more men to the industry?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. We spend a lot of time talking about the gender balance in various industries. My hon. Friend spent time in the armed forces, and I know that the armed forces think long and hard about how they recruit and retain women in particular. Men are often really under-represented in early years education, in care settings, and so on, and they would have so much to add, particularly for those children who do not have many male role models at home or in their families. I look forward to the Minister commenting on that hugely important point, because he is the one in Government and will, I am sure, have all the answers.

Anybody who has had to spend time caring for multiple toddlers will know the skill, diligence, energy and resilience needed to do the job well. It is right that we expect high standards from our early years providers. High-quality early years education is crucial for ensuring that children from any background can go on to achieve their potential. However, many nurseries across Stockport and, indeed, across the country will find it difficult to improve or even maintain their good and outstanding ratings as their finances continue to be squeezed.

[Sarah Dyke]

I think my hon. Friend is coming to an important point that I want to make, too. I recently met Acorn childcare in Somerton, another brilliant women-led nursery in my constituency. Staff there have told me over and over again that they are really struggling with the unsustainable costs and the funding model that is being implemented, plus the free entitlement that they now have to deal with. The spiralling costs are becoming uncontrollable. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must review the rates paid to providers to ensure that they cover the actual costs of delivering good-quality childcare?

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree that the funding model for early years and nurseries must be sustainable. We do not want to see the business model becoming no longer viable, so that these wonderful providers that give children the best start in life can no longer continue to exist.

There have been Government announcements on the provider agreement, and announcements about how any shortfall in funding can be met by only voluntary contributions. There have also been announcements about staffing ratios. My view—the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest laid out this point really well—is that such announcements do very little to support the quality of provision or staff retention.

For context, private providers across Stockport have told me that since 1999 they have experienced a 250% increase in wages, which is a good thing, but that is in comparison to a funding increase of only 83%. Those two things do not add up. Early years settings are having to deal with the increasingly complex situations that many children face at home, whether that is their special educational needs and disabilities or different situations. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest was absolutely right to take about far too many children living in poverty, which clearly has a knock-on impact on all education and early years settings. It is important that we restate our request that the Government look at the two-child benefit cap when they make decisions about future planning.

I am approaching my 20th year as a primary school governor, and I am acutely aware of the shared challenges and issues facing children and educators across all settings. If we want to see our young people thrive, the Government must commit to a sustainable funding model for early years care. They must also recognise the true cost of providing high-quality childcare, and not add more pressures to young parents already struggling with the cost of living. I ask the Government to recognise the increasing financial burden on parents, and to understand that proper funding for early years education is really an investment in our children’s and our society’s future.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call the Chair of the Education Select Committee.

14:53

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate.

I want by paying tribute to early years providers across the country. The early years sector runs on a powerhouse of dedicated, skilled professionals, the vast majority of them women, who spend every day making a difference to the lives of children. As I pay tribute to early years professionals, I want to recognise the extraordinary work of Laura McFarlane, who sadly died this week. Laura dedicated the whole of her 40-year career to improving the lives of children, most recently as the director of the Lambeth early action partnership, known as LEAP, a 10-year national lottery-funded programme of early years support, and as director of the Liz Atkinson Children’s Centre just outside my constituency. LEAP made a difference to the lives of countless babies and young children in Lambeth, thanks to Laura’s leadership, vision and drive. She will be very much missed. Her legacy is immense.

The early years of a child’s life are vital. They offer a unique opportunity to lay the foundations for learning and development and for good physical and mental health, and to close the disadvantage gap. There is a wide variety of early years providers, including childminders, not-for-profit and social enterprises, private companies, school-based nurseries and maintained nurseries. That makes early years policy more complex than some other areas of education policy, and it also creates challenges, particularly in seeking to secure availability, consistency and quality in every area of the country.

The debate about early years providers can sometimes fall into a false dichotomy between childcare and early education. I have always been clear that these are two sides of the same coin: what is childcare for parents is early years education for children. We want every child to have the highest-quality early years education in whatever setting they are cared for.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that although expanding nursery-based provision in schools is unquestionably laudable in improving access to childcare, we must guard against inadvertently passing on to primary school teachers the responsibility for teaching basic life skills that could and should have been nurtured earlier, thereby stretching resources and risking the lowering of standards? Perhaps the Minister could outline what steps his Department is taking to correct the funding and support imbalance so that childminders who provide vital individualised care are not sidelined.

[Helen Hayes]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s intervention, that is exactly what the Government are trying to do in establishing school-based nurseries: to ensure that across the country there are a range of settings that support children’s development so they arrive at school in reception year ready to learn.

I welcome the Government’s expansion of early years provision through the roll-out of funded hours and the delivery of 3,000 new school-based nurseries. That will make a huge difference to families, giving parents the option to return to work and helping with the costs of childcare, which under the previous Government resulted in many families spending more on childcare than on their rent or mortgage and, for the first time in decades, saw women leaving the workforce because the costs of staying in work were simply unviable.

In delivering the roll-out, it is important that the Government pay close attention to the financial resilience of early years providers. Many providers have been flagging for a long time the fact that the hourly rate they have been paid does not match the costs of delivering funded hours. There have also been inconsistences in the way local authorities pass on the Government subsidy. The previous Government’s funding model created distortions in the costs of childcare, with parents of the youngest children paying very high rates to cross-subsidise the costs of providing underfunded funded hours for three and four-year-olds. Nurseries have also experienced rising costs in relation to energy, food and insurance, and they are also now having to adjust to increased employer national insurance contributions and the increase in the national minimum wage.

Sadly, we have seen far too many early years settings close in recent years because they cannot make their business model work. It is important that the Government pay careful attention to the financial resilience of the sector and take steps to ensure that nurseries do not close due to high costs and inadequate rates of funding.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the eye-watering cost of nursery care for parents. Parents in my constituency tell me that, like me, they spend thousands upon thousands a month, when in other countries it costs just hundreds of pounds a month. One of the most recent contributing factors is the rise in national insurance contributions, which for me increased nursery fees by 10%. Does the hon. Lady regret the Government not accepting Lib Dem amendments to exempt nurseries from the extra charges?

[Helen Hayes]

I do not regret the Government not accepting Liberal Democrat amendments that are not accompanied by any means of plugging the funding gap that would be left by the additional commitments they ask the Government to make, but it is important that the Government continually look at the resilience and sustainability of the early years sector in the light of what are undoubtedly additional costs and challenges that the sector is having to bear. That will be important for the delivery of the roll-out and for provision across the country.

Early years practitioners do such important work. We trust our most precious family members into their care, and they have the capacity to make an enormous difference. Yet there is a recruitment crisis in the early years. We do not value early education and childcare enough, staff are paid far too little, and there are insufficient opportunities to gain specialist qualifications and to progress. I visited the Sheringham nursery and children’s centre in east London, which has a large sign at the gate that reads “Building Brains Here”. The nursery’s work is just that: laying the foundations for the rest of a child’s life. We must find the ways to value early years staff more, promote the early years as a rewarding and vital vocation, and ensure that staff are appropriately paid, with good opportunities for progression.

In that context, I welcome the Government’s newly launched strategy to give every child the “best start in life”, and the commitment to expand the number of stronger practice hubs, such as Sheringham nursery school and children’s centre, which play such an important role in strengthening good practice across the area in which they sit, and to incentivise early years practitioners to work in areas of deprivation where their expertise is so important.

Childminders are often overlooked in the debate about childcare and early years education, but they are a vital part of the landscape of care and education for many families. They play a critical role in the lives of the children in their care and they are the option of choice for many parents and carers, particularly for very young children. The number of Ofsted-registered childminders has been declining for several years, and many earn unacceptably low levels of income.

I welcome the steps the Government are taking in the new strategy to try to stabilise the income of childminders and encourage childminding as a profession, as well as promote innovations in childminding practice, which would help childminders to work together across a local area and in partnership with schools. I also wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment to expand Best Start family hubs, building on the success of the previous Labour Government’s Sure Start programme, the proud achievement of my late predecessor Dame Tessa Jowell.

Sure Start played a vital role in supporting the landscape of childcare, often with a nursery on site plus supporting networks of childminders in a local area, offering them training and development, and building relationships with parents. For the most vulnerable and disadvantaged parents, more is needed than simply making a child place available. Sure Start centres, by offering play-and-stay sessions and parenting classes, built relationships of trust with parents, boosted their confidence and often acted as the gateway to taking up a nursery place, which is beneficial for children, and to re-engaging with the labour market and education for parents. Best Start family hubs are badly needed, and I hope they will play a similar role.

I also welcome the focus in the strategy on the quality of early years provision and inclusion. It is an unacceptable reality that the parents who find it hardest to find childcare places are the parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and that approaches to SEND inclusion vary widely across early years providers, which is not acceptable. I welcome the attention the Government are giving to that issue.

Finally, I want to draw attention again to the role of maintained nursery schools within the landscape of early years providers. Maintained nurseries are unique in being constituted as schools and required to employ a headteacher and qualified teaching staff, but they are excluded from the schools funding formula. Their funding has been dramatically eroded relative to their costs in recent years. Maintained nurseries are often beacons of good practice located in areas of deprivation, and are inclusive settings with an expertise in SEND.

The Minister will know that many maintained nursery schools have closed and many that remain are operating with unsustainable financial deficits. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that the response of the Government to my inquiries on this topic, which is largely to push responsibility to local authorities, simply is not sufficient when local authorities are not fully funded to support maintained nursery schools. It cannot be right that, as the Government set out an ambitious new strategy for early years, some of the institutions with the greatest levels of expertise and the most successful track records of delivery are being left effectively to wither on the vine.

I call on the Minister to set out a plan for maintained nurseries, to reform their funding model and ensure their long-term sustainability. The Education Committee, which I chair, will turn attention to the early years in the coming months, and I look forward to making our contribution to scrutinising the Government’s work in this vital sector that makes such a difference.

15:03

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for highlighting this issue and setting the scene incredibly well. Early years are the foundational building blocks for our society. I read recently about the Shaping Us campaign, led by the Princess of Wales, which strongly focuses on the need for early years support. The campaign highlights that:

“During early childhood, from pregnancy to the age of five, our brains develop at an amazing rate—faster than at any other times in our lives. Our experiences, relationships, our surroundings at that very young age, shape the rest of our lives.”

I subscribe to that not just because the Shaping Us campaign stated it, but because my youngest son Luke and his wife Rachael are staying with us with their two children—Freya is five, and her birthday was Saturday, a week ago, and Ezra is two and a half—and I can honestly say that the two of them absorb everything that happens around them like a sponge. Ezra is not able to speak yet, but he clearly understands everything said to him; we have to be careful with our language and with what we insinuate and do, because he is watching. Freya is the same.

I can absolutely understand why the years from pregnancy to the age of five are so important. Because children are by their very nature innocent, whenever we are having a bad day, they manage to cheer us up with a smile, a hug or whatever it may be. Those things mean a lot to their grandad.

The importance of the early years is well documented and accepted, and this House needs to play a greater role in supporting people to provide an environment for children that ensures that we raise a generation of happy children and highly functioning adults. That responsibility is incredibly important.

I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in his place. The Minister does not have any responsibility for Northern Ireland—he will probably say, “Thank goodness for that”—but he interacts and exchanges ideas with the Minister from the Northern Ireland Executive. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a wealth of ideas, and it is good that we can exchange them between the different regions.

Childcare costs, particularly for full-time places, have increased significantly, with some providers experiencing a 14% rise since 2021. According to Employers For Childcare, 43% of providers describe their financial situation as “struggling” or “distressed”. It is essential that parents have access not simply to people who watch their children, but to people who help their developmental progress.

In Northern Ireland, approximately 79% of women with dependent children are economically active. That is a good figure—that means that they are employed or actively seeking work. The spin-off of that, which may sometimes be negative, is that they are entrusting their children to other people, who will spend a lot of time with them. The atmosphere needs to be bright, engaging and, above all, safe. In many cases that will be provided by grandparents, family members and those who have available time.

Nurseries are having to take more children to balance the books, and they need greater support. I want to tell Westminster Hall about some of the things we are doing in Northern Ireland. Childcare is one of the most significant bills faced by many families across Northern Ireland. My party, the Democratic Unionist party, saw that—not that we are better than anybody else, by the way—and our Minister acted on it, so some credit can be given to our Minister for doing so. We instigated a survey of 1,000 parents, which found that nearly 85% of people had their return to work impacted by childcare costs. In other words, people go back to work early because they need the money, or they can put it off a bit longer if granny and granda, uncles and aunts, or other family members will help out.

Almost a quarter of parents also say that childcare costs consumed nearly a full wage in the household. Those figures are incredibly scary. The most recent Employers For Childcare survey highlighted an average cost of some £170 a week, which represents a significant financial hurdle, yet Northern Ireland lagged behind other UK regions in supporting working families, so we decided to do something. The DUP was determined to change this situation, and subsequently brought in the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme in September 2024—it will be a year old come this September. It provides a 15% subsidy for childcare costs to support working parents with children who have not yet started primary school. The NICSS is a really good scheme, not because it was introduced by our party, but because it helps everybody, irrespective of whether they vote DUP in Northern Ireland. That is what politics is about: delivering for all, irrespective of whether people vote for us on the ballot paper.

The childcare is delivered by registered childcare providers participating in the tax-free childcare scheme, or TFC scheme, including daycare providers, playgroups, childminders and approved home child carers. The overarching aim of the scheme is to help working parents with the affordability of childcare costs. The Northern Ireland Executive has agreed that the subsidy scheme will target working parents who are eligible for the tax-free childcare and who have children who have not yet started primary school. It is really important that we have that scheme in place.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with regard to the interventions that have been made. However, returning to SEND growth, in Northern Ireland it is outpacing the growth of the general school population, and I believe that late identification of SEND and delayed support for it is one of the biggest failures right across the United Kingdom. So often, children are not identified as having SEND until they reach school age, by which point their language, social skills and cognitive delays are often entrenched. Therefore, does he agree that there needs to be more investment into funding specialist training for pre-school educators, because often early years is the poor cousin of the education system, despite the fact that, as we have already heard, zero to five is the most important time in a child’s life?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and the words of a mother and the words on behalf of her constituents are well documented; we thank her for that. She has outlined the issues very clearly.

The tax-free childcare scheme will be extended from 1 September 2025 to include provision for school-age children for families registered with the scheme. There is a lot more to do, but that means that from 1 September 2025 working parents of school-age children will be able to receive the 15% subsidy. The scheme started a year ago by focusing on a limited number of children, but it has done more since. This year, the subsidy will embrace even more people, up to the capped amount on their childcare bills.

To assist with the early years development of their children, parents need to have reliable and affordable childcare. I believe that this House needs to look at providing such childcare for working families, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to. As I said earlier, I know that the Minister has regular contact with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the relevant Northern Ireland Minister in particular. I would just be interested to know what ideas have been swapped and how we can do things better together. I know that he will see the benefits of the Democratic Unionist party scheme, for instance, and hopefully there can be funding for more schemes that offer such practical help across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There is nothing more important than looking after our children. As a grandfather of six, I understand the importance of schooling, as the ages of my grandchildren vary from two and a half right up to 16 and they are going through the system. I can see the improvement that we have made in Northern Ireland. I believe that improvement can be made elsewhere, and I know that this House and the Minister in particular will do their best to make sure that they deliver the best for all children across this great United Kingdom.

15:12

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this hugely important debate.

When finding affordable childcare is harder for people than getting their hands on Oasis tickets, it is clear that the system is fundamentally broken. That is the reality for so many parents, and the reality that Labour inherited. A fragmented, underfunded and understaffed childcare system was one of the many messes left behind by the previous Government. And families across Altrincham and Sale West have suffered with the cost of that failure, not just in eye-watering fees but in the loss of earnings that comes from one partner—usually the woman—not being able to return to work after children are born.

This Government are turning that situation around, and in doing so they are supporting family finances and giving children the best possible start in life. Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency, where Government funding for a new nursery at Altrincham C of E primary school has been secured. This development, alongside 30 hours of free childcare from September, marks a sea change in the support available to local parents.

In the past, we have heard big talk on early years, but it was so often a pledge without a plan; so often, promises have been made without the funding needed to make them a reality. In contrast, this Government are delivering £2 billion of extra investment in early years entitlement, taking our spend to over £8 billion—a 30% increase compared with previous years.

The Early Education and Childcare Coalition states:

“After years of political neglect, it finally feels that someone has taken control of the wheel, and the direction of travel for early education and childcare is hopeful.”

It welcomes the Government’s “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, published earlier this week.

[Cameron Thomas]

The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in early years. One way in which I hope the Government will ensure that children with SEND and neurodiversity requirements are not left behind is by implementing systems in early years provision that enable SEND and neurodiversity to be identified and addressed sooner rather than later. Will the hon. Member join me in asking the Government to do that?

[Mr Rand]

Yes, absolutely. The sentiment across the House with regard to our SEND system and the need for additional, earlier intervention and support is well founded. I think that is the direction that the Government intend to travel in with their reforms, and I am sure that the Minister will outline that.

Putting trained early years teachers into nurseries generates the best outcomes and the best value for money, but just one in 10 has this at the moment. We need incentives to recruit and retain teachers, and the Government’s efforts in this area so far are welcome. This is about supporting providers to drive up quality. I welcome Ofsted inspections as part of that effort, but I ask the Minister to consider worrying reports that some providers have brought in extra staff on the day of inspections only.

That issue was brought to my attention by my constituent Frances, whose daughter was seriously mistreated at nursery. After the incident, Frances was deeply upset at the lack of safeguarding at what is a well-regarded nursery, and she found it extremely difficult to gain access to the CCTV footage and to hold the provider to account. There must be a balance between supporting providers and supporting parents in ensuring that providers are accountable. I hope that the rights of parents—which the Minister knows is an issue of great importance to me—are an important part of the ongoing reforms to the sector.

We have already made great progress in making it easier and cheaper for parents to access childcare. We delivered the 15 hours of funded childcare last September, and we are delivering 30 hours this September, which will save parents in my constituency up to £7,500 per child per year. It is fantastic to hear that we are building on this with the delivery of new family hubs across the country.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Our early years providers in South East Cornwall are essential for local families, and they are a cornerstone of healthy development. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need clearer national guidance on term dates, notice periods and transitions between settings? Local authorities need to offer consistent, joined-up support, which would provide families with the clarity and stability that they urgently need.

[Mr Rand]

I know that many local authorities and providers do try to give that assurance in advance, but I am sure that there is more work that they can do to give stability and certainty to parents and families in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.

The family hubs that we are delivering across the country, including in my local authority of Trafford, will drive up quality in our early years system, support providers and strengthen support for children as they enter primary school, which is especially important for the 3,000 children in my constituency who are growing up in poverty. Lots has been achieved, and there is lots more still to do, but as the Early Education and Childcare Coalition said this week, we are heading in the right direction.

15:14

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important and timely debate—I am sure she intended it to fall in the week when the Secretary of State announced the roll-out of Best Start centres. I also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her ongoing advocacy for children, parents and early years providers up and down the country, often using her personal experiences to impress the importance of getting this right. Her commitment to the early years is noted across the House. She has also highlighted that early years providers span not just nurseries, but pre-schools, maintained nurseries, childminders, independent nurseries and in-school nurseries as well.

Quality early years education is the single best investment that any Government can make in the future of our society. It supports children’s development at a critical stage of their lives and lays the groundwork for future educational attainment, wellbeing and opportunity. It also matters enormously for families. Flexible and affordable childcare is not just a convenience; it is a vital part of the country’s economic and social infrastructure. With the UK’s statutory parental pay among the lowest in the OECD, parents are often having to choose an early years provider earlier than they might like in order to return to work.

The Government’s plans to expand the 30 hours free childcare entitlement have received broad support across the House, and rightly so. However, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the ambition will be matched with realism. Is he confident that the promise will be delivered? Many providers are already struggling to keep their doors open. In 2023, half of them reported that their income did not cover basic operating costs, and that is before factoring in the Government’s increases to national insurance contributions and the national living wage.

In real terms, the average funding for three to four-year-olds is still below where it was in 2016. While the headlines about expanded entitlement sound impressive, and are no doubt welcome across the country, we have to ask whether it is enough to keep the sector afloat.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Over the weekend, I was at a village fête. I will not name the primary school, but I was approached by the head, who told me that with the expansion of the number of hours and the rate that they are being paid, the school will close within 18 months. Even though, by the standards of its sector, it had a reasonable buffer going into this, the cost of delivering the service is not matched by Government funding. This village will lose a vital service as a result.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend raises a valid and important point that has been made in various contributions to this debate. At the start of this week, I spent my morning at Fishbourne pre-school. It does not have a lovely name like the Bears or the Acorns—I am quite jealous, actually—but it is a brilliant, popular, charity-run pre-school that is doing everything it can to serve local families.

I was covered in shaving foam the moment I walked through the door. There were activities, messy play and free play going on everywhere. We had a lovely “Wind the Bobbin Up” in the forest school, but I also took the opportunity to talk to the manager of the pre-school. She told me very plainly that, under the new arrangements, not only will their funding model be affected, but they will end up taking fewer children overall. The demand is there—they are already at capacity—but this change will mean that they can serve fewer families in the Fishbourne area.

I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was alluding to: in those rural areas where there is not a huge amount of choice, and just one local service provider, if they can take on fewer children, where are the others meant to go?

[Caroline Voaden]

My hon. Friend is talking about the provision in rural areas. We have a wonderful nursery called Rainbow nursery in Totnes, which serves not only the town but the wider area. There are very few, if any, village nurseries, so lots of people come into the town to use the nursery provision. It is absolutely rammed, with a huge waiting list, and many parents will not even get a place before their child moves on. As other hon. Members have said, it is really struggling, with the free childcare hours, to cover its costs. If that nursery becomes unsustainable, there will be no provision. There are not lots of alternatives, so we are at a really crucial point.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I hope that the Minister hears the message loud and clear from across the House that many service providers are flagging this to us in our constituencies. I send my concern to Rainbow nursery—another great name for a nursery.

Fishbourne pre-school is just about covering wages and keeping the lights on, but there is nothing left over for the things that actually make early years special: the new books, the toys and the equipment to support those additional needs. Anything extra for the pre-school has to be raised by the parents via raffles or voluntary donations.

The staff at Fishbourne pre-school were conscientious, engaged and passionate about the young people who they look after. I could tell that they valued every single one of them. I was really pleased to see that it had recently taken on a male member of staff, which goes back to earlier contributions from hon. Members. The nursery manager told me that it is brilliant to have a male presence in the nursery because so many of those children only see females in nursery settings. He is doing a marvellous job and I commend him for it. He was not in charge of the shaving foam.

These professionals value every single one of the children they look after. Do the Government believe that they are valuing those professionals in the same way? The Department for Education itself has said that we will need 70,000 new childcare places and 35,000 additional staff by this autumn. Those already in the sector report feeling underpaid, overworked and under-recognised, despite the enormous responsibility that they hold looking after the most precious members of our families. If the Government are to recruit 35,000 more people into the early years sector, they need to make it an attractive career path.

The new entitlements from September are meant to support all families, but the current design risks deepening inequality. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 80% of the families who will benefit earn over £45,000 a year. Just 20% are lower income families. That means that some of the children who would benefit most from early years intervention and education are the least likely to get it. I hope that the Minister is across that.

My party has welcomed the Government’s commitment to increasing the frequency of Ofsted inspections for early years settings to keep children safe. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) mentioned, that is incredibly welcome, but there is concern that the numbers on the floor can be boosted the day before an Ofsted inspection. The tragic case of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle and the horrific abuse uncovered at Twickenham Green nursery are searing reminders of what can happen when safeguarding fails. Gigi’s parents, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), have long campaigned for more regular and more robust inspections, as they are a vital part of raising standards and safeguarding children.

Going back to supporting the workforce who are delivering this essential care, we need to invest in proper training, setting clear standards for oversight and ensuring that there is a meaningful career path for nursery staff. Requiring a recognised early years qualification and helping staff to access and complete that training is key to building a confident, skilled workforce and ensuring that every child receives the best possible start. So many Members across the House mentioned SEND; that skilled workforce can identify the additional support that a child may need as they move on towards school.

I will briefly touch on the comments by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), on maintained nurseries. I have a maintained nursery in my constituency, which is relaying the same concerns that she raised: it has the additional onus of employing a headteacher and operating like a school, but it cannot access the funding that schools can. The burden and pressure on its balance sheet are huge, and it is at risk of closing, but maintained nurseries have the greatest majority of SEND children. They are doing those early interventions and some incredible work. I was grateful to visit my local maintained nursery.

[Cameron Thomas]

I was a very nervous father when I handed my daughter to the childminder in her early years setting. She was an absolutely fantastic lady called Jade Bamford in Oxfordshire. When calling for SEND training for early years staff, would my hon. Friend call on the Government to incorporate childminders within that?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point that childminders are quite often the bedrock of early years provision. So often they are the experts, because they have a small cohort of children so they take the time to understand the needs of every single one of those children that they look after, and I praise them for it.

I would like to briefly touch on the comments made by the Secretary of State for Education during her announcement on school readiness, about children needing to have the ability to sit still. I have two children in primary school. Before they started school, the fantastic nursery that they attended and their primary school were in absolute lockstep on what it means to be school ready. Can they put their own coat and shoes on independently? Can they go to the toilet unaided? Can they hold a pencil? Can they recognise their name if it is written out? There was no requirement for them to be able to sit still, especially in reception where so much of the foundation of their education is rooted in play, as the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest spoke about. I know that the Secretary of State is a mother, and I am sure that she recognises that it was a poorly phrased statement, so can the Minister reassure parents across the UK that play will continue to be the bedrock of early years teaching, and that it will continue throughout key stage 1?

We were very pleased to see the Government’s recent announcements on Best Start hubs and early years workforce support. Those are welcome steps, and I know that a Best Start hub will be really welcomed in my constituency of Chichester. It is a real opportunity to ensure that families have access to all those support networks under one roof.

I will close by asking the Minister a couple of questions. Will he tell us whether the Department will urgently review the funding rates to ensure that they reflect the true cost of delivering early years education, especially in the light of rising staffing and operational costs? Will the Government please consider exempting early years providers from the recent national insurance increase, given the unique pressures facing the sector? What steps are being taken to ensure that the roll-out in September does not leave providers short-staffed and under-resourced? How will the Department support those that are already warning that they may not be able to meet demand?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will give an extra two minutes to the shadow Minister if she wants them, given that we have a little bit of time.

15:31

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this interesting and thought-provoking debate. It is nice to see a degree of unanimity across the Chamber about the importance of early years high-quality provision.

Let me first deal with NICs, because that issue has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); the Lib Dem spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller); and the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). We know the impact that it is having on nursery settings up and down the country. It is not right that they are treated differently from the rest of the public sector, given that so much of their provision is entirely state-funded.

The impact of the changes has been talked about in very clear terms in this debate. It has been described as “catastrophic” by the Early Years Alliance. We know that 52% of settings are likely to reduce the number of early entitlement places on offer, and that the changes will result in fees going up for parents. That is not what anybody here wants. I know that the Minister understands that, so in his bids to the Treasury for the upcoming Budget, will he ask—as I am sure he has already—that more relief is given to early years for the provision of NICs?

One of the themes discussed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell)—in what I hope she does not mind me saying was a really excellent speech—and by the Lib Dem spokeswoman, was outreach to disadvantaged areas with the new offer. When we had the offer for two-year-olds, which was just limited by income, the take-up was not what we wanted. Now there is a wider offer, that outreach will be important. I hope that the Minister will speak to that. There is also a link between areas of disadvantage and children who are under the care of a social worker. What more will be done to make sure that social workers are aware of the provision in their local areas, and can direct families who may need it to that provision? That is very important. We know it may provide relief for the parents and a higher quality placement for the individual child. It would be very helpful if the Minister could come back on that today.

I want to talk about school readiness, because I absolutely welcome the Government’s focus in that area, which is very important. As I mentioned in my response to the Education Secretary’s statement the other day, the target we have is for the end of reception. It is therefore not really measuring school readiness as such; it is measuring the work of brilliant reception teachers, up and down the country. That is not actually what we want to measure.

We want to measure the things that the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman talked about: trying to get children ready to go to school. That would reduce the pressure on primary school teachers, rather than increase it. I am sure that the Government’s intention is not to increase it, but it is what will happen as a result of that target. We need to try to get those young people ready to learn and to go to school, because it makes such a difference to their ability to learn. I hope that the Minister will consider that as part of the school readiness work that he has going on at the moment.

As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, I would like to talk more about screens in the context of school readiness. The Government have brought forward a partnership for a national year of reading, which I think we can all agree is very positive, but the one thing that is driving the decline in reading in this country is overuse of screens by young people. I know that the Education Committee has done some brilliant work on this issue. We have to make sure that parents know that too much screen time is just not good for their children. We know that 25% of three and four-year-olds have phones. That is that is not good for them. It is delaying speech development, reading and socialisation, and that is being compounded by the reception baseline assessment now being done on a screen, which implies that children need to be able to use a screen by the time they get to reception.

A recent trip to a primary school alerted me to this. The reception teacher said, “I used to ask them whether they could split this orange apart or not, to be able to check their hand-eye co-ordination. Now it’s all done on a screen.” It is just wrong. If we want a change in school readiness—all Members present are interested in that; that is why we are at this debate—we need an increased focus on reducing screen use by young children, because parents too often just do not know that it is bad for their child. They are trying to do their best, and they think it is fantastic that they can give them a screen with some games on, but actually they are stopping them from being able to play. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest and others talked about the fact that play is crucial to early development, and we impede that by giving screens to children.

This debate has been really interesting. There is a degree of unanimity on the direction that we need to go in. I hope that some progress can be made on funding for early years provision and that we can try to drive up the usage of the free offers in disadvantaged areas. We need to shift the focus on school readiness to what we need to help parents do to get their child ready for school. I hope that, together, we can shift the emphasis and try to get screens out of young people’s lives, because that is a single thing that we can do to help them with their mental health and their school readiness.

15:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing a debate on this most important subject. I thank all Members for their contributions, including the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes).

The foundations of success are laid in early childhood. Ensuring that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and to thrive is the foundation stone of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. On Monday, the Government published our vision for the future of early years, so this is a timely debate that demonstrates that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest clearly has her finger on the pulse on these issues.

Our landmark strategy will bring together early years and family services and put children’s first years at the heart of efforts to improve life chances. “Giving every child the best start in life” sets out the first steps to deliver our plan for change commitment for a record number of children to be ready to start school by 2028. That builds on the work that we have already started and the impacts that have already been felt. We have delivered the biggest uplift in the early years pupil premium on record, opened new breakfast clubs and funded 300 new and expanded school-based nurseries across the country, two of which, I am proud to say, sit in my hon. Friend’s constituency. From September, we are rolling out 30 hours of funded childcare for working parents, saving eligible parents who use their full entitlement an average of £7,500 a year. With the new strategy, we will go further and faster. We will spend close to £1.5 billion over the next three years to make early education more accessible and higher quality.

Central to my ambition to improve outcomes for all children is a diverse and thriving early years sector with a brilliant and valued workforce. We want early years to be a career that people are proud to join and stay in. That means more opportunities to gain qualifications and build fulfilling careers. We want high-quality evidence to underpin training, support and development for early years professionals. That will mean that passionate people can grow their skills and careers, and help every child to thrive.

Alongside a strong market, we want to drive higher standards through strengthened improvement and accountability systems that support and drive high-quality provision for settings and families. That includes funding for Ofsted to inspect more often, and inspect new settings within 18 months of them opening. Our ambition is to make early years education the best it can be for every child in every setting.

The early years workforce is at the heart of the Government’s opportunity mission and a top priority for the Department for Education. I pay tribute to those who are dedicated to the sector and working in it to improve life chances for every child. I declare an interest that my sister is an early years practitioner of 30 years’ standing. I can assure her and everyone who works in the sector that this Government hugely value their work.

As set out in the recent “best start in life” strategy, we are improving the quality of early education by investing in training and qualifications to raise the skill levels of the workforce. We are also increasing understanding of high-quality practice and providing access to proven, evidence-based early years programmes. That is backed with an extra £400 million over the next three years to improve quality and drive better outcomes for children. We will collaborate with the sector to co-design and consult on a new professional register and establish an evidence-informed career framework to support career progression at all levels.

We will recruit more early years teachers in areas where they are needed the most, more than doubling the number of funded early years initial teacher training courses by 2028. The early years teacher incentive will support recruitment and retention of early years teachers in the most deprived communities by giving existing and new early years teachers who work in eligible nurseries £4,500 per annum so that every child, no matter where they live, can benefit from high-quality early education.

We are rolling out a new early years teacher degree apprenticeship and transforming the apprenticeship offer into a new growth and skills programme with shorter, more flexible training options. That includes continuing and extending free online child development training for all staff, and funding more places on the national professional qualification in early years leadership programme.

We are investing in data-driven interventions to support early maths, literacy and language skills, and doubling the number of early years stronger practice hubs from 18 to 36 so that even more settings and childminders can access free resources and training to help their practice. We are helping more people to discover rewarding early years careers through our “Do something big” national recruitment campaign, and building on our pilot to offer financial incentives to attract and retain the best educators, including our campaign to encourage more men to go into the sector.

We are making it easier for managers to check qualifications and increase confidence in staff sufficiency by using the new “Check an early years qualification” digital service. Providers can maximise the potential of staff who have the right skills and experience but do not hold an approved qualification through the experience-based route.

We are working closely with local areas to do everything we can to ensure that there are sufficient places and the sector has the workforce it needs ahead of September. We have already seen a strong response from the early years sector following the introduction of the new entitlement. In 2023-24 we saw nearly three times the growth in places and more than 1.5 times the growth in staff working in early years compared with 2022-23, showing that the early years market is responding positively. Continuing that growth ahead of September will allow more families to benefit from the expansion, and we are determined that the sector receives the support it needs to make that happen.

The strength of our varied and diverse providers gives families a choice of high-quality, flexible options that meet their needs, but it can mean that stand-alone settings miss out on the benefits that come from working together. We will work with the sector to support brilliant settings so that they grow and spread their expertise. We will also explore how providers could, if they choose to, pool back-office functions and overheads so that nursery managers can focus increased efforts on the children in their care.

We want to ensure that the early education and childcare market continues to be financially sustainable, able to create more places where they are needed, and focused on the needs of children. We will continue to monitor the financial sustainability of the market and may take further steps to increase the transparency of the largest providers if necessary. We have seen a decline in the number of not-for-profit providers, especially in the most deprived areas of the country, and we will work with those providers, alongside philanthropy and social investors, to explore new ways to support them to expand, and encourage new providers to open settings.

Turning to the points made by a number of Members about funding, we are expecting to spend more than £8 billion on the early years entitlements this year, rising to more than £9 billion in the next financial year. We have introduced a £75 million expansion grant to support providers ahead of September’s roll-out, and we have almost doubled the early years pupil premium. Our hourly funding rate covers core costs, taking account of cost pressures, including forecasts of average earnings, inflation and the national living wage. We want to ensure that funding is distributed fairly and effectively, reflecting the cost of delivery in different parts of the country. We will renew our approach and set out more detail in due course.

The Chair of the Education Committee is a real champion for maintained nursery schools, which are a valued and important part of the early years system. They are high-quality providers that often focus on disadvantage and special educational needs and disabilities, helping us to give every child the best start in life. To recognise the costs that maintained nursery schools face over and above those experienced by other providers, we provide additional supplementary funding to local authorities for maintained nursery schools in their area. Maintained nursery schools also make crucial contributions to stronger practice hubs, which we are expanding.

With regard to comments made about the Best Start family hubs, ensuring that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and thrive is the foundation stone of our Government’s opportunity mission. We will spend close to £1.5 billion over the next three years on improving family services and early years education to begin the hard work needed. Best Start family hubs will be backed by £500 million of that investment between 2025 and 2029, and we will fund hubs in every local authority area to ensure that the children and families who need support the most, especially those from low-income backgrounds or with additional vulnerabilities, can access it. Through the hubs, families will be connected to other local services such as healthcare, relationship support, housing and job support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest mentioned childminders, as did the Chair of the Select Committee. Childminders play an important role in the childcare system, offering the flexible and personalised care that many families value. They also tend to look after younger children and are a key part of the provider landscape as we expand funded childcare hours for those children. We have already taken steps to support childminders, including making it easier for them to work from different places, such as schools and other community settings.

We now want to go further. We have listened to the sector, which has consistently called for monthly payments for early years entitlements. I can assure Members that we will work with local authorities and others to ensure that, where they want to be, childminders and other early years providers are paid monthly for the funded hours that they provide, making their income more sustainable. We will also keep working with Jobcentre Plus to encourage more people to become childminders.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), made a number of points on the reception baseline assessment. Digital assessments in primary school happen all around the globe and have been in place for several years in English primary schools, with the multiplication tables check in year 4. The reception baseline assessment is a short assessment to understand children’s abilities when they start reception, in order to enable measures of progress through primary schools. It is conducted on a one-to-one basis with teachers, and guidelines are in place to support pupils on the assessment. A revised version of the RBA, with a digital element, was set out in September. For more questions, pupils will be able to interact with images and items on a tablet screen, supported by a teacher. I can assure all Members that it has been subject to extensive trials with teachers and pupils, which commenced in 2019 under the previous Administration. Feedback from both groups has been positive.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest for securing this debate on such an important topic. I also acknowledge the engagement of all Members this afternoon, and the dedicated workforce in the early years sector, who do so much for our country. The Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and the importance of the early years cannot be overstated. Our strategy is to start a decade of national renewal for families, giving every child the best start in life.

15:49

[Michelle Welsh]

I thank everyone who has taken part in today’s debate. What is fabulous about this Parliament is the breadth of knowledge and experience regarding early years and childcare, women’s health and all those subjects. Although we may disagree sometimes on how to do this, I think there is a united vision to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. There have been moments of déjà vu in this debate when people have talked about outreach workers linking with social workers and ready-to-go-to-school programmes, because all those were around in the late 1990s under Sure Start and were sadly dismantled in front of my eyes.

I will close by saying two things. First, I think we need to move from talking about school readiness to talking about learning readiness—that is really important. Secondly, and notwithstanding everybody else’s contributions, we have a real chance with the Best Start strategy to make a real difference, and the more voices that can be heard on that, the better. Where you are born should not determine your future, and I am convinced that this Labour Government will make sure that is the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for early years providers.

15:50

Sitting suspended.

LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme.

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important debate to Westminster Hall. I begin by thanking all colleagues present; I am happy to take interventions. I also thank those joining us in the Gallery, especially my constituent Liz, whose story first alerted me to this issue. In preparing for today’s debate, I have been deeply moved by the countless personal stories that I have heard: stories of lives devastated, careers destroyed, and justice long denied.

For context, before 2000, LGBT individuals were banned from serving in the UK armed forces. It is estimated that around 20,000 service personnel were dismissed or forced out under that discriminatory policy. The independent review, led with dignity and compassion by the late Lord Etherton and commissioned in 2023, was a welcome step, but let us be honest: it came far too late, 23 years after the ban was lifted, with many veterans not living to see an apology or their berets and medals returned.

Lord Etherton’s review exposed the systematic mistreatment of LGBT service personnel on the Ministry of Defence’s watch. The findings were harrowing. Veterans were subjected to deeply invasive and degrading investigations based solely on suspicions of homosexual activity. Investigations often lasted months, yet individuals were sometimes given only a week’s notice before being dismissed. Interrogations were intensely personal and accusatory in nature. Physical examinations were also conducted, including internal procedures on both men and women in a misguided attempt to prove same-sex sexual activity.

People were sent to psychiatrists, where so-called conversion therapy was suggested as a means to remain in service. These practices included electro-convulsive treatments and the use of drugs—treatments that were cruel, dehumanising and wholly indefensible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her yesterday and am very conscious of the importance of it. Those people volunteered to serve in uniform. They protected this country and its people to the best of their ability, and the result was discrimination, abuse and the things that the hon. Lady has outlined. Does she feel that now, at long last, through recognition by the previous Minister, the current Minister and the Government, we have justice, and justice is really what it is all about?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to reflect on the fact that the policy that has been put in place means justice for those veterans. Today I will speak about the speed at which we actually see justice served for veterans who suffered wholly indefensible treatment.

Nobody decides to go into the military lightly. It is a commitment to their country. As a result of the policy, many veterans lost not only their careers and pensions, but their medals, their reputations and in some cases they acquired criminal records without even being informed. Many had never disclosed their sexuality to friends or family and were then put in an impossible position of keeping the reason for their dismissal a secret, or having to share their sexuality. The consequences were profound. Veterans were left feeling humiliated and hounded out of service. Highly successful careers ended prematurely. Many found themselves suddenly without direction, with no time to prepare for civilian life. Many struggled to find new work. Some became homeless. Their future plans were torn to shreds, and they were left to rebuild their lives. The personal cost of that trauma is immeasurable: families were torn apart, livelihoods were destroyed and relationships were ruined.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the injustices faced by people who were forced out of the armed forces because of their sexuality have had profound and long-lasting impacts on their mental health, financial wellbeing and career prospects? Those impacts endure today.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is impossible to measure the scale of the impact on all those veterans, be it emotional, financial or in terms of the homes they ended up buying or places they ended up living. It is impossible to measure the effect exactly, but it was profound.

Countless veterans were left with enduring feelings of shame and low self-esteem, as the Etherton report noted. These individuals had dedicated their lives to serving their country, only to realise, in the cruellest of ways, that the state had turned its back on them.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this subject to the Chamber. Is she as mystified as I am by the fact that, when serving in the armed forces was at its most dangerous and there was conscription—namely during the second world war—people were only too happy for warriors of any sexuality to participate, and that many people of non-heterosexual orientation won gallantry medals, with no questions asked and full admiration rightly expressed?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Those LGBT veterans were welcome to fight for their country when they were needed, but this nonsensical policy was introduced only in the ’60s.

For too many, the weight of the betrayal that they felt proved too heavy to bear. Tragically, some veterans committed suicide following their dismissal.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I am here today on behalf of my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, as well as friends of mine who have been affected by this historical injustice, which can only be described as a shameful period in our history. Today, I want every LGBT veteran to feel proud of their service to our country. Does she agree that we must ensure that LGBT veterans who were wrongly dismissed do not face any further injustice by having to wait for the compensation that they are rightly owed?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Member raises an important point. There are constituents in every one of our constituencies who were wronged, and I am grateful to her for raising the plight of her constituents in this regard. She is right that we cannot wait any longer for justice to be served. I pay tribute to those individuals who will never see justice served; they will not see a penny of reparation or an apology from the state for their cruel treatment. They deserved better.

The Etherton report is remarkable in its scope and sensitivity. The Government accepted all its recommendations, and the apologies that followed, the plans for memorials, and the returning of medals and caps would not have been possible without it.

Today, we must focus on one of the most critical elements for veterans: financial reparations. Last December, the Government announced a £75 million compensation fund, with individual payments of up to £70,000 for LGBT veterans who were affected by the ban. The announcement was welcomed across the House as an acknowledgment, at last, of the scale of harm inflicted.

However, I secured this debate because the implementation of the scheme has been woefully inadequate. The delivery has been painfully slow, and the communication from the Ministry of Defence has been appalling. That is not justice delivered. It is justice delayed, and as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I also thank the Minister, who I know is personally invested in and has been a champion on this issue. He has the respect of the House and, more importantly, of the veterans concerned. I am concerned about the pace of the scheme. One of my constituents, who is a veteran, wrote to me to say that he is 77 and has prostate cancer, two brain tumours, heart disease and other complications. We have taken this up with the MOD, yet he still has no certainty about when he might get payments and the justice that the hon. Lady talked about. Does she agree that it is now incumbent on the MOD to demonstrate that it is doing everything possible to get the payments out as quickly as possible and finally deliver justice?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention. He is absolutely right. I will come on to the fact that the scheme prioritises those who are over the age of 80 or have terminal diagnoses. That needs to be communicated to them so that they understand where their application is in the process. Some of these veterans, like the hon. Member’s constituent, have been waiting for 25 years since the ban was lifted. In some cases, they have been waiting up to 60 years for any form of recognition or redress. The charity Fighting With Pride estimates that, at the current rate, it could take five years to clear the existing backlog. That is wholly unacceptable, particularly given the age and health of many applicants. Time is not a luxury they can afford.

From the accounts I have received from veterans, the process is riddled with obstacles. Many of them have received the non-financial reparations, such as returned medals, regimental caps or letters from the Prime Minister, only to be told that they must provide additional documentation, such as military records, to claim the financial compensation. I am fully aware that someone who applies for the non-financial reparations may choose not to subsequently apply for the financial reparations or may not qualify, but surely that process can be streamlined. We could frontload it: when someone applies for the non-financial redress, their military records could be requested in anticipation of a possible financial reparation. That would ease the burden on applicants and speed up the overall process.

The Ministry’s communication has been woeful. Applicants were told to expect an update within 18 weeks. When those updates failed to materialise, many were left anxious and in the dark, fearing that their applications had been lost or rejected. For the hundreds of veterans who have waited years—decades—for justice, these delays are retraumatising. They are being forced to relive some of the most painful chapters of their lives, only to be met with silence from the very institution that wronged them.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a vital issue. I am very proud to have her as a colleague. She is a fantastic representative of her constituents. A constituent of mine, Adrian Radford, has been waiting decades for justice to be done. As my hon. Friend said, with every delay he has to relive the abuse and trauma that he and many like him suffered. With just 44 people having received payments out of 1,200 applications, will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to commit to scaling up the delivery team with urgency so that we can finally deliver justice?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent reflects that of many others who feel abandoned and ignored. The MOD committed to updating applicants to the scheme within 18 weeks of their application, but that has not happened and has further deepened the emotional distress by reopening old wounds, as my hon. Friend said.

I am very pleased, as I said before, that my constituent Liz is in the Public Gallery. Liz’s story mirrors that of so many affected by the policy. She was discharged from the RAF in 1969 after private letters between her and her girlfriend at the time were discovered. When her girlfriend failed to meet her one evening, Liz learned that she had been arrested by military police. Liz was then coerced into providing a statement, which led directly to her dismissal. She only discovered decades later when applying for this scheme that she had also been given a criminal conviction for same-sex sexual activity. That conviction has followed her unknowingly for her entire adult life and may have affected numerous aspects of it without her knowledge.

Liz is one of the few who has received her compensation, which was fast-tracked due to health concerns. I am pleased to learn that both the dismissed and discharged scheme and the impact scheme are prioritising veterans over 80 and those with serious health conditions, but that will represent a large cohort.

I move on to my questions for the Minister. According to Fighting With Pride, 84 payments have been made out of a total of more than 1,200 applications since the scheme went live in December. I had to get that information from Fighting With Pride because the MOD does not publish the number of successful applications on a rolling basis, which fuels mistrust. Will the Government confirm today how many veterans have received compensation in the dismissed or discharged scheme and the impact scheme, and what percentage of claimants that represents? Will the Minister commit to a simple weekly update? Even a tweet—is it still called a tweet?—would go a long way in rebuilding faith in the process.

The DD scheme is currently managed by a very small number of civil servants. That scheme is for the larger sum of £50,000, and it deals with the simple question of whether the veteran was dismissed or discharged for their sexuality or perceived sexuality. Will the Minister increase the capacity to come to a decision on cases by increasing the number of civil servants working on the DD scheme so that it does not take the predicted five years to clear all the cases?

I recognise that the impact scheme, which requires a decision by a panel chaired by Lord Paddick, deals with a far more complex area of impact payments that can be awarded up to the value of £20,000. The panel is sometimes presented with up to 600 pages of records for one veteran, and therefore the preparation time needed before a panel is extensive. The panel attempts to hear 10 cases per sitting, up from six at the start of the process. Will the Minister please give serious consideration to appointing a secondary panel with a secondary chair, as the most sitting days that the current panel can manage is two a week, with two days for preparation and reading?

Now that the internal IT problems have apparently been resolved, will all veterans who have applied for either scheme be provided with an update 18 weeks after their application and every 18 weeks subsequently until a decision is reached, as the MOD previously promised? Will the information that will apparently be available on the portal be accessible to all, even those who are not tech savvy?

Will the Government take the steps outlined to streamline the process of compensation, ensuring that the collection of military records is front-loaded when applications are received so that there is no delay in the claim being processed? Is the £75 million for reparations a ringfenced fund that will be extended if the number of applicants exceeds the fund? If so, where will the additional funding come from?

I thank everyone who got in touch ahead of today’s debate, including Fighting With Pride, the Minister and all Members who came to share their constituents’ stories and show support for speeding up the scheme. We need to do better to ensure this dark period in our history has an ending that recognises the magnitude of the injustice faced by so many veterans. There is not a moment to lose.

16:17

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate and for her wider efforts to ensure that LGBT veterans are properly and promptly compensated for past injuries, injustices and wrongdoings.

I also thank Fighting With Pride. I came into this job nigh on a year ago, and I often say that courage is not a reaction but a decision. The ability of its members to shout when being pushed down and told to be quiet has really raised this issue over the past couple of decades and brought it to where we are today.

I am also grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have fought valiantly on this issue, not just while I have been in post but previously. Importantly, I thank the late Lord Etherton. It is unfortunate that he is not here today; nevertheless, the foundations of the programme lie with him and he should be deeply honoured.

The hon. Member for Chichester has helped to shine a spotlight on a truly dark era in military history. When I joined the military in 1999, the ban was still in place, LGBT personnel suffered horrific mistreatment and abuse, and homophobic bullying and sexual violence were absolutely widespread. That injustice has cast a long shadow over the lives of so many. Many dedicated professionals had their ambition in life cut short by those rules and regulations. My view that it is an injustice was powerfully reflected in the late Lord Etherton’s independent review in 2023. It is an injustice that placed the Ministry of Defence on the wrong side of history. It is an injustice that the Government are determined, and have done so much, to address.

Lord Etherton’s review, with all its recommendations, was submitted to the Government in May 2023 and published in the summer of that year, so there was a year between then and our coming into government. In the time that we have been in government, we have delivered a lot, although there is more to do. After much deliberation, we launched the financial recognition scheme. Up and down, left and right—not in our Government, perhaps—individuals were concerned that the payments were not enough or would not be processed in the right manner, but this Government raised the budget to £75 million.

The scheme will be open for one year, but I want to be absolutely clear, as I have been with the previous and current heads of Fighting With Pride, and assure all LGBT veterans that, if they are eligible and apply, they will receive their payment. Even if that extends, we will live by that commitment. Importantly, if the payments exceed £75 million, those who are eligible and apply will still receive their FRS payment. We will absolutely live by that. I have taken huge pride in how fast we have got here, and we will deliver.

I met Fighting With Pride this week and heard veterans’ concerns. We are looking in detail at the financial recognition scheme, and I will say more on that after I have given a progress update. As of 30 June, the Government have completed 42 out of 49 recommendations of Lord Etherton’s review. I saw one of those recommendations the other day: the memorial that will be built, which is looking fantastic. Five more recommendations are pending ministerial approval. Some of those do not sit within our Department, but we are almost there. We will complete those as fast as we can.

I am pleased to update hon. Members on the progress of the financial recognition scheme, which acknowledges the harm inflicted by the ban and offers tangible recognition to those who were affected. The Government have been unequivocal and I have been committed to ensuring that we right the wrongs of the past. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the chiefs of services have all expressed their deep regret for the unacceptable treatment of LGBT personnel. The scheme that launched in December 2024 is a tangible demonstration of that commitment. As I said, we have raised the budget to £75 million. I hope that brings affirmation and some measure of closure to those who have waited far too long for consecutive UK Governments to address the damage of those times.

On slow payments, I must address the important issue that the hon. Member for Chichester rightly raised: the timely delivery of payment to veterans who have served the country with courage and distinction. The rate at which those deserved payments are being processed is an issue that is causing considerable concern to constituents.

I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) about an individual who may be terminally ill or elderly. I want to be clear that part of the reason the process has been quite slow is because we have focused on the terminally ill, the elderly and the most complex cases first. I made a commitment to Fighting With Pride that we would do that to ensure that no one misses out on payments due to illness or age. That has contributed, although it is not the sole reason, to the speed and delivery of payments, but I will stick by it because it has to be a No. 1 priority. We are almost through what we think are most of those claims.

I assure hon. Members that we are taking decisive action to deliver payments more swiftly and efficiently. I will mention a couple of things that we are doing. We are boosting resources and allocating extra staff and funding to ensure that claims are processed more quickly, so veterans receive the support they deserve. A key reason for delay has been problems with the automated payment system. We acknowledge that and are looking into it. We are trying to process claims as quickly as possible. The system will get faster the more claims that we process, so we think it will speed up. That will streamline the process and reduce the administrative bottleneck, which is significant.

Let us remember that a lot of the files and data are not held digitally, so it is not a case of a Google search. There are Yellow Pages-sized files sitting in hangars all over the UK, so it takes time. We are also increasing the frequency of sittings of the independent panel to two a week, hoping that the automatic system will catch up, to reduce waiting times. Although there is still work to be done, I am confident that those combined measures will speed up the system. In addition to the commitments that I made earlier, the LGBT community should be assured that no one will miss out.

The issue about front-loading some of the military records when the non-financial redress scheme kicked in was that no one had agreed to or committed to the financial redress scheme, so we did not know what was required in the first place. That was not this Government but previous Governments. We did not front-load that; a lot of the non-financial redress schemes were already completed or under way.

On the 18 weeks for information, I will get back to the hon. Member for Chichester with the statistics on how we process that. We will have an electronic copy of that, so I will be sure to write to her with the detail. On the civil servants, the only thing I would say, and I say it relatively gently, is that those civil servants with the expertise to focus on the payments are the same civil servants who are writing ministerial correspondence back to people. The more ministerial correspondence that we get, the more time they are spending on that, rather than on processing claims. I will say this: after the Ministry of Defence broke the trust of LGBT communities, please now have the trust that we will deliver on this guarantee for you.

I will provide a bit of transparency on the details of the scheme and answer some of the questions put by hon. Members. As of 7 July, we have received many applications for the scheme. Of those, 944 were submitted online and 162 were received as hard-copy applications. To break that down a bit further, there were 242 applications for the dismissed or discharged payment only; 250 applications for the impact payment only; and 614 applications for both payments.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Minister may recall that in an earlier armed forces debate, I raised the case of Kate Green, a Royal Military Police veteran who felt compelled to leave the service just before the ban was lifted. Will he join me in highlighting the fact that the impact scheme makes provision for people who felt compelled to leave and that they, too, can apply for compensation?

[Al Carns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and I champion what he says. For anyone out there who has not made an application, please get in touch and process it as fast as possible.

I will give a couple more statistics for the record. The first payments were made just 15 weeks after the scheme’s official launch and I am pleased to report that we have now paid over £4.2 million in total in the redress scheme. There were payments to 84 applicants for the dismissed or discharged payment, with each applicant receiving over £50,000. Additionally, we have made £82,000 in impact payments to 11 applicants, ranging from £1,000 to £2,000. I see the scheme speeding up considerably in the not-so-distant future.

It is worth noting that all payments are exempt from income tax, which was one of the key issues for Fighting With Pride when we moved forward with the scheme. Furthermore, payments will not affect any means-tested benefits, such as universal credit, income support or housing benefit, which is also critical.

Now, I have a message for anyone listening to this debate, or for anyone pushing out details about it on social media. I urge all those affected by the ban while serving between 1967 and 2000 to read the guidance, and to please apply for financial recognition via the “Veterans of the LGBT Ban: Financial Recognition Scheme” page on gov.uk. They have my word and a commitment that if this process extends for longer than a year, we will keep going and we will ensure that individuals who put in a claim get it resolved as quickly as possible.

I will also say that the scheme is not necessarily just about financial recognition. It is also about acknowledging the sacrifices and indeed the injustices faced by LGBT veterans, and ensuring that their experiences are recognised and indeed valued.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I hear the Minister’s call loud and clear that the process will be slowed down if there is lots of ministerial correspondence to answer. Can I therefore ask him to provide a regular update from the MOD so that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not feel like they need to continually chase things up on behalf of their constituents?

[Al Carns]

That is a really valid point and I will make sure that there is a communication strategy put in place to ensure that both the individuals affected and hon. Members from all parties are kept up to date on the scheme’s progress. Again, I thank everybody for raising issues; people should keep raising them if they see them. We will change, test, adjust and move forward as fast as we can.

The Defence Secretary and I remain committed to driving this work forward until every recommendation of Lord Etherton’s review is implemented. As I said before, when I joined the armed forces, the ban on homosexuality was still in place, which is just madness if we think about it now. Of course times have changed, but the financial recognition scheme is our acknowledgment that we must move forward faster than anyone else and increase the resources available from Government, and that no matter when these events occurred, they were completely wrong and we will redress them. To all those affected by these past failings, I say—from me to you—that we hear you, we absolutely value you and we are committed to righting the wrongs of the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Glaucoma Awareness

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered glaucoma awareness.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Pritchard. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for attending this important debate. First, I declare my registered interest as a practising optometrist for the NHS. As an optometrist for many years, I have had the privilege—sometimes the heartbreak —of looking into the eyes of people whose lives are changing without their even knowing about it. Fundamentally, that is what glaucoma does: it changes lives quietly, and often without warning. Last week was Glaucoma Awareness Week because many people are not aware of the condition.

At this point, I applaud the work done by Glaucoma UK to raise awareness of the condition. It is known as “the thief of sight” for very good reasons. Broadly speaking, glaucoma damages the optic nerve. The optic nerve is made of millions of little nerves and bundles, and each part of the nerve represents a single point in our visual fields. Because vision loss begins at the edges, people do not often realise that anything is wrong until it is too late.

I would like to give two brief but real examples from my experience. First, a woman came into my practice who had been hit by a car, while in her own car, from the side, not once but twice. She came in and read out the bottom line—the tiniest letters that can be seen—and could not understand why she kept missing things on the side: in this case, cars. It became apparent that she was a quite advanced sufferer of glaucoma, and she had lost the majority of what we call peripheral or side vision. Another memorable patient was a gentleman who was brought in kicking and screaming by his wife because he kept knocking off the salt, pepper and ketchup from the dinner table. It became apparent, again: he could see everything clearly straight ahead, but he really could not see anything on the side. He also had a very advanced form of glaucoma.

Glaucoma is the leading cause of preventable blindness in this country, with over 700,000 people affected, but the shocking thing is that more than half of them—350,000 people—are undiagnosed: they are walking and driving around not knowing that they have the condition. They could be one of us—somebody we love, or somebody we work with, as was the case of a former Member of Parliament of this parish, Paul Tyler, a Lib Dem Member, who was diagnosed at a completely routine eye test. In his own words, he might not have been able to carry on his duty as a parliamentarian if he had not gone for a simple eye test where they detected glaucoma. Twenty-five years later, his sight is still preserved.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He rightly alludes to the issue of regular eye testing. Although we obviously want a response from the Minister, does he agree that if nothing else is achieved from this debate but raising people’s awareness about doing exactly as he recommends—and all of us recommend regular eye testing—to detect conditions such as glaucoma, he will have done us all a service?

[Shockat Adam]

I could not agree more. If we achieve that one thing today, we will have achieved a great milestone. In its early stages, glaucoma has no symptoms, pain or warning signs—just a slow, silent theft of vision. By the time it is noticed, the damage is permanent; it is as if the fire has gutted the house before anybody has even smelled the smoke. That loss has far-reaching consequences. People lose not only their sight but, more importantly, their independence—their ability to drive, read, cook or even leave the house. Falls increase, isolation grows, and then come the emotional and mental health impacts: fear, depression and loss of identity. At this point, I quickly pay homage to charities such as Vista in my constituency, which has offered valuable support for people living with visual loss.

On the subject of depression and identity, I want to share a moment that has stayed with me; it concerns a rare condition that many people do not know can be a consequence of vision loss. A woman, diagnosed with glaucoma, phoned my clinic, deeply distressed. She said a child was following her—but no one else could see them. She was terrified that she was losing her mind. In fact, she had a condition called Charles Bonnet syndrome, a common but under-recognised condition in which the brain fills in visual gaps with vivid hallucinations. Many people never mention it, understandably fearful that they will be labelled as senile or unstable, and so they suffer in silence. Esme lived with Charles Bonnet syndrome for over a decade, haunted by hallucinations that she knew were not real. Her daughter, Judith, now champions awareness through the incredible organisation, Esme’s Umbrella. These are not clinical oddities; they are real human stories, and far more common than we acknowledge.

We are now facing a growing crisis. Work done by the Association of Optometrists, Primary Eyecare Services and Fight for Sight has shown that glaucoma cases are expected to rise by 22% in the next 10 years and 44% in the next 20 years. That is hundreds of thousands more people needing care, follow-up and support, yet we already have the tools to stop this.

I would like to frame this, Minister, around the three bases of the Government’s own proposals for tackling healthcare. First, we must move from hospital to community. Patients are losing their sight not because care does not exist, but because the pathway is broken and follow-up is delayed. Just recently, a patient of mine was referred to hospital and diagnosed with glaucoma—fine, no problem there. The initial appointment happened without any problems, but the follow-up was postponed. Then the patient missed her appointment, and the one after that was postponed again. By the time I saw that patient again, just over a year later, they had lost two full lines on their visual acuity chart—the chart used by the optician. That is two lines that this patient will never, ever get back. That is the difference between being able to read letters or not; between seeing a grandchild smile or only hearing them.

One of the problems is that current waiting list data measures only first-time appointments, not the ongoing care vital to chronic conditions such as glaucoma. We need published data on follow-up waiting times, because that is where sight is being lost. That data would allow patients to make an informed choice about where they would like to receive treatment.

Here is the reality: hospital ophthalmology is the largest outpatient specialty in the NHS, with 8.9 million appointments in England in 2023-24, according to the College of Optometrists. It cannot carry that load alone. The answer lies in the community. There are over 14,000 qualified optometrists in England, providing more than 13 million eye tests. They are trained, regulated and ready to help.

Community glaucoma services led by optometrists have already demonstrated the ability to reduce hospital referrals by up to 79%. If we implemented a nationally regulated programme, it could free up 300,000 hospital appointments a year. That is not a one-time saving, because glaucoma is a chronic condition. People are not cured of it—they live with it, and must continue with recurring appointments for the rest of their lives. Shared care would allow faster appointments, earlier diagnosis, less vision loss, and critically, more time for hospital ophthalmologists to treat complex cases. It could also save the NHS an estimated £12 million annually.

Wales has already adopted this model; England should do the same. Yet fewer than one in five areas in England offers this service. It is a postcode lottery—one that punishes the most vulnerable, especially given that people from black and Asian communities are up to four times more likely to develop glaucoma and often have the least access to care. We need to raise awareness and create the statutory framework so that everyone—GPs, pharmacists, the public—knows to go the optometrist for an eye test. We need a national roll-out of a statutory integrated glaucoma pathway.

Secondly, we must move from analogue to digital; lack of digital connectivity is another major obstacle. Many optometrists are unable to send digital referrals to local hospitals. Some do not even have access to NHS email and we still cannot access shared patient records. That means crucial information such as medication, medical history and images get lost, delayed or duplicated. This is 2025. It should not be easier to get a takeaway delivered than to refer a patient with a sight-threatening disease. To move forward, we need access to NHS email for all primary eye care providers; shared patient records between optometrists, GPs and hospital services; and an efficient two-way electronic referral system. That kind of interoperability is basic infrastructure and would transform the speed, safety and continuity of glaucoma care.

Finally, we must move from sickness to prevention. The final and most important pillar is prevention.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I know that he is very passionate about this area. More than half a million people suffer from the illness. Would he agree that the issue is about not just a national roll-out and getting an understanding, but a proactive approach where general practitioners make referrals for individuals whom they know are at a higher risk?

[Shockat Adam]

The hon. Gentleman may have read my speech when I was not looking, as I am coming to that point in a little while.

Regular eye exams are the frontline of glaucoma detection, yet one in four people in the UK is not accessing any form of eye care at all. Minister, we should begin with a mandatory sight test for drivers. The UK is the only country in Europe that gives lifelong licences until the age of 70 without requiring an eye exam. Earlier this year, a coroner in Lancashire issued a prevention of future deaths report linking a fatal crash to undiagnosed sight loss. This is no longer just a health issue; it is a public safety one. We can also incentivise eye tests, perhaps through reduced insurance premiums, employer wellbeing programmes or GP-led initiatives. For those over 40, when glaucoma risks are higher, every routine health check should include a simple question: “When did you last have your eyes tested?”

Finally, we must consider innovation. Most glaucoma patients are prescribed lifelong eye drops, but there is poor compliance. Mr Pritchard, imagine that you were elderly and trying to open up a bottle of eye drops and bring it to your eyes. It is very difficult, especially with arthritis and tremors; difficulty inserting the drops remains a major challenge. But new options are now available. One is called minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, which can delay or even eliminate the need for drops. I urge the Minister to explore commissioning MIGS, especially for suitable patients undergoing cataract surgery. Everybody who lives long enough will need to have a cataract operation. If they are also suffering with glaucoma, we can stop the disease in its tracks before it causes irreversible harms. It is critical that patients with glaucoma who need cataract surgery are able to discuss options with their glaucoma consultant, because if MIGS is not performed during cataract surgery, it may be eliminated as a future option.

The total cost of visual impairment in the UK is now £26.5 billion. That is projected to rise to £33.5 billion by 2032. Glaucoma alone accounts for £750 million, according to the College of Optometrists, and most of that burden falls outside the national health service in lost productivity, in formal care, in people having to give up work to look after family who have lost their sight and in a completely diminished quality of life. In fact, 41% of people surveyed reported severe financial impact due to sight loss, often followed by depression, anxiety and social withdrawal.

This is a silent epidemic and it all leads to a low score in every perceivable index. But it is not inevitable. We already know what works and we already have the workforce and technology. What we need now is collaboration from the optical and ophthalmic industry and a political will. That will help us shift care from hospitals into the community, bring eye care into the digital age and help us prevent sickness such as glaucoma, saving the sight of millions in the future. Let us act now while we can still see what is around us.

16:44

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate. When the time comes, I will welcome an intervention from him to help me pronounce the name of the eye operation that I had, because I can never say it.

I often say that all politics is personal, and that is incredibly apt for me in this debate, because 17 years ago, when I was 25, I was diagnosed with glaucoma. Pre-diagnosis, my knowledge of the condition extended to Edgar Davids, the Dutch footballer who wore what looked like safety goggles when playing because he had glaucoma and could not wear contact lenses.

Unlike many people’s glaucoma stories, mine is a very fortunate one. Before coming to this place, I was a golf professional. At the time, I was giving lessons to an optician, who offered to gift me a pair of glasses as thanks—I know that sounds a familiar story for a Labour politician, but I move on. He did some tests, including for glaucoma, and commented that my eye pressure was extremely high, in the mid-30s. Within the hour, I was in the ophthalmology clinic at Perth royal infirmary and was diagnosed with glaucoma.

Dr Cobb, who became my consultant, saw me at Perth royal that afternoon and has been absolutely incredible ever since. She explained to me that I was very lucky: if I had continued undiagnosed, I would probably have had another decade or so of eyesight and then would have woken up one day, in my mid-30s, unable to see. There would have been nothing she could have done for me; I would have been blind. The glaucoma was totally symptomless, and it is irreversible—those are the real dangers.

[Shockat Adam]

I always recall a patient of mine who was diagnosed with glaucoma at a very late stage. She came into the practice with a wad of cash and said, “Give me the best glasses and lenses you have, so I can see again.” Unfortunately she had glaucoma, and the vision was lost. There was nothing that money could buy.

[Brian Leishman]

That is not the first time I have heard that. I have another optician friend, who said that that has been a regular occurrence in his career. Someone may not know that they have glaucoma until it is too late.

I was prescribed eye drops. I went through a few options, with not much success, until I ended up on three different drops: bimatoprost, brinzolamide and brimonidine. All three go in my left eye at bedtime and then again the next morning, and then just brimonidine in my right eye at bedtime and again the next morning.

My right eye needs only one set of drops because it has been operated on. It has had a trabeculectomy—I hope that pronunciation was close enough. The operation was needed to save the eyesight in my right eye. It was an operation under general anaesthetic to make an incision in my eyeball to allow pressure to disperse and not attack my optic nerve. After an overnight stay in hospital, I wore an eye patch for a week, with no bending over for a fortnight and four weeks off work. I had a good report from Dr Cobb, and have had eye drops twice a day and twice-yearly check-ups at hospitals since. I really am lucky.

As well as my thanks to my consultant, I want to record my appreciation for my optician, Eddie Russell of Norman Salmoni, who provides regular check-ups between hospital visits, and for the outstanding care that his practice provides.

All that goes to show that the NHS really is our greatest invention. Personally, I reject the language of the NHS being broken. It is not broken; it is underfunded. The staff deserve more. They deserve the very best.

I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to get tested. Testing could be the difference between retaining one’s eyesight and not. I thank hon. Members for permitting me to share a bit about my ongoing glaucoma journey. Glaucoma cannot ever be cured, but we can try to manage the decline somewhat.

16:49

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Pritchard—I am getting a liking for it. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing the debate. As my party’s health spokesperson, issues such as glaucoma are of great importance to me—the statistics show its prevalence. I would not have thought there would ever be a case in which the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) would be lost for words, no matter what might happen; that is meant as a compliment, by the way.

As it is Glaucoma Awareness Week, there is no greater time to consider this issue. I will start by describing the scale of the issue in Northern Ireland specifically, because that is what I want to highlight. Queen’s University undertook a study that found a 2.83% prevalence of glaucoma in 3,221 people aged 50-plus—I understand that rate is normal, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom—and that around two-thirds of those were undiagnosed. There is an issue to address: those who are undiagnosed. Northern Ireland currently has some 18,000 confirmed glaucoma cases. As I have said to the hon. Member for Leicester South—he knows this story—although my dad is dead and gone, when he was alive he lost his eyesight to glaucoma. Unfortunately—they were probably just not as good at managing it in times past—it crept up on him, and he lost his eyesight. My dad was very fortunate to have my mother to look after him, in every sense of the word. They loved each other greatly. It was never a burden to my mum to look after my dad. That was really important.

I was fortunate to secure a debate on glaucoma and community optometry just last year. The hon. Member for Leicester South made a fantastic contribution to that debate. I greatly admire his knowledge of optometry, and the job he did before he was elected. When he comes to these debates he brings that fount of knowledge, experience and examples, which we all appreciate. There is such an important link between our opticians and healthcare specialists who treat eye conditions such as glaucoma. Data from Specsavers highlighted that in 2023, some 30,000 referrals for glaucoma were made for people aged 40 to 60. Not all those people were diagnosed as such, but the fact was that there were some concerns, and the treatment for them was able to start.

I have some stats for Northern Ireland that I want to quote for the record. Regarding the adoption of innovative glaucoma technologies, such as iStent inject, two of the biggest eye surgery hospitals in the country—Altnagelvin area hospital and Belfast city hospital—now routinely offer such combined procedures to comorbid glaucoma and cataract patients. The focus is now on making sure that no glaucoma patients miss out on the opportunity to intervene in glaucoma at the time of routine elective cataract surgery. The advances are incredible at this moment in time.

As of March 2025—which has just passed—almost 50,000 people were waiting for ophthalmology outpatient appointments in Northern Ireland. That is a massive number, and the Minister in the Assembly back home really needs to take that on. In Northern Ireland, the prevalence of glaucoma in people aged over 50 is, as I said, comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed other parts of Europe. The figures that we have seem to be relevant wherever we are in the United Kingdom, but also across the whole of Europe. Interestingly, around two thirds of people with glaucoma were not aware of their glaucoma, as the hon. Member for Leicester South said in his introduction. If that is generalisable from the study sample to the whole population, that rate is higher than in other comparable populations.

Glaucoma is the second most common reason for certification as sight impaired, or severely sight impaired, in Northern Ireland. On average, 13.1% of certifications are caused by glaucoma, although that varies a lot year on year. I want to tell the Minister what we are doing itenn Northern Ireland in relation to the iStent inject surgery. That is a massive, technological, medical, modern way forward. It is good to be able to report it in this debate.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Under the 10-year plan, the Government want to invest in the NHS and bring services into the community. There are examples of that around our country, and maybe in Northern Ireland. There are trusts in London with diagnostic hubs that better manage glaucoma. There are regions with community glaucoma services that have reported halving hospital referrals, improving access and saving millions. There are also pilots, such as in the Royal Devon’s Nightingale model, that reduce appointments from two hours to 30 minutes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that investing, reorganising and having a joined-up service with advanced detection will save money for the Government and save people’s sight?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. To be fair, the hon. Member for Leicester South was clear that there is an opportunity to advance greatly under the 10-year NHS plan to solve the problems. There are better ways of doing things and reducing waiting times.

We are fortunate to have two hospitals in Northern Ireland, the Altnagelvin area hospital and Belfast city hospital, where new treatment is starting and also where cataract operations can take place. Cataract operations also take place in Downe hospital, just outside my constituency. Optometrists have a key role to play because they can spot the early signs of glaucoma during routine tests. For patients with stable glaucoma, optometrists have a role in monitoring eye health and helping them manage their condition.

Ahead of this debate I was in touch with Glaukos on the steps that can be taken both nationally and within the devolved Administrations to improve the outcomes for those diagnosed with glaucoma. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made it clear that there could be great advances in glaucoma and for eye care and doing things better. Glaukos has educated me on the iStent injects that are implanted during cataract surgery or in a stand-alone procedure—the very things that the hon. Member for Leicester South referred to. These little stents unblock drainage and lower eye pressure with minimal risk or cost. Perhaps that is something the Minister could commit to looking at and engaging with as a means of treatment for those with glaucoma.

The Minister is always well versed on the technologies and advances. I know that when he replies to this debate he will give us some encouragement. I should say I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his place. I love doing debates with him. He and I share a passion for the subject matter. He brings a wealth of knowledge to these debates and I thank him for that.

To conclude, there are thousands and thousands of people living with the condition, but there will be thousands more to come. That is what we want to try to address. Ensuring affordable and accessible treatment is imperative. As I previously stated, and as the hon. Member for Leicester South who introduced the debate has stated, we must not underestimate the impact that our local opticians have in detecting these kinds of issues early on. I therefore urge people out there to prioritise their eye health while they can.

16:57

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate on glaucoma.

In my previous role in the NHS I was part of a working group made up of consultants, GPs, high street optometrists and others. The group was set up to create a primary care eye care service in NHS Ayrshire and Arran. Eyecare Ayrshire was set up as part of a redirection strategy to ensure that people were accessing the services most appropriate to their symptoms. It promotes that the best person to see for minor eye problems is a local optometrist, a high street optician, rather than attending a GP or A&E. The service has been very successful and continues to operate. Really importantly, it directs people to go to the optometrist. That can be vital if there are any other underlying or undiagnosed eye conditions. As we have heard today, early intervention can be crucial.

Last week I attended the event hosted by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) with Glaucoma UK and Glaukos, which did a great job of raising awareness of one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness. As we have heard, over 700,000 people live with glaucoma in the UK, yet over half do not know it and it is predicted to rise by 44% over the next 20 years. It is vital that we embrace early intervention and improve access to services and treatment before serious deterioration.

By 2050 the cost of blindness is estimated to be £33.5 billion, putting immense pressure on the NHS as well as those suffering from blindness. There are treatment options, as we have heard today, for those suffering from glaucoma, including eye drops, laser treatments or traditional surgery. Glaucoma UK recommends that optometrists receive improved education and training on combining those procedures to ensure that patients get the best care possible.

It is also important to acknowledge the disparity of services across the UK. In NHS Ayrshire and Arran, the total number of people living with sight loss is 1,000 over the national average. That is obviously a real concern. We need to make sure that people are aware of the need to have routine check-ups, and of the services available to them. Over the years there have been many redirection campaigns to highlight services, and it may be time to reintroduce that approach. I know from my experience in the NHS that identifying these diseases early is key to preventing them from becoming much worse. I encourage the Government to consider the recommendations highlighted.

17:00

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate and raising awareness of a life-changing condition following Glaucoma Awareness Week.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) outlined his personal experience, and particularly how regular checks are important as the condition is symptomless in its early stages. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for sharing his dad’s experience. And the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) brought her NHS expertise to the debate, so I feel slightly underqualified to be completely honest. Ironically, given that we are talking about eyesight, I did not print my speech in a larger font, so please bear with me.

Millions of people across the country are affected by sight loss, and hundreds of thousands of people have glaucoma. If untreated, glaucoma can have a profoundly detrimental effect on people’s quality of life and long-term health, yet one in every 10 people on an NHS waiting list is waiting for their first ophthalmology appointment. Ophthalmology waiting lists grew longer and longer under the previous Conservative Government, who oversaw a doubling of waiting times in England alone. Meanwhile, more than half a million people are waiting for follow-up appointments. As our population continues to age, demand is likely only to increase.

As with so many conditions, early intervention is key. One elderly patient in my constituency was sent for an urgent referral following a routine eye test. He was warned that if he was not seen in the next few weeks, he was at risk of losing sight in the affected eye. The appointment came through in time, only for it to be cancelled, along with the replacement appointment. By the time he was able to see a specialist, it was too late and he lost sight in that eye. This entirely avoidable incident demonstrates how it is crucial that we address the chronic shortage of ophthalmologists to deliver the care that people deserve.

A starting point would be to deal with the broken training system. Far too few specialist training spaces are offered, despite many graduates being keen to work in the field. A little over a decade ago, there were four and a half applicants per training place, and it has surged to 10 applicants per place. It is simply not good enough.

How will the Government deliver the ophthalmology workforce we need? In particular, will they look to reduce the extraordinary shortage of training places in this and other specialties? Will they consider publishing waiting list data for follow-up care? Transparency on waiting lists for follow-up appointments, not just for initial referrals, would help patients to make informed choices about the care they need and would illustrate the postcode lottery in NHS eye care.

Liberal Democrats know that fixing the front door of our NHS is crucial to achieving better outcomes on glaucoma and all conditions that impact sight. That means sorting out primary care and community services, so I am pleased to see that the Government agreed with that aim in the 10-year plan published last week. Fixing primary care means investing in local GP surgeries and giving everyone the right to see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if they are in urgent need, and providing 8,000 more GPs to deliver that. It means ensuring that everyone over 70 and everyone with a long-term condition has access to a named GP.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South reminded me in our Opposition day debate on primary care in the autumn, optometry is a critical part of primary care and needs to be delivered locally. For glaucoma specifically, that means investing in eye services in the community and empowering the training of trusted, qualified optometrists to manage the condition. Optometrists are already in place to manage glaucoma across Wales and Scotland, so we have a strong base of evidence to inform that work. Research suggests that the additional training required is rewarding for optometrists, for the ophthalmologists training them and, more importantly, for the patients they are treating.

However, in England, glaucoma services vary drastically, depending on which integrated care board area people live in. With major organisational changes to the ICB structure under way, this could be an opportunity to standardise a better, more consistent, community-focused approach. Could the Minister set out how the Government will encourage true partnership between qualified optometrists and ophthalmologists, delivering care in the community wherever possible? What hurdles stand in the way of such an arrangement?

Finally, we need to ensure the highest possible uptake of regular eye tests so that we can catch this condition early and prevent damage to people’s sight. As somebody who has a close relative with glaucoma, I have my eyes tested regularly. It is not too unpleasant, and it gives me the reassurance I need that I am not currently developing the condition. The number of sight tests, including domiciliary visits, has still not recovered since the pandemic.

Given the scale of the challenges of ensuring that people are tested, of treating them when glaucoma is found and of training sufficient staff in a context of surging demand, the Government should produce a dedicated eye health strategy, as advocated by groups such as the Thomas Pocklington Trust. There clearly needs to be substantial work across the sector to strengthen eye care as part of primary care and better incorporate optometrists, to repair a broken training arrangement and to ensure that people get the eye tests they need.

17:05

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is a colleague both in my region and in primary care. His powerful testimonies about patients and what they suffer are exactly why he is an asset to this House. He presents information that we all need to hear when we debate health issues.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke about the fantastic Perth royal infirmary. It is lovely to hear a success story. We do not hear enough success stories about the NHS, because the good news, despite what we hear in this place, is that the NHS broadly does a fantastic job for many patients, and we should never forget that. The experience he described is what we want to see across the country when it comes to dealing with glaucoma.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is nothing if not tenacious and consistent because, when I checked the records, I saw that in April 2024 he introduced a similar debate to raise this cause and to make sure people hear about it. He is a credit to his party and the people he represents when it comes to raising health issues.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) talked about NHS working groups. I have worked in places that have had PEARS—primary eye care acute referral schemes. Patients love them, GPs love them and I think the opticians and those who work in the services love them too, because they allow better joined-up care, which is what we all want.

Glaucoma is actually a spectrum of conditions. Ocular hypertension affects 3% to 5% of people in the UK aged over 40. Primary open angle glaucoma affects about 2% of people in the UK older than 40, but when we break that down, it affects 1% of people aged 40, 3% of people aged 60 and about 8% of people aged 80. With a growing elderly population, we can see why this is a problem. Primary angle closure glaucoma affects about 0.4%. There are also some rarer ones, but the point is that glaucoma affects about 700,000 people, who could potentially go blind.

Are the Government considering the call of the Association of Optometrists, and it is a simple one, to commission a national glaucoma pathway? I ask the Minister to think about that.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on glaucoma is very clear:

“If any of the following risk factors for glaucoma are present, consider advising people to have their eyes examined by an optometrist…Older age. People 60 years of age or older should be examined every 2 years until they are 70 years of age, when they should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Family history of glaucoma. People older than 40 years of age who have a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, or child) with open angle glaucoma should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Ethnicity. People older than 40 years of age who are of black African family origin should be examined…Certain people are entitled to…NHS-funded eye examinations by optometrists…These include people …With a family history…as described above…Aged 60 years or older…In receipt of certain benefits”

or

“Who have been advised by an ophthalmologist”

to have a follow-up. This is really important, as we have heard today, when we are talking about awareness. People should get their eyes checked, check their availability and, if they are 60 or over, make sure they understand that they can get their eyes checked through the NHS.

This issue was raised in a debate at the end of April 2024, just a few weeks before the election. It is worth looking at what was said by the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), who went on to be a Health Minister:

“I have a degree of frustration with the Government’s approach to the issue. Given the statistics, I would like to see the Minister commit today to turbocharge access to ophthalmology services and make eye tests more commonplace for people who do not routinely test their eyes, but also to get people access to eye care services once conditions have been diagnosed.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 51WH.]

And he finished his remarks by saying:

“We will support the Government in the remaining weeks or months that they have to get this policy right, but mark my words: the next Labour Government see this as a priority and we will act.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 53WH.]

Now that we are one year into this Government, it is worth checking the record to see whether that priority has been given.

Forgive me for being a bit of a pedant, but I checked Hansard to see how many times glaucoma has been mentioned. There have been four mentions since the election, only two of which were in the context of health. One mention was made by the hon. Member for Leicester South last month, and the other was made by the hon. Member for Strangford in a debate on rare retinal disease. That does not seem like it is a priority.

I am being a bit of a pedant, but I also looked through the 10-year plan again, and there were two mentions of eye care, one of which was “ophthalmology” and the other was “optometrists”. The Minister will argue that it is a strategy document, but it raises the question: what is the plan for glaucoma?

The last Government concentrated on several areas. These included early detection and greater use of community optometry, with an emphasis on the importance of routine tests. There was £500 million a year for sight tests and optical vouchers, supporting more than 12.5 million NHS sight tests provided free of charge. The budget was demand-led rather than limited by volume, and the public were encouraged through campaigns and social media advertising to get tested. Integrated care boards expanded local services for minor and urgent eye care, pre- and post-cataract checks and glaucoma referral filtering. The post-covid backlog recovery programme also received £8 billion.

I am getting death stares from you, Mr Pritchard, so I will move on to my main points and my questions for the Minister.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

The shadow Minister needs to be brief. He has had five minutes, and I gave six minutes to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I will give the shadow Minister another 30 seconds.

[Dr Evans]

Is there a plan or a strategy for considering a glaucoma pathway? Will the Government also commit to the workforce? The Health Service Journal has noted that the plan, as it stands, has no delivery chapter. Where is the delivery chapter for the 10-year health plan?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

To be clear, it is important that the Chair is both neutral and fair in the distribution of time.

17:12

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate to raise awareness of glaucoma. I enjoyed our meeting some time ago, when we discussed this and other related issues at length. I am keen to ensure that we keep that dialogue going, and not just in this Chamber. This is a timely debate as it follows Glaucoma Awareness Week, which ran from 30 June to 6 July.

Losing one’s eyesight can be devastating, and I pay tribute to the charities that do so much to help people live with glaucoma or to research a cure, such as Glaucoma UK, the Glaucoma Foundation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, to name just a few.

Last week, the Prime Minister set out our plan to get the NHS back on its feet and fit for the future. Underpinning our plan are three big shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention. The plan was developed through extensive engagement with the public, patients and staff, including the eye care sector. All three shifts are relevant to preventing and managing conditions such as glaucoma in all parts of the country. More tests and scans delivered in the community, and better joint working between services, will support the management of conditions, including glaucoma, closer to home.

I turn to glaucoma detection. This Government take glaucoma very seriously, as it is one of the main causes of sight loss. It is a time-sensitive condition, and early detection and treatment can help to slow down or prevent vision loss. I acknowledge the vital role played by community optometry in protecting people’s eye health across the country. That includes the hon. Member for Leicester South, who of course is an optometrist and has significant expertise in this sector. I also pay tribute to all the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate with such passion and conviction.

Sight tests play a vital role in the early detection of glaucoma. Most glaucoma patients are identified through routine sight tests. It is not possible to “feel” glaucoma; it does not cause any symptoms and the eye pressure does not always cause pain. That is why regular sight tests are so essential, so that conditions such as glaucoma can be diagnosed and treated as early as possible.

It is recommended that everyone should have a sight test every two years, and more often if it is considered clinically necessary. The NHS invests over £600 million annually in the provision of sight tests and optical vouchers, and high street opticians deliver more than 13 million NHS sight tests annually, which are free of charge for eligible patients. NHS sight tests are widely available across the country for millions of people and those who are entitled to receive them include children, individuals over the age of 60, individuals on income-related benefits and individuals diagnosed with glaucoma or considered to be at risk of glaucoma.

We understand that some people might not prioritise sight tests, compared with other healthcare, or they might not know that sight tests are recommended every two years. That is why we always look for opportunities to remind the public through social media. I was pleased that the Department supported Glaucoma Awareness Week and highlighted the importance of regular sight tests through our social media platform last week. I will also take this opportunity to urge anyone who might be watching or reading this debate, “Visit your optician if you have not had a sight test in the last two years. Please check on the NHS website to see whether you are eligible for any help in paying for a test.” NHS sight test providers in the high street also display information about NHS sight test eligibility.

Some high street optical practices are also being commissioned by integrated care boards to provide glaucoma referral refinement services. Moving more care into the community is one of the key priorities in our 10-year plan; we want to see care happening as locally as possible for patients. Where a patient has been identified as having raised eye pressure, local glaucoma referral refinement schemes provide additional tests to confirm whether a referral into secondary care is absolutely necessary. These schemes can save patients time and worry, and reduce unnecessary referrals, while freeing up space for others who need specialist attention in hospital. More than 70% of ICBs currently have some coverage of referral refinement in place.

For those patients who do need to be seen in secondary care, it is vital that they have access to timely diagnosis and any clinically necessary treatment. We have wasted no time in getting to work on cutting NHS waiting lists and ensuring that people have the best possible experience during their care. We promised change and we have delivered early, with a reduction in the list of over 230,000 pathways, including ophthalmology. The waiting list has been reduced by over 24,000 patients since July 2024; it has fallen from 606,819 to 582,385 as of February 2025. In addition, we have exceeded our pledge to deliver an additional 2 million operations, scans and appointments, having now delivered over 4 million additional appointments.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Minister will probably be aware of the Full Fact and Sky News report that examined the speed at which appointments are being delivered. The Government have indeed delivered 4 million appointments, but under the last Conservative Government there were 5 million appointments within a similar time period, so we are actually seeing a slowdown in appointments. How will that affect people with eye conditions or other health conditions?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In our manifesto, we of course set a target of 2 million additional appointments within the first year of a Labour Government, and we have delivered 4 million. The key thing is to ensure that we get people off the waiting list. Regarding the figure of 5 million that he referred to, I do not know whether there was more activity, but somehow it was not helping to reduce the waiting lists, because we saw the waiting lists rise consistently. The key metric is, of course, the waiting list being reduced, and I am very pleased to say that, when it comes to eyecare, a reduction of 24,000 patients has been delivered since July 2024.

That marks a vital first step to delivering on the commitment that 92% of patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment, in line with the NHS constitutional standard, by March 2029.

In addition to making progress on reducing waiting lists, we recognise the challenges facing ophthalmology services as one of the largest out-patient specialities in the NHS, and demand is set only to increase due to the ageing population. NHS England has worked with 11 ICBs to test a new way of delivering eyecare that aims to reduce pressure on hospital eye services.

The new model is emblematic of our shift from analogue to digital, as it uses IT connectivity between primary and secondary care services to improve the referral and triage of patients, with patient data and images being assessed by clinicians to determine whether patients need a secondary care appointment. It is called the single point of access approach. The SPOA approach reduces unnecessary hospital appointments, reduces the time from referral to treatment and allows more patients to be managed in the community. The ICBs testing the SPOA model have consistently demonstrated a reduction in unnecessary secondary care appointments and a significant reduction in wait times, both in time to treatment and to follow-up care. NHS England is continuing to share the learning from the accelerator sites for the SPOA with ICBs.

I want to see more ICBs adopting that approach for the benefit of patients, including those with suspected or diagnosed glaucoma. I believe that the SPOA has tremendous unharnessed potential and is a great example of how, by harnessing technology, we can improve the way the overall system works and facilitate the interface between primary and secondary care that we know is at the heart of so many of the challenges that we face across our health and care system.

Looking at the shift from sickness to prevention, although glaucoma cannot be cured, if it is caught early, treatment can prevent sight loss. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence plays a crucial role in evaluating new medicines, medical devices and other technologies to determine their clinical and cost-effectiveness before recommending them for NHS use. NICE has published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. It has also published guidance on interventional procedures that provide recommendations on whether glaucoma-related procedures are safe and effective enough for wider use in the NHS.

A number of treatments are available for glaucoma, including eye drops, laser treatment or surgery, aiming to lower eye pressure and prevent or slow down optic nerve damage to reduce the risk of sight loss. Although there are treatments for glaucoma, it is a lifelong condition that requires regular monitoring. Historically, that has taken place in hospital but, in line with our aim to move more care from hospital to the community, there is no reason why, when clinically appropriate, that activity could not be undertaken outside of hospital. We know that some ICBs are already commissioning glaucoma monitoring in the community.

We must also recognise that, if diagnosed late, glaucoma can sadly lead to irreversible sight loss. The hon. Member for Leicester South spoke passionately from clinical experience about the significant impact that sight loss can have on an individual. Emotional support is therefore vital. There are various resources that aim to improve the support, including mental health support, available to patients through their sight loss journey. That includes NHS England’s patient support toolkit for commissioners and providers and the RNIB’s 2023 patient support pathway. Those sit alongside talking therapies and psychological therapies, which are widely available and to which patients can refer themselves directly. We are also taking steps to update the form for certificates of visual impairment to improve the signposting of patients to local support services.

Finally, I recognise the potential for research and innovation to help us to understand sight loss and to develop new treatments, including for glaucoma. The Department for Health and Social Care funds eyecare research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. NIHR infrastructure funding provides investment in research expertise, specialist facilities, a research workforce and services that help to support and deliver research studies through a range of clinical areas, including eyecare research. That includes the NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, which received funding of almost £22 million for five years from 1 December 2022, and is solely dedicated to eyecare research. The Moorfields BRC has been key in advancing research through a range of studies and clinical innovations in the glaucoma field. One of its flagship projects is a large-scale trial investigating the use of vitamin B3 to slow the progression of glaucoma. Recruitment for that study is ongoing at multiple sites across England.

As I have set out, the Government take glaucoma extremely seriously. Community optometry continues to play a vital role in preventing glaucoma. We are committed to improving eyecare services and patient outcomes, to reducing avoidable sight loss and, in particular, to harnessing the power of technology to drive those improvements forward. I also hope that this debate has further helped to raise awareness and may prompt a few more sight tests as a result. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South on securing this important debate.

17:25

[Shockat Adam]

It has been a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank each and every hon. Member for their contribution. I think we have achieved the first objective, which was to raise awareness of glaucoma, and we should keep the conversation going. As my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we have an ageing population. If nothing is done, very soon there will be more than half a million people walking around with this condition. That is why it was pleasing to hear that the Minister remembered our meeting, which was early on in our tenure; I can assure him we will continue to have that meeting every time he sees me about eye health.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people in the Public Gallery: we have people from the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers, the General Optical Council, the College of Optometrists and Glaukos —my apologies if I have forgotten anybody there. We must utilise optometry as the primary eyecare provider that it is, and treat it as such, equivalent to how we treat our GPs and pharmacy colleagues. We need a statutory framework to regulate the whole process of detection, monitoring and treating glaucoma. Working collectively with the optical and ophthalmic bodies and the Government, we can surely do our best to keep people from suffering preventable sight loss and the devasting impact that that has on their lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered glaucoma awareness.

17:27

Sitting adjourned.